Marijuana

[digsbe]

Re: Marijuna

There is a difference between genuine mental illness and character flaws.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

All mental illness involves some degree of "choice." The problem is, when the mind is disordered, what does that do to the logic of the choices the person makes?

Come on Smoke, you know the kind of 'choice' involved in schizophrenia and addiction are quite different in many ways, in kind and not just degree. This causes a divergence in the kind of problems with rationality that these problems cause, overall and in general.

I'm certainly willing to admit that the addict isn't simply someone who should be viewed as completely choosing their addiction, and its continuance, with ease, as if they could stop a whim. But that doesn't mean there are issues of choice and character involved that aren't generally involved, at least in the same way, with other mental illnesses.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Marijuna

Come on Smoke, you know the kind of 'choice' involved in schizophrenia and addiction are quite different in many ways, in kind and not just degree. This causes a divergence in the kind of problems with rationality that these problems cause, overall and in general.

Sure they are. But what about the schizophrenic who can't get decent care and turns to drugs to self-medicate? That's very common. Did you know upwards of 90% of schizophrenics smoke? That's why.

They cause different problems and similar problems both. They are different disorders. Obviously they have different markers. But an addict is no more rational about their habit than a schizophrenic is about thinking their house is bugged.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

Sure they are. But what about the schizophrenic who can't get decent care and turns to drugs to self-medicate? That's very common. Did you know upwards of 90% of schizophrenics smoke? That's why.

They cause different problems and similar problems both. They are different disorders. Obviously they have different markers. But an addict is no more rational about their habit than a schizophrenic is about thinking their house is bugged.

These people are a distinct issue, aren't they. They cannot be used to pretend addiction, in itself and in general, is the same sort of problem as most other mental illnesses. As I added to my last post, I admit that we shouldn't view addiction simply as a clear choice, implying the addict can easily stop when they want. But that doesn't mean the addict is simply a victim of a mental condition whose only choice is to acknowledge this and seek treatment. He is someone who has decided he enjoys intoxication and, the great pressures to take drugs and to keep taking them, which I fully acknowledge, notwithstanding, continues to decide he would rather be intoxicated than live a proper, human life.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Marijuna

These people are a distinct issue, aren't they. They cannot be used to pretend addiction, in itself and in general, is the same sort of problem as most other mental illnesses. As I added to my last post, I admit that we shouldn't view addiction simply as a clear choice, implying the addict can easily stop when they want. But that doesn't mean the addict is simply a victim of a mental condition whose only choice is to acknowledge this and seek treatment. He is someone who has decided he enjoys intoxication and, the great pressures to take drugs and to keep taking them, which I fully acknowledge, notwithstanding, continues to decide he would rather be intoxicated than live a proper, human life.

I had always thought that a real drug addict takes drugs to feel normal....to avoid withdrawal. I'm not sure it's all about continuing to decide one would rather be intoxicated than live a proper human life. (Maybe that's just some drugs...)

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Marijuna

These people are a distinct issue, aren't they. They cannot be used to pretend addiction, in itself and in general, is the same sort of problem as most other mental illnesses. As I added to my last post, I admit that we shouldn't view addiction simply as a clear choice, implying the addict can easily stop when they want. But that doesn't mean the addict is simply a victim of a mental condition whose only choice is to acknowledge this and seek treatment. He is someone who has decided he enjoys intoxication and, the great pressures to take drugs and to keep taking them, which I fully acknowledge, notwithstanding, continues to decide he would rather be intoxicated than live a proper, human life.

Ya know, I've known a few people who struggled with chemical addiction problems - drugs and alcohol both.

I can't say that a single one of them ever found anything enjoyable about being intoxicated. Not one.

The best any of them have said is that it's less painful than being sober.

I don't think you have a lot of familiarity on this subject.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Marijuna

I had always thought that a real drug addict takes drugs to feel normal....to avoid withdrawal. I'm not sure it's all about continuing to decide one would rather be intoxicated than live a proper human life. (Maybe that's just some drugs...)

It depends on the drug. Some drugs are chemically addictive and without dosing they will go through terrible withdrawal symptoms (many have to be hospitalized). They still get a high and do it for a high, but they also take drugs to avoid the withdrawal.

 

[spud_meister]

Re: Marijuna

That is why you can choose to go one that doesn't allow it. It isn't up to the customer to force the owner through the power of the law.

:shrug: What's the point of democracy if you can't suppress things you dislike?

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

Ya know, I've known a few people who struggled with chemical addiction problems - drugs and alcohol both.

I can't say that a single one of them ever found anything enjoyable about being intoxicated. Not one.

The best any of them have said is that it's less painful than being sober.

I don't think you have a lot of familiarity on this subject.

