DISCORDIANISM: NO SUCH THING

[AFK]

So, RWHN, what I'm reading from you here is that lives that have been disrupted and destroyed due to an overbearing government and its moral-crusader drug laws are somehow less valuable than the relatively few lives that have been disrupted and destroyed due to marijuana use.

No.  What I'm saying is that there needs to be reform in the law enforcement and legal system as relates to drugs.  Again I point to the Drug Court system which has been very successful in my state.  That model seeks to avoid just tossing someone in jail.  It seeks to help that person get help.  But, I am also saying, while pursuing that kind of reform, we don't want to lift barriers that are already in place.  

Let's say you have a dammed river that you want to reroute.  Would you blow up the dam before you dug out the new river bed?  

There are solutions to the problems, but decriminalizing drugs, in my experience, is not going to help at all.  

I commend any sentiment that seeks to protect youth from the follies of addiction and chemical abuse. But I have to question the motives behind those who would rely on government intervention in private lives to try to solve problems. I have no doubt that you and the people you work with have the greater good in mind, and I appreciate everyone in my area who does the job that you do. But I still have to ask why drugs are such a high-profile problem. In my experience people will destroy themselves if they're going to, one way or another. Making something illegal doesn't even give them pause.

But, they will destroy themselves much faster if there are fewer barriers.  Again, the goal isn't the eradication of drug abuse.  Nobody in my field, with their heads screwed on straight, is naive enough to think we can do that.  It's about doing what we can for who we can.  

And if we were going to go around passing laws against everything that has resulted in damage to someone, we'd be pretty fucked. Why is it that more people are killed and maimed on the highway every year than in drug overdoses, but the transportation system isn't a "blight on society?"

In my work, we aren't interested in labelling anyone as "blights on society".  Indeed, it would be more helpful to us if there was less stigma attached to addiction.  Because more people would be more willing to seek out treatment.  We don't see "bad" people.  We see people who need help.  

Ultimately drug laws do nothing in the long-term to curb the appetite or demand for drugs. What they do very successfully however is to punish and harass people who don't fit in, and prohibit the use of something that is no different from anything else in that too much of it is a bad thing, while creating a wide-open foothold for the forces of totalitarianism into the private lives of anyone who might be a subversive element, whether they're addicts or not -- because I'm sure you've seen it the same as I have, people will assume that outcasts and non-joiners must be on something illegal to not want to fit in with the other homogenized zombies.

No, and that isn't law enforcements function.  The "War on Drugs" in my mind, is most useful solely focusing on the supply chain.  Obviously they can never eradicate drugs from America.  Will never happen.  The truth of the matter is, the law enforcement people I know and work with, aren't hell bent on throwing every person who's smoked a joint in jail.  They are stretched thin as it is and have other serious ailments in society to combat.  Many of them have the same goal as people like me have.  Get people who need help to help.  They don't want casual users and non-distributors clogging up the jails and judicial system any more than we do.  

[AFK]

I have to agree with Vex. The current status of marijuana as a Class 1 substance has led to many, many lives being harmed. It may be that some kids would like to try marijuana, but don't due to its status as an illegal drug... However, it seems to me that the number is probably much smaller than the 872,721 people arrested for marijuana related charges in 2007 alone. Almost half of all drug arrests are now marijuana related... that's entirely insane and IMO its doing great harm to hundreds of thousands of people, and in some cases, their families as well.

arrested =/= jail time

I don't recommend that adolescents smoke pot. I think its a bad idea base don what I've seen happen to kids that smoke pot a lot... However, the current system in place seems far more focused on punishing everyone than helping kids.

Parts of the system seem far more focused on punishing....

It's unfortunate that there are the stereotypes that Vex pointed out with certain kids, the assumption that they must be on something.  There, unfortunately, are also unhelpful stereotypes placed upon those involved in the effort to combat drugs and drug abuse.  That we are all killjoys hellbent on taking everyone's fun away.  That we are part of one massive Big Brother movement.  And it's completely false.  Yes, there are elements that go too far.  There are elements that focus too much on punishment.  But it is only one part of the movement and effort.  There are many, many of us, including many in law enforcement and the legal system, seeking constructive ways to help turn lives around that doesn't involve throwing someone in a prison cell and throwing away the key. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No.  What I'm saying is that there needs to be reform in the law enforcement and legal system as relates to drugs.  Again I point to the Drug Court system which has been very successful in my state.  That model seeks to avoid just tossing someone in jail.  It seeks to help that person get help.

