From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet more unsubstantiated stuff from Nyikos
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:18:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <1992Nov17.205437.28541@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com
   (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>In <1992Nov07.074234.103493@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com
>   (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>In <1992Nov2.195802.1194@acd4.acd.com> wdo@TEFS1.acd.com
>>   (Bill Overpeck) writes:
>>>In <roig6q0@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com
>>>   (C.J.  Silverio) writes:
>>>>
>>>>How does marijuana use create "social/personal difficulties"?
>>
>>>The same way that any drug which impairs awareness and
>>>functionality.
>>
>>In other words, it doesn't, in normal social/recreational use?
>
>Oh?  Response time is unaffected?  Cognition is unimpaired?  Mood
>is unchanged?

Which of these do you claim is creating "social/personal difficulties"?

>>>Do some "weekend pot smokers" have families that are hurt
>>>by their drug use?
>>
>>Some?  Probably.  Any significant number?  Probably not.
>
>Well, we know for sure that a lot of weekend beer drinkers
>have families that are hurt by their drug use, so I wouldn't
>be surprise if the relative percentages were similar.

The casual drinkers, or only those who get totally blitzed all weekend?

>[...]
>
>>And why do you assume the parents are stoned all weekend?
>
>I don't.  Nor did I mean to imply that.

See above.  Perhaps we're using different definitions of "weekend pot smokers".
I'm thinking of someone who only smokes on the weekend, but not to excess,
whereas you seem to be describing someone who smokes so much that they're
unable to function.

>>Perhaps
>>they wait until the kids are asleep before breaking out the joint.
>>Or the martini shaker.  Or the whips and chains.
>
>Only problem is, what if little Bobby wakes up with a raging
>fever and Mommy and Daddy are blissfully catatonic?  They might
>as well not be home.

"Blissfully catatonic"???  From smoking a few joints?

>>>Children and/or spouses aren't hurt by recreational substance
>>>use?
>>
>>Generally speaking, no.
>
>I've seen many who were/are.

I've seen many more who weren't than who were.

>>>I think I've already answered this once.  Alcohol is too firmly
>>>entrenched in our culture.  "Calling" for its prohibition is,
>>>imo, quite futile.  But there is no double standard here.  I
>>>am well aware that alcohol is potentially far more dangerous
>>>than any number of illegal drugs.  Since, however, it is highly
>>>unlikely to be subject to prohibition again, I think it makes
>>>sense not to offer a panacea of legal substances - the problems
>>>caused by alcohol are quite sufficient for any one culture.
>>
>>But perhaps if the safer drugs were more readily available, we
>>wouldn't have quite as many problems as we do when only the more
>>dangerous drugs are available.
>
>Good argument.  It sounds logical, but I think it's hard to predict
>the consequences.  Know of any history to support your contention?

There's no history that I know of that either of us could point to,
but it certainly seems the more logical way to go.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion