Why is it OK to take an aspirin to stop a headache, but wrong to take a bong hit to change your mood?
I’m pretty critical of U.S. drug policy and the effect it has on places like Columbia and Mexico. However that does not absolve the citizens of those two countries from the responsibility for the problems they have with regards to the drug war.
Because any tribe that just sat around collecting mushrooms and smoking weed would be over-run and wiped out by the tribes around them that didn’t to that and coveted their space.
I would say, rather, that smoking weed and collecting 'shrooms didn’t prevent tribes from roaming about and wiping each other out…just like drinking to the point of oblivion out every night didn’t prevent the Brits from forging a global empire. In fact, it HELPED them to do so, since a lot of their seamen and soldiers only joined up for their ration of alcoholic every day.
-XT
Or alternatively, consider a particular addictive and stupifying drug like you would an infectious disease: very virulent diseases can kill large percentages of people, but because they do so, they tend to kill themselves off, simply because they can’t find new (non-resistant) people to infect before the host is killed. In some ways, drugs act the same. Drugs that are obviously very dangerous are not nearly as attractive as drugs that are clearly mostly harmless in moderation. We (humans) generally don’t want to be “blissed out” all the time if it means you can’t talk or think straight and risk dying in a few short years. If you’re miserable anyway, that might skew your opinion, though.
'cause when your headache’s gone you can go back to being a productive worker or an attentive member of the Congregation; which you’re not while you’re baked, wired bouncing off the walls, or drunk (Depending on your congregation, I suppose :D…)
But, really, as mentioned before, a sufficent majority of the population will stop with the substance or alcohol use before they begin interfering badly with what we need to do to satisfy your the rest of the hierarchy of needs. And add to that many who will sustain a just-muddling-through-well-enough-to-afford-more level of functioning. If the huge swath of damage to the physical and emotional health and to social and financial stability, the destruction of millions of lives that is caused by alcohol abuse – cheaply, easily and legally available in abundance – is not enough to bring down society, then speed, opiates and psychedelics have a tall order before them.
Or for a better analogy, why is it OK to take a legal psychotropic like Zoloft, but not cannabis?
Oh, man, not if they were stoned too. In fact, this should be part of our international strategy – keep the whole world stoned and happy.
[Mod hat off]
Why would you say “this country”? Drugs and human physiology work the same in all countries. Or do you mean to suggest that millions of Americans have been destroyed by drugs, while the UK, Europe, etc., have been spared? If so it sounds like an example “American exceptionalism”. FTR I’m American too, but this just pinged my radar. Usually when someone talks about drugs destroying “this” country, that comes with a typical drug-warrior line of reasoning needed to explain why, although many European countries are shifting successfully to legalization or quasi-legalization for some drugs, such a move would not work here.
Another aspect of recreational drug taking, whether illicit or otherwise, is that the typical user needs to experience periods of sobriety not only in which to recover, but also in order to appreciate the alteration of mind brought on by the drugs when they are used.
You seriously imagine you can improve on one of my analogies? Dude? What are you on?
You are assuming that simply ingesting the substance causes a ‘strong’ dependency, when ‘addiction’ usually requires repeated use over a long time, and seems to be tied to other problems people have. Repeated use is also overstating. Frequent, long term repeated use, would more accurately describe the conditions. Many people occasionally use drugs without causing a problem in their lives. So if properly described, the prediction would likely be the societal problems we actually do experience, where a small percentage of people ruin their lives and cause associated problems like theft, family breakdown, car accidents, etc.
Hardly ever.
Of course that comment about first grade is meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. But the point is that I just have never had any desire to indulge in any mind-adultering substances, and that does include alcohol. Changing the state of my mind just has no appeal to me. If anything, the idea scares me. I like my mind just fine. And I can’t be alone in that view.
I think because the consequences to the individual of drug/alcohol addiction are so extreme, so painful, and eventually so obvious, that individuals turn it around if they can, and the people surrounding them make decisions never to try drugs/alcohol as a result of what they’ve seen.
It’s kind of like the way we’d have marked a path around the swampy places in the local bog. We warn each other about danger spots, and especially point the dangers out to our children. Some listen, some learn for themselves, some die. Enough of us are left that the serious consequences remain largely individualized. To the extent that the results begin to hit at a societal level, we legislate and control or the civilization fails.
I wonder if that’s what happened in Liberia. I mean, lots of countries have civil wars and economic breakdowns, why haven’t they recovered? Is it the cheap and easy cocaine?
Pffft! Coming down is for pussies!
I had thought of that and did not have it well-formulated when I wrote my first response but, yes, that is one of the things that are sort of “left unsaid” in the hypothetical: that the “person with no knowledge of the existence of narcotics” would presume that when you say the substances “target the evolutionarily built in pleasure centers of the brain” it means it will directly, immediately hotwire/short-circuit the exact OMGDONTWANTTHISTOEVERSTOPSONTCAREABOUTFOODWATERAIRSEXMOREMOREMORE nerve cluster on anyone. But, IRL naturally-ocurring intoxicants and most of their processed forms do not quite do that, and every person has a different sensitivity threshold.
Reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.
I admit, I laughed, but still: to take most alcohol drinkers as an example, I think it’s safe to compare being intoxicated to lying out in the sun after a swim. It feels good, but eventually you get too hot so you need to go back into the pool, or back indoors.
That price is an artificial one, however, imposed by our laws. What’s more, until the Mexican economy provides a more equitable and broader distribution of income, the drugs and weapons trafficking are side issues. If the drugs were legalized, the criminal element would simply concentrate on another angle of making money, such as kidnapping, and law enforcement would still be hamstrung by corruption ultimately traceable to the low pay which beat cops, and most other workers, receive for their toil.
It’s generally agreed that Prohibition gave organized crime in the States a huge boost, and while organized crime didn’t entirely recede when Prohibition was repealed, depriving the underworld of a major source of income in the form of illicit alcohol alleviated the problem substantially. Despite Mexico’s poverty and greater acceptance of corruption, depriving Mexican gangsters a huge revenue stream in the form of illicit drugs would do an awful lot to help get the situation under control.
And nobody sat down and deliberately plotted a way to make Mexico pay for America’s immense appetite for drugs. The situation is unintentional, the result of poorly thought-out laws.