Help? What sort of help? Why does a person arrested for marijuana possession NEED help? (teens yes, adults...?)

There are solutions to the problems, but decriminalizing drugs, in my experience, is not going to help at all.  

Can you elaborate on that, which drugs have been decriminalized that you've had to deal with, how did it affect kids etc?

they will destroy themselves much faster if there are fewer barriers.

What do you base this claim on?

We don't see "bad" people.  We see people who need help.  

Why? Maybe a kid that's run from reality and is hiding out in stonerville, needs some help, but most of the people affected by the marijuana laws aren't kids, they're adults that choose to smoke pot... why do they 'need help'?

The point is, if marijuana is illegal, then there will be punishment etc... cause that's what illegal means. If it werre legal and regulated, then you could deal with kids in the same manner we do with kids that drink alcohol. As long as its illegal, asshole cops (the random cop, not particularly one that's working specificually for the Drug War) can arrest someone for possession and seriously fuck up their lives. I have a friend, an adult who had (as a kid) serious drug problems (meth) and had dropped out of school, etc etc.

He got clean, got a job, got a car and was doing pretty well. A cop in the small town he lives in, pulled him over and found a little bag of middies and a glass bowl. My friend spent 90 days in prison. He DIDN'T NEED HELP... he didn't have a problem. He did, once he got out, need help and had a problem, because he didn't have a job, he wasn't allowed to drive a car and thus... he hung out with his friends that had no jobs... within two weeks of leaving prison, he was smoking meth, because he had nothing better to do.

So, NOW, he has a serious problem and has had to go get help. He'd been clean for three years, just smoked pot after work etc. As long as pot is illegal this sort of bullshit will continue.

[AFK]

Help? What sort of help? Why does a person arrested for marijuana possession NEED help? (teens yes, adults...?)

Depends.  If an adult is found with marijuana, in an amount that indicates it's for personal use, and it is a first offense, I would hope that appropriate action is taken.  I would think that, at most, a person should face a fine and send him or her home with some literature about marijuana.  If it is one in a string of offenses, depending on severity, it probably is time for an evaluation or screening.  If the evaluation indicates some kind of substance abuse problem, then yes, that person probably does NEED help.  And a good provider will tailor that help according to the severity of the problem. 

There are solutions to the problems, but decriminalizing drugs, in my experience, is not going to help at all.  

Can you elaborate on that, which drugs have been decriminalized that you've had to deal with, how did it affect kids etc?

It's all about supply and access.  Decriminalizing will lead to more ease of access.  Yeah, I know, it's already very easy to get.  But it will be that much easier if it is legal.  Haven't I already explained this? 

they will destroy themselves much faster if there are fewer barriers.

What do you base this claim on?

First hand accounts from current and former drug users. 

We don't see "bad" people.  We see people who need help.  

Why? Maybe a kid that's run from reality and is hiding out in stonerville, needs some help, but most of the people affected by the marijuana laws aren't kids, they're adults that choose to smoke pot... why do they 'need help'?

Not all do.  But a significant amount of them will. 

The point is, if marijuana is illegal, then there will be punishment etc... cause that's what illegal means. If it werre legal and regulated, then you could deal with kids in the same manner we do with kids that drink alcohol. As long as its illegal, asshole cops (the random cop, not particularly one that's working specificually for the Drug War) can arrest someone for possession and seriously fuck up their lives. I have a friend, an adult who had (as a kid) serious drug problems (meth) and had dropped out of school, etc etc.

He got clean, got a job, got a car and was doing pretty well. A cop in the small town he lives in, pulled him over and found a little bag of middies and a glass bowl. My friend spent 90 days in prison. He DIDN'T NEED HELP... he didn't have a problem. He did, once he got out, need help and had a problem, because he didn't have a job, he wasn't allowed to drive a car and thus... he hung out with his friends that had no jobs... within two weeks of leaving prison, he was smoking meth, because he had nothing better to do.

So, NOW, he has a serious problem and has had to go get help. He'd been clean for three years, just smoked pot after work etc. As long as pot is illegal this sort of bullshit will continue.

