• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hooked - Illegal Drugs!

Mephisto

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
6,064
There is a documentary on the History Channel tonight (7:00 p.m. MST) that outlines the history of marijuana and how it became illegal. I've wanted to mention this documentary regarding the illegal alien "problem," but couldn't find a way to cite it (it's copyrighted material that is for sale from historychannel.com).

For anyone interested in the subject, I'm sure you'll find the marijuana "problem" and the Mexican "problem" to be very closely related. I won't spoil the program should anyone catch it, but I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say regarding the History Channel's claims.

;) :) :O
 
There is a documentary on the History Channel tonight (7:00 p.m. MST) that outlines the history of marijuana and how it became illegal. I've wanted to mention this documentary regarding the illegal alien "problem," but couldn't find a way to cite it (it's copyrighted material that is for sale from historychannel.com).

For anyone interested in the subject, I'm sure you'll find the marijuana "problem" and the Mexican "problem" to be very closely related. I won't spoil the program should anyone catch it, but I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say regarding the History Channel's claims.

;) :) :O
I am familiar with the series, so I understand that the name of the series itself is "Hooked". But it is VERY misleading to talk about weed and "hooked", as in becoming seriously addicted to it.

The way I look at the world, there are two types of drugs: those that have a significant effect on dopamine, and those that don't. Those that do are things like heroin, coke, meth, presecription painkillers, opium, crack, etc. They are very addictive, due to their action on dopamine. Other drugs, which includes pot, have little or no effect on dopamine. They therefore do not have the addiction problems that the other drugs do. Sure, people can become psychologically dependant on them, but that is different from a hard-core, do it every day, can't live without it, lose your job, sell your kids, trade a d*** suck for a hit off a pipe, kind of addiction that you get from drugs that have strong action on dopamine.

Only slightly off topic...by just about any measure you can think of, alcohol is a more dangerous drug that weed. Yet, it is alcohol that is legal. As Chris Rock says..."But its alright, because its all white."
 
Only slightly off topic...by just about any measure you can think of, alcohol is a more dangerous drug that weed. Yet, it is alcohol that is legal. As Chris Rock says..."But its alright, because its all white."

I do, of course, agree that alcohol is much more dangerous. I'm sick of the hypocrisy of this government (and many of its citizens) regarding drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.

I disagree with Chris Rock's assessment, though maybe I don't get what he's trying to say. I would guess there are as many blacks who drink as there are whites who smoke (or maybe he's talking corporate?). But he's a comedian and what little political rhetoric I've heard from him seems mostly emotional rather than well thought out or well informed, so whatever.

schp (anybody want a "New Years" bonghit? Come on over...) lurg
 
I smoked drugs once ..... It made me want to rape and kill ....

Charlie (could use a toke now) Monoxide

Really? I used to rape and kill.

Then I started smokin' pot.

I still want to rape and kill, only now I usually get distracted by the Weather channel and forget.
 
I do, of course, agree that alcohol is much more dangerous. I'm sick of the hypocrisy of this government (and many of its citizens) regarding drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.

I disagree with Chris Rock's assessment, though maybe I don't get what he's trying to say. I would guess there are as many blacks who drink as there are whites who smoke (or maybe he's talking corporate?). But he's a comedian and what little political rhetoric I've heard from him seems mostly emotional rather than well thought out or well informed, so whatever.

schp (anybody want a "New Years" bonghit? Come on over...) lurg
Well, he IS a comedian. :) His job is to be funny, not to be perfectly logical. :) I find him to be the funniest comedian since Richard Pryor.

What he meant is that what determines the legal status of a drug has more to do with who is making money off of the drug than the actual potential harm of the drug. He was referring to who was making the money, not who was using the drugs.
 
More of a Carlin guy, myself.


But, to be honest and fair, I would suspect that the same channels used to funnel illegal aliens here are probably used to smuggle whatever else people desire.

It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination.

As for drugs, I say legalize them. When you ban something, you lose all control over it. When you regulate something, you gain control over it.

Just a thought.
 
The illegal nature of marijuana has everything to do with racism and very little to do with addiction. It was just another way to keep the black man down, and to punish those who associated with blacks.

On the addiction thing, there are many more ways to become addicted than the dopamine path ways. Coacaine in particular inhibits the MAO (monoamine oxidase) and as my instructor stated in college is the 'pac man' chemical in the synaptic cleft. So when the MAO is inhibited all the neuro transmitter builds up in the cleft and the brain lights up like the fourth of july. Nicotine, also very highly addictive effects the muscarine receptors.

