Blazer Bob wrote: ..even heroin are not "addictive" in any obvious way. Most people who try them never try them again and even those who use regularly are not enslaved by them..”...
That's BS, Bob. Heroin is highly addictive. Although the idea that you use it once and are then 'hooked' is mostly untrue, it is very difficult to break a dependency on it. I had a friend tell me years ago that it was the most unbelievable high he ever had. Thankfully, he did not use it again that we know of. I've seen some research that suggests about a 25% addiction rate for heroin, and it can be physically devastating especially when mixed with other drugs.
The list of actors, musicians, artists, etc who have died from OD's related to heroin use is staggering. To make a case for drug legalization is one thing, to suggest that heroin isn't addictive or dangerous is foolish nonsense at best, a blatant lie at worst.
I did not think I was making that case. I said I knew casual users. I did.
I'm not suggesting you did, but the article seems to be. That quote is from the article, I believe.
I am in favor of a more pragmatic approach to drug use, but the writer of that article is really ignoring the facts about heroin.
It does seem in general and for all of history that casual drug use is not only accepted but somewhat mandatory in society. More the norm than the exception. Abuse is acceptable if the majority are abusing.
Let's be realistic, half the population is all hopped up on estrogen every day and the other half is constantly mainlining testosterone. Some folks even take artificial forms so they can be hopped up like everyone else or the group they want to be in. Cocaine and Pot are baby drugs in comparison, they just get you high for a little while.
I have a friend who is a VP of a blue-collar company
they still have zero tolerance of MJ --- medical or not. The policy comes from their insurance company - who will not insure anyone that has traces of MJ when it comes to operating forklifts, pallet lifts, etc.
I don't think I'd want my physician to partake. I don't think I'd want a pharmacist to partake.
A college professor? They've been partaking for generations --- and they're still dumb as hell.
It would be interesting if decriminialization continues if it is private industry like that insurance company control drug use versus the police.
A doctor sued because while high on pot they misdiagnose? A drug addicted lawyer being sued for a inadequate defense?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: It would be interesting if decriminialization continues if it is private industry like that insurance company control drug use versus the police.
A doctor sued because while high on pot they misdiagnose? A drug addicted lawyer being sued for a inadequate defense?
I would assume that folks with morals wouldn't work for a company that drug tests. Wouldn't that be an invasion of privacy and therefor someone you would not want to trade with? If you let them do that, what is next?
Back before I raised my position in society voluntarily by leaving the employee class, I simply refused any employee based medical testing. I did this on the basis that if tested that the employer is responsible to keep the test private. They could not assure this to me, so I questioned their motives and they always backed down. A good employee is worth not testing and pissing off.
Who cares of a test shows that a cop or a doctor smoked pot in the last 30-30,000 days?
It does seem in general and for all of history that casual drug use is not only accepted but somewhat mandatory in society. More the norm than the exception. Abuse is acceptable if the majority are abusing.