I would argue, that as awful as that scenario is, it is an example of a need for law enforcement reform in that town, county, or state, depending on how pervasive that sort of tact is.  Law Enforcement is always susceptible of being an asshole about any law or regulation.  Just look at that example of the State Trooper in Mass that ticketed a husband driving in the breakdown lane because his wife was pregnant.  yeah, technically that is illegal, and for good reason.  But those in law enforcement still have discretion.  So I would argue the issue is with discretion, not the law. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

I'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

I'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

I agree Vex, well said.

If a person needs help, help should be available... but an argument that the drug war is successfully preemptive seems false to me. Also, I think Vex may have a point on the "drugs are bad m'kay" mindset.

[AFK]

I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drug addiction IS inherently a problem and it does only result in sadness, until it is treated.  And many of those former drug addicts will get cleaned up and join the cause.  I work with many of them myself.  And, I would argue that far more has been learned about the brain and brain development in the name of trying to better understand and treat drug addiction as compared to any advancement in understanding the brain from being under the influence.  It's largely thanks to the research into drug addiction and other mental health related issues that we've discovered that the brain doesn't stop developing at 18, it indeed continues to develop into 25 and beyond. 

Drugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

The reason for the abhorrence of illicit drugs is actually much more varied then you acknowledge.  Ask the parents of an adolescent or young adult who is hooked on drugs why they hate drugs.  I can assure you it has nothing to do with the statement you made.  It wasn't because it encouraged that person to be apart from the dominant paradigm.  It was because, it made them a totally different person who seemed to be tuning out everything but the drugs. 

Yes, the drugs themselves are not "bad".  Just like the jackhammer itself is not "bad".  Obviously.  But how many 15 year olds steal money from their Dads so they can go buy a jackhammer to play with? 

And yeah, maybe there are some in the "War on Drugs" who are in it because they have that "Hey kid, get off my lawn" mentality.  But it is a gross generalization to throw all of us working to prevent substance abuse into that category. 

I'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

My personal opinion of drugs, as relates to the appeal of whether or not I would do them, is that they are what has been referred to on this board in the past as "False Slack".  I personally don't believe they offer me any gateways into thought that I can't access without them.  But, that is the opinion on drugs as relates to what RWHN does for RWHN. 

Professionally, the drugs themselves aren't "bad".  The drug addict is not "bad"  But, the drug addict is not a drug addict without the drugs. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think the problem is about 20% people who go to far with their drug use and 80% the ridiculous mindset that drugs, in general, are 'bad' and 'a problem that needs to be solved.' If you want to help individual addicts recover from their affliction, that's awesome, and it is a job that needs to be done. But it should have nothing to do with larger question of why exactly we feel like we need to forcefeed people this nonsensical idea that drugs are inherently a problem and that they can only result in sadness. Sure, they can result in sadness, but they also result in lots of other stuff, including some fairly large advances in even the mainstream understanding of the human mind, the human condition, communication, and other useful things, and that isn't even getting into the works of art that have been created under the influence of these allegedly "terrible" substances.

Drug addiction IS inherently a problem and it does only result in sadness, until it is treated.  And many of those former drug addicts will get cleaned up and join the cause.  I work with many of them myself.  And, I would argue that far more has been learned about the brain and brain development in the name of trying to better understand and treat drug addiction as compared to any advancement in understanding the brain from being under the influence.  It's largely thanks to the research into drug addiction and other mental health related issues that we've discovered that the brain doesn't stop developing at 18, it indeed continues to develop into 25 and beyond. 

Drugs are a tool, like anything else. We don't go around prohibiting jackhammers every time some dunce smashes his foot with one, do we? Why are drugs any different? As I see it, it isn't because of the harm they do to individuals, it's because they appeal to and encourage those people who have no use for the "dominant paradigm" of society. Our cultural abhorrence of "illicit" drugs is solely a function of our collective disdain for anyone who doesn't think like us, and the "War on Drugs" is nothing but an overgrown, badly-managed, inconsiderate, tyrannical cultural translation of the Spanish Inquisition, seeking not to repair any damage done to society but to prevent the diversification of ideas because such diversification is dangerous to the Status Quo.

The reason for the abhorrence of illicit drugs is actually much more varied then you acknowledge.  Ask the parents of an adolescent or young adult who is hooked on drugs why they hate drugs.  I can assure you it has nothing to do with the statement you made.  It wasn't because it encouraged that person to be apart from the dominant paradigm.  It was because, it made them a totally different person who seemed to be tuning out everything but the drugs. 