I had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol for a while. So did a lot of those I know and some had unhealthy relationships with, or even addiction to, marijuana. I haven't know a lot of heroin addicts or anything, but I wouldn't say I had no familiarity with the issue. I'm not sure how your reply really refutes what I said. At all times I acknowledged the complexity of the issue, including the problems of recovery when you are a long term addict. It doesn't remove the aspect of choice though.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

:shrug: What's the point of democracy if you can't suppress things you dislike?

To provide employment to the otherwise unemployable? Ask Senator Hanson-Young.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Marijuna

I had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol for a while. So did a lot of those I know and some had unhealthy relationships with, or even addiction to, marijuana. I haven't know a lot of heroin addicts or anything, but I wouldn't say I had no familiarity with the issue. I'm not sure how your reply really refutes what I said. At all times I acknowledged the complexity of the issue, including the problems recovery when you are a long term addict. It doesn't remove the aspect of choice though.

An anorexic chooses to starve. A depressed person chooses to commit suicide. A schizophrenic chooses to hurt themselves. A sever autistic chooses to bang their head into walls.

But what sort of condition must their mind be in to make those choices?

No mentally healthy person would ever choose to do those things. Our survival instincts compel us to preserve and nurture ourselves.

The mind of a mentally ill person compels them to do the exact opposite.

What does it matter if it's their choice if the mind making those choices is sick?

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

An anorexic chooses to starve. A depressed person chooses to commit suicide. A schizophrenic chooses to hurt themselves. A sever autistic chooses to bang their head into walls.

But what sort of condition must their mind be in to make those choices?

No mentally healthy person would ever choose to do those things. Our survival instincts compel us to preserve and nurture ourselves.

The mind of a mentally ill person compels them to do the exact opposite.

What does it matter if it's their choice is the mind making those choices is sick?

As I said you know there is a difference between the choices involved in such cases, like acknowledging you have depression, seeking help and perhaps having the internal strength to keep going, and addiction. Addiction is partly an issue of character and morality. It is not something where you are just a victim of a mental condition. I do acknowledge that this doesn't mean it is just a character issue though, or by any means an easy battle. The risk though is trying to totally remove man's freedom and dignity by always trying to diagnose him, even when, like in this case, there are serious flaws in such a way of looking at the issue.

Where does it stop? Is there choice left from your viewpoint or is every vice to be explained as a mental disorder?

 

[Rosie1]

Re: Marijuna

I'm not a user, but in those I know who use, I do not see the "gateway" to other drugs that was the big scare tactic used by the feds for years. In my humble opin, long term THC use definately makes people paranoid (OMG, move over Jesse Ventura). But, it's a good thing that should be allowed for people going through chemo. Medical use (with a card) is allowed in Oregon. I used to work a chemical dependency program, so I know a bit about it.

 

[spud_meister]

Re: Marijuna

To provide employment to the otherwise unemployable? Ask Senator Hanson-Young.

:lol: I'd prefer not to, I make it a point not to talk to Greens.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Marijuna

As I said you know there is a difference between the choices involved in such cases, like acknowledging you have depression, seeking help and perhaps having the internal strength to keep going, and addiction. Addiction is partly an issue of character and morality. It is not something where you are just a victim of a mental condition. I do acknowledge that this doesn't mean it is just a character issue though, or by any means an easy battle. The risk though is trying to totally remove man's freedom and dignity by always trying to diagnose him, even when, like in this case, there are serious flaws in such a way of looking at the issue.

Where does it stop? Is there choice left from your viewpoint or is every vice to be explained as a mental disorder?

No, there isn't. They're still choices made by a disordered mind that is trying to destroy itself.

Yes, addicts are capable of moments of clarity, like people with any other mental illness are. But fixing that doesn't happen overnight. Not for addiction problems, and not for other mental health issues.

Addiction has nothing to do with character or morality. I have known some very good people with substance abuse problems. People so good that they were still lambs even in the depth of their addiction - and that takes some serious character. They were in a lot of pain.

I don't believe they're victims of anything unless they're dead. Until that point, they're fighting just by continuing to get through the days. And they are in all-out war when they decide to recover. I find that admirable and humbling.

As I said, mentally ill people are capable of moments of clarity. Sometimes even extended awareness. That doesn't change the seriousness of the disorder they fight. Acknowledging it as the disorder that it is does not negate their agency. It is just an extreme challenge to it. And that challenge deserves to be acknowledged, rather than writing it off as them being bad or flawed people. That sort of mentality and treatment is what really wrecks people, not their disorder.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

No, there isn't. They're still choices made by a disordered mind that is trying to destroy itself.

Yes, addicts are capable of moments of clarity, like people with any other mental illness are. But fixing that doesn't happen overnight. Not for addiction problems, and not for other mental health issues.