There is still little know about the actual biocehmistry of addiction, although it is certainly out of the dark ages and into the modern world. The largest misconception is the 'there has to be a physical withdrawl for it to be dependancy' thing. This is the great error that led people to say that 'cociane is not addictive'.

Thanks to behaviorism, addiction is now defined in behavioral terms in the DSM-IV(R) and it is easy to distinguish abuse from dependance.
In a nut shell, abuse causes minor impairments of functioning. (Minor is a relative term , like loosing your job or relationship.) When someone with an abuse problem finds out there are consequences to the using choices, they say "Well enough of that then." and they walk away. Sometimes with a few bumps in the road.

Dependance/addiction is a very different critter, a-diction, against speech, usualy most addicts have stated that they want to quit but can't, although there are those in serious denial. The behavioral hall marks of dependance are:

1. The drug becomes the primary relationship for the user.
2. The drug creates substantial interference in all areas of function. Loss of job, loss of home, loss of relationships. (Hey David, you just said this for abuse! Well, there is a subtle difference between loosing your job because you were late and loosing your job because you were drunk.)
3.The repeated use of the drug in amounts and for times beyond the stated intention of the user.
4. The use of the drug is believed to be nessecary by the user to function in life.
5. The amount of drug used increases over time, and the individual does not get the desired effect. Even if there is no physical tolerance issue.
6. The person feels miserable in the abcense of the drug.

Basicaly in addiction the drug messes with someones life and they won't or cant quit in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is messing them up.

I have only met two people who have claimed marijuana addiction, and I have met hundreds of alcoholics, cocaine is a problem very similar to alcohol except most cocaine users will admit it is a problem. And well, methamphetamine is as bad for you as large amounts of alcohol.

The routes to addiction vary, there are those who definitly have a biological vulnerability, there are those who get hooked using it to deal with problems, there are those who do it for other reasons. Food is the most common addiction after or next to alcohol.

If you insert the word 'mood altering behavior' into the places where I wrote 'drug' then you can encompase sexual addiction, gambling, compulsive shopping and the myriad of other' unhealthy coping mechanisms'.

From my experience and government statistics there are many greater threats to the world than marijuana use. It is a political pariah, it pales in comparison to domestic violence and starvation.
 
Last edited:
I agree with everyone here so far, and I would like to add (hopefully someone saw [or has seen] the program) that according to the History Channel marijuana became illegal by federal law after the Southwestern states petitioned Anslinger to demonize the weed (which was in common use by the Mexican population) as a method to deport users.

Apparently, there was this "worker population" that was no longer needed . . .

It just shows the hypocrisy behind the "war on drugs," and how it's being fought. I've read articles (back in the 80s) that suggested Reagan's pet war was responsible for the tremendous surge in cocaine use - it was much easier to smuggle 10 million dollars worth of cocaine than it was to smuggle an equal amount of bulky, smelly pot.
 
On the addiction thing, there are many more ways to become addicted than the dopamine path ways. Coacaine in particular inhibits the MAO (monoamine oxidase) and as my instructor stated in college is the 'pac man' chemical in the synaptic cleft. So when the MAO is inhibited all the neuro transmitter builds up in the cleft and the brain lights up like the fourth of july. Nicotine, also very highly addictive effects the muscarine receptors.

There is still little know about the actual biocehmistry of addiction, although it is certainly out of the dark ages and into the modern world. The largest misconception is the 'there has to be a physical withdrawl for it to be dependancy' thing. This is the great error that led people to say that 'cociane is not addictive'.

Well, there are also individual differences. During a particularly low period in my life, I tried crack cocaine. BORING.

But people who get addicted report immediately knowing that it was the drug for them.
 
Although I'm not usually one to tell anyone how to live their life, authorities here in the SW are concerned with the influx of Meth. Apparently, they're not only concerned with the proliferation of the drug (and the associated labs, violence, etc.), but also with the influx of White Supremicist fringe groups that apparently use the drug to bankroll their pursuits.

Two days before X-mas an 18 year old kid ran over two women walking on the sidewalk (in separate incidents) here in my home town. He critically injured the first woman who he caught on the median waiting for traffic to pass. She ended up seriously injured and her dog was killed. He ran over a second woman walking on the sidewalk. He killed her by smearing her alongside the rock wall adjacent to the street. He was driving a BIG Ford F150 pickup that he left at the scene of the "accident" involving the second woman. The police later caught him in the desert where he fled.

