I agree with those observations, and I think it’s bad thing. Legal drugs are prescribed too freely, like the often-cited case of kids on Ritalin. Before Ritalin was invented, people somehow raised their kids without it. Now it’s given out way too easily.
Swing and a miss.
I’m saying that the last person to realize how ‘victimless’ his or her abuse of intoxicating or mind-altering substances is the person using. And not every drug is condusive to ‘recreational’ use. Drugs like meth, crack, heroin and its derivatives - it takes an extreme level of willpower to just use these ‘recreationally’.
Alcohol is far more dangerous and addictive than marijuana. Yet we continue to treat pot smokers like hardened criminals. The harm alcohol can do to some people is legend. And I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will agree that alcohol is “mild.”
Well if you’re going to single out my assertions, let me throw some facts into the discussion:
All from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm
-In 2002, 16.4% of jail inmates commited their offense to get money for drugs.
-In 2004, 3.9% of homicides where drug related
-In 2000, arrestees testing positive for cocaine: 49% in Atlanta and New York to 11% in Des Moines for males.
-“More than two-thirds of local jail inmates (68%) were found to be dependent on drugs or alcohol or abusing them, according to a 2002 survey of men and women held in local jails.”
Drugs and crime are good buddies. Seems the mind-altering properties of drugs causes people to commit crimes, and the addictive properties cause people to steal to get money for more drugs. Maybe that’s why drugs are illegal perhaps?
Yes, you can safely use drugs, but a very significant number of people cannot, and many lives have been ruined or ended because of it.
I think a lot of people would consider Bud Light mild. Depends on the drink.
I would even be open to condsidering the legalization of marijuana, as it does seem to be a mostly mild drug. The trouble is right now pot is illegal, and anyone who would cross the legality line to smoke it might as well cross the line to do meth or ecstacy.
A significant number of people may have a difficult time with substance use, but a more significant number of people do not. Your figures don’t take into account the number of people who use responsibly.
Alcohol is alcohol. I know drunks who drink light beer and who get mean or violent the same as a person who drinks whiskey. If you drink enough, you consume the same amount of alcohol.
Correlation is not causality.
Aaargh, you know, you can shut down most of the discussions on this message board if you keep doing that!
I would submit that some of these statistics not only show correlation but causality, because crimes are being committed to get drugs. Such as “In 2002, 16.4% of jail inmates commited their offense to get money for drugs.”
It would move the discussion further along if you took the time to ask yourself if the same can be said for alcohol (ab)use. Even tobacco to a lesser extent.
Following QuickSilver’s lead, “a more significant number” doesn’t cut it. Let me invite you to find statistics for responsible substance use.
In that case, why are you telling her what to do? After all, you are not personally harmed by monica’s actions – not in the least. So by your own logic, shouldn’t you stop bothering her and mind your own business?
I have known drug users since I was in my early teens. Nearly every single person I hung out with for the past 35 years has used drugs to some degree (that includes my 76 year old father). In that time, I know of NO ONE who committed a crime in order to get drugs (other than the obvious crime of buying them in the first place). It’s ridiculous to assume that crime and drug use go hand in hand. It simply ain’t so.
You’re never going to get accurate numbers because so many people fear being arrested. My own example above can be matched by others around here, I’m sure.
Why is it so hard to accept that criminals engage in criminal behaviour for their own benefit. If a person capable of mugging somebody for his wallet then goes on to blow the cash on hookers, is he then considered a sex addict? Did his sexual addiction cause him to mug somebody?
I’d say if he routinely mugs people to pay for hookers, then yes he would fit the definition of a sex addict.
What I’m trying to illustrate is that drug addiction causes crime. Just because you take drugs doesn’t mean you’ll get addicted. But everyone has that “it can’t happen to me” mentality that doesn’t hold up so well in reality.
You’re grouping users in with addicts. The percentage of users who are addicted is small. It’s apples and oranges.
The difference is that she has posted this onto a public forum which invites comments. If the guys in her dorm are sitting in the common room, doing rails off the glass top coffee table then she might be right in saying something.
And, for the last fucking time…seriously, pay attention…I never told her what to do. I was addressing the person who said that she should talk to an RA about it. I never even once addressed monica in any of my posts. If someone can post how they think it is a great idea to tell the RA, then I can post to them and tell them I disagree and think that she should mind her own business. And actually, I haven’t seen her post anything at all about if she even considers going to the RA.
Do you really think the world would be a better place if more people were willing to drop a dime on someone for doing something that doesn’t really harm anyone, but is illegal? If so, then I guess we just disagree on that.
Why is it so hard to accept that criminals engage in criminal behaviour for their own benefit. If a person capable of mugging somebody for his wallet then goes on to blow the cash on hookers, is he then considered a sex addict? Did his sexual addiction cause him to mug somebody?
I thought I made that clear. The answer is yes. The comment was regarding ‘victimless’. Abusers (and possibly even chronic heavy users) often selfishly see their indulgences as victimless. Usually they are poor judges of that.