Addiction has nothing to do with character or morality. I have known some very good people with substance abuse problems. People so good that they were still lambs even in the depth of their addiction - and that takes some serious character. They were in a lot of pain.

I don't believe they're victims of anything unless they're dead. Until that point, they're fighting just by continuing to get through the days. And they are in all-out war when they decide to recover. I find that admirable and humbling.

As I said, mentally ill people are capable of moments of clarity. Sometimes even extended awareness. That doesn't change the seriousness of the disorder they fight. Acknowledging it as the disorder that it is does not negate their agency. It is just an extreme challenge to it. And that challenge deserves to be acknowledged, rather than writing it off as them being bad or flawed people. That sort of mentality and treatment is what really wrecks people, not their disorder.

You appear to be implying something that seems improbable; that addiction totally robs you of your ability to think in any sane or reasonable way, except for occasional moments of clarity. I do not believe an addict is insane; I do not believe that, except for the height of intoxication, they are totally divorced from reality.

It is hard to tell, but when you talk about it not being about morality and character and give examples of the good people who may be addicts, you are implying that morality and character do not include temperance, prudence and self-control. Morality and character are about more than sympathy for others; the fully moral person is not simply so because they are nice to their fellow man. They are also have restraint and self-control.

I would say that the attitude that all these things are just mental illnesses is not a good one for prospective addicts, because it helps to undermine the importance of self-control and temperance. When we remove the importance of will and character we remove the onus on improving them. It is debatable whether or not individuals addicts are more helped by treating them as victims or the way I have talking about, and lets remember I'm not talking about just acting as if they could stop their addiction at whim or anything extreme and one-dimensional like that. But the general deleterious effect of your approach seems less debatable.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Marijuna

If that's what you got out of my post, you didn't read it for comprehension and aren't worth responding to.

I quite directly rejected that addiction completely robs one of their ability to think, or that they should be treated as victims.

 

[Your Star]

Re: Marijuna

It should be legalized, period.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

I quite directly rejected that addiction completely robs one of their ability to think,

I find it hard to read some of your comments any other way. You toned it down in your last post but it still had comments like;

They're still choices made by a disordered mind that is trying to destroy itself.

Yes, addicts are capable of moments of clarity, like people with any other mental illness are.

As I said, mentally ill people are capable of moments of clarity. Sometimes even extended awareness.

One talks about moments of lucidity or clarity in dementia sufferers, for instance. I think it, and the first comment, can be fairly perceived as talking about a certain loss of touch with reality. I do not think this is the case with addicts, excepting the heights of intoxication and additional problems they may have.

On the victim comment, you simply said you don't define them as victims unless they die from it. I do not necessarily share that definition of a victim.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

There is a problem in this poll's options, by the way. It doesn't properly define what it means by legalise it through federal law. Does it mean just remove the federal laws against marijuana or does it mean a law that legalises it and overrides all state and local laws on the issue? Because if it means the former then it is the same as the second option. If it means the latter then surely this would be unconstitutional and part of a broader discussion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Re: Marijuna

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority whatsoever regarding marijuana. Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, this is a matter for the states. If one state wishes to legalize it, then that state has that authority, and the federal government has no authority to interfere.* Likewise, if another state wants to criminalize it, with severe penalties for its possession and use, then again, this is that state's right, and the federal government has no authority to interfere.

If we want to make it legal or illegal under federal law, then the only legitimate way to do this is to amend the Constitution, as was done with the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 regarding alcohol.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: Marijuna

Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority whatsoever regarding marijuana. Therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, this is a matter for the states. If one state wishes to legalize it, then that state has that authority, and the federal government has no authority to interfere.* Likewise, if another state wants to criminalize it, with severe penalties for its possession and use, then again, this is that state's right, and the federal government has no authority to interfere.

If we want to make it legal or illegal under federal law, then the only legitimate way to do this is to amend the Constitution, as was done with the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 regarding alcohol.

Unless some judge decides that this clause;

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years,

Means that the Federal government can ban marijuana, long skirts and ice tea.

 

[Muhammed]

Re: Marijuna

How should the government deal with it? As of now they pour lots of money into enforcing laws against it, and the use of it is still widespread.

My vote is none of the above.

It is none of the government's business at any level.

Tell the UN to go to hell.

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Marijuna

I'd ban using it in public though. No-one wants a second-hand buzz in a restaurant.

This is why not only treating it to the equivalent of alcohol is a good idea but treating it to he equivalent of cigarettes as well. Many states do not allow smoking in restaurants.

 

[Alyssa]

Re: Marijuna

Decriminalize it. If it were legalized, it would be heavily taxed. And more expensive.