Lab tests indicated that he had high levels of Meth in his system, which might account for his sporadic violence. Certainly demeanor and disposition have a great bearing on criminal behavior under the influence of drugs, but I'm not sure I would advocate the legalization of any drug that requires chemical processing (or refinement, if you can call it that) or environmentally-damaging processes prior to use.
 
The illegal nature of marijuana has everything to do with racism and very little to do with addiction. It was just another way to keep the black man down, and to punish those who associated with blacks.

On the addiction thing, there are many more ways to become addicted than the dopamine path ways. Coacaine in particular inhibits the MAO (monoamine oxidase) and as my instructor stated in college is the 'pac man' chemical in the synaptic cleft. So when the MAO is inhibited all the neuro transmitter builds up in the cleft and the brain lights up like the fourth of july. Nicotine, also very highly addictive effects the muscarine receptors.

There is still little know about the actual biocehmistry of addiction, although it is certainly out of the dark ages and into the modern world. The largest misconception is the 'there has to be a physical withdrawl for it to be dependancy' thing. This is the great error that led people to say that 'cociane is not addictive'.

Thanks to behaviorism, addiction is now defined in behavioral terms in the DSM-IV(R) and it is easy to distinguish abuse from dependance.
In a nut shell, abuse causes minor impairments of functioning. (Minor is a relative term , like loosing your job or relationship.) When someone with an abuse problem finds out there are consequences to the using choices, they say "Well enough of that then." and they walk away. Sometimes with a few bumps in the road.

Dependance/addiction is a very different critter, a-diction, against speech, usualy most addicts have stated that they want to quit but can't, although there are those in serious denial. The behavioral hall marks of dependance are:

1. The drug becomes the primary relationship for the user.
2. The drug creates substantial interference in all areas of function. Loss of job, loss of home, loss of relationships. (Hey David, you just said this for abuse! Well, there is a subtle difference between loosing your job because you were late and loosing your job because you were drunk.)
3.The repeated use of the drug in amounts and for times beyond the stated intention of the user.
4. The use of the drug is believed to be nessecary by the user to function in life.
5. The amount of drug used increases over time, and the individual does not get the desired effect. Even if there is no physical tolerance issue.
6. The person feels miserable in the abcense of the drug.

Basicaly in addiction the drug messes with someones life and they won't or cant quit in the face of the overwhelming evidence that it is messing them up.

I have only met two people who have claimed marijuana addiction, and I have met hundreds of alcoholics, cocaine is a problem very similar to alcohol except most cocaine users will admit it is a problem. And well, methamphetamine is as bad for you as large amounts of alcohol.

The routes to addiction vary, there are those who definitly have a biological vulnerability, there are those who get hooked using it to deal with problems, there are those who do it for other reasons. Food is the most common addiction after or next to alcohol.

If you insert the word 'mood altering behavior' into the places where I wrote 'drug' then you can encompase sexual addiction, gambling, compulsive shopping and the myriad of other' unhealthy coping mechanisms'.

From my experience and government statistics there are many greater threats to the world than marijuana use. It is a political pariah, it pales in comparison to domestic violence and starvation.
Great post, DD! Very good and very informative. And thanks for correcting me a bit. :)

Although I've experimented with some drugs that are considered to be highly addictive, and enjoyed them, I've never had an addition problem. I'm not sure what the latest research says about why people have different succeptabilities to being addicted to drugs. But I don't believe that it is strictly situational. It has to be something genetic, as well.

I have more than one friend now addicted to meth. Their addiction is exactly as the checklist you described. Despite that, I am still in favor of legalization. People make choices. Letting them make choices is a part of freedom. And of course, there's the whole matter of the harm done by the "WAR ON DRUGS!!!!!" very likely being worse than the harm that would be done by the (likely slight) increase of people using drugs if they were legalized.
 
Despite that, I am still in favor of legalization. People make choices. Letting them make choices is a part of freedom. And of course, there's the whole matter of the harm done by the "WAR ON DRUGS!!!!!" very likely being worse than the harm that would be done by the (likely slight) increase of people using drugs if they were legalized.
I agree, and as I've said here before the whole "War on Drugs" seems to do nothing but enrich organized crime and street gangs and fuel all the violence associated w/ them.

One of the most assinine arguments I've heard made about legalization is that all the drug dealers would win if we legalized drugs. Um, no, not in a million years! It is only the fact that they're illegal that opens the door for the black market that thrives today.
 

Back
Top Bottom