From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Use and abuse of drugs [Was:...unsubstantiated...]
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:52:55 GMT

Since I did not initiate any talk about drug [ab]use, unsubstantiated
or otherwise, I thought I'd move this over to another thread.  Whether
it should be moved out of talk.abortion altogether, I leave up to others.

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?

>>Do some "weekend pot smokers" have families that are hurt
>>by their drug use?

>Some?  Probably.  Any significant number?  Probably not.

I don't know about that.  I think that just as drunks are notorious
for thinking they "can lick every man in the house," so pot smokers
are famous for thinking pot makes them peaceful and benevolent.  I found
out the hard way, from having a pothead as a roommate, that it ain't
necessarily so.

>>The weekend is the only time many kids
>>have to spend with their parents.  Might be nice if those
>>parents were unimpaired for thoses times.

>Neglect is a problem whether due to use of drugs, or because the parents
>have social engagements, or because dad likes to spend his weekends
>on the golf course.

>And why do you assume the parents are stoned all weekend?  Perhaps they
>wait until the kids are asleep before breaking out the joint.  Or the
>martini shaker.  Or the whips and chains.

>>Children and/or spouses aren't hurt by recreational substance
>>use?

>Generally speaking, no.

>>>All your arguments for prohibition of marijuana apply with far
>>>greater force to alcohol.  Alcohol has a higher abuse potential
>>>than marijuana, and is far more damaging to its abusers.  Why
>>>have you not called for the prohibition of alcohol?  Could it
>>>be that the social costs of alcohol prohibition are worse than
>>>the social costs of its legalization?  Why the double standard,
>>>Overpeck?
>>
>>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.

>>>|I see the social/interpersonal fallout created by such problems
>>>|(specifically, drug abuse) on a regular basis.  You apparently
>>>|do not.  Perhaps someday you will have an opportunity to re-
>>>|evaluate your position.
>>>
>>>What social/interpersonal fallout?
>>
>>Do you think it's non-existent?

>I've seen it from drug *abuse*, but the topic was recreational *use*.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)





Newsgroups: talk.abortion