Yes, the drugs themselves are not "bad".  Just like the jackhammer itself is not "bad".  Obviously.  But how many 15 year olds steal money from their Dads so they can go buy a jackhammer to play with? 

And yeah, maybe there are some in the "War on Drugs" who are in it because they have that "Hey kid, get off my lawn" mentality.  But it is a gross generalization to throw all of us working to prevent substance abuse into that category. 

I'm not saying you are in on this, RWHN, but it seems like you have a vague alliance with the mindset that says "drugs are bad, mmkay?" just because people sometimes go too far with them. Mind-altering substances, in my own opinion, offer an too great an opportunity to explore meaningful avenues of thought, to simply write them off as inherently and universally "bad." Plus, they're a lot more affordable than a vacation.

My personal opinion of drugs, as relates to the appeal of whether or not I would do them, is that they are what has been referred to on this board in the past as "False Slack".  I personally don't believe they offer me any gateways into thought that I can't access without them.  But, that is the opinion on drugs as relates to what RWHN does for RWHN. 

Professionally, the drugs themselves aren't "bad".  The drug addict is not "bad"  But, the drug addict is not a drug addict without the drugs. 

I would agree that drug addiction is a problem... but are you claiming that people are addicted to marijuana?

[AFK]

Yes. 

And, I know where you are going next with this, so can we just skip to the part where we agree to disagree on the physical vs psychological dependency debate. 

[Jenne]

I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yes. 

And, I know where you are going next with this, so can we just skip to the part where we agree to disagree on the physical vs psychological dependency debate. 

Ok, that's fine. Let's agree to disagree.

What about food, many children have had their lives ruined because they were psychologically addicted to food, ruining their social life, their physical well being and their waistband in their sweatpants. People addicted to food can die from it! Should we pass laws to govern it?

Maybe we should outlaw World of Warcraft and Second Life as well... lots of people seem psychologically addicted to those, also harming their health and social life.

Absurd, perhaps, but the whole argument that we should outlaw things because some people can't act responsibly seems absurd to me.


(Also, I would echo Jenne's comments, as I have in the past about you and your job )

[LMNO]

Rat.  Stop.  RWHN was being nice about it.

[Jenne]

It takes a very selfless person to work with troubled kids...and the lives RWHN touches are really going to be helped in immeasurable ways.  RWHN is heroic--he's not out there winning one for the bank balance, he's out there making people feel better and make better choices about themselves.   He puts his motherfucking money where his mouth his.

Dunno--I've always looked up to people like that.

[AFK]

I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

I think we are a pretty good model for that.  (we certainly aren't a good model for tax burdens, but that's another story)  And I'm really, really hoping the Attorney General who's been leading the charge runs for Gov. when Smeagol, I mean, Baldacci finishes his term.  I'd be lying if I said there weren't some in the State who are hellbent on the punishment angle of law enforcement.  The rest of us kind of tune out and roll our eyes when they start ranting and raving.  But, I think those of us who take a more rational approach have the right connections with the right people and organizations to move forward.  It's just a matter of the money being there to help us continue.  

[Jenne]

I think RWHN's job precludes him from being of the mindset of "drugs are ok for minors, mmkay"...he works in what I call the "trenches" of the War on Drugs, and even though that's not his own schtick, the people he works for are interested in seeing drugs off the streets and out of the hands of  minors.  And possibly all illicit drugs out of the country altogether.

RWHN, I think Maine is lucky state with its justice system--if they truly look at drug abuse as a disease and not a criminal behavior, then your state should be used as a model to ease the turning of the tide that is now in trasition vis a vis legalizing pot use.  I know states like Arizona and Texas are far from that change, but I think the work you do is important in getting states like that to "see reason" about decriminalization of the user (if not the substance).

I think we are a pretty good model for that.  (we certainly aren't a good model for tax burdens, but that's another story)  And I'm really, really hoping the Attorney General who's been leading the charge runs for Gov. when Smeagol, I mean, Baldacci finishes his term.  I'd be lying if I said there weren't some in the State who are hellbent on the punishment angle of law enforcement.  The rest of us kind of tune out and roll our eyes when they start ranting and raving.  But, I think those of us who take a more rational approach have the right connections with the right people and organizations to move forward.  It's just a matter of the money being there to help us continue.  

GRANTS!  GRANTS!    /beating almost-dead-horse...