California is at it again. Proposition 19 – Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act – is on the ballot for November. "Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration 'strongly opposes' a California ballot measure to legalize marijuana, warning that federal drug-enforcement efforts would be 'greatly complicated' if the measure passes" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554261952309990.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news). Putting aside the issue of marijuana as a control substance, a bigger issue is at hand. The issue is State Rights vs. Federal powers. Personally, I do not see why a state could not pass a law that would legalize marijuana.
America has spent trillions on fighting the drug trade. Not to say that is a reason to legalize it but those that I know that use marijuana are not a threat to society no more than the person getting behind the wheel that has been drinking. Then again I don't want to get bogged down in a conversation on the substance control aspect of marijuana. This is similar to the same sex marriage debate. If a group of people, as in California, want to legalize marijuana and are not going to sell it or advertise the sale of it outside of the state does the Federal government have jurisdiction? Does the Supremacy Clause apply? Is this an example of State Rights vs. enumerated powers to the federal government?
Interesting topic.
ReplyDeleteDo you propose abolishment of the DEA or simply re-tasking them to enforce the legalized rules/regs and have them manage the taxation efforts? Do you see a federal policy as helpful given that states with different laws could muddy enforcement efforts given that one state might legalize while another does not?
I still believe the DEA has their role as protecting the United States border, especially along Mexican border, from drug dealers smuggling in their product. Societal norms will not dictate, at least not right now, the wholesale legalization or decriminalization of drugs.
ReplyDeleteWe were founded on a Union of States and not an all-powerful central government. People in Minnesota live and view things much differently then those in Texas, New York or California. That being said, the laws of Minnesota should reflect those that live here and not necessarily reflect those living in other regions of the US.
So if California voters want to legalize pot then so be it. I see this issue as a States right issue. I am trying to avoid the entire conversation of legalizing the drug itself too. Personally I do not partake in the activity but I know many that do. Those that I know that do smoke pot do so in the comfort of their home.
The time has come for States to take back their rights granted them by the Constitution. The Federal Government needs to held to their enumerated powers and granted nothing more. I live in a state that does not have same-sex marriage and I like it that way as to vast number of those that reside in my state.
ReplyDeleteSo, we should have the right to define marriage how we see fit. Just as those states have allowed same-sex marriage. If you live in a state that does not allow it, then try to get it changed but if the populous refuses then live with it or leave the state.
@Viper,
ReplyDeleteI actually agree that this should be relegated to a state decision with some federal oversight to keep taxation and regulation in place to encourage strong oversight by the states for the simple reason that rampant and unrestricted drug use would be highly destructive.
As to Anon's opinion on same sex marriage. Government has no place in marriage - period. I could care less if you wanted to marry a cow, horse, dog, etc. As long as it doesn't affect me or anyone else you should be free to do as you please.
I'm curious, if you are as supportive of the constitution and it's equal protection clause, etc, then how can you reconcile the fact that a % of the population is effectively discriminated against? Are constitutional rights universal or can they be restricted to people you like and removed from those you don't?
Do you also feel that states should have the right to ban religions, speech, etc? Where in the constitution is the right to restrict rights to a subset of the population codified?
What I'm saying is that your claim to want constitutional rights returned, seems in conflict with your argument that states can restrict the rights of certain groups. On it's face, that's an illogical argument. By your argument, South Carolina could go back to slavery, restrict womens right to vote, etc. As long as the majority of citizens were ok with it of course.
Except that the founding fathers designed our system of government to restrict that very "tyranny of the majority". That is why the Senate exists for example - to remove the power of majority rules.
Because that was precisely what the founding fathers worried would happen if people were allowed to use simple majorities to make law - tyranny of the majority.
@Truman As for the same-sex marriage debate, a group of citizens are not being discriminated against. Those seeking the same "rights" of married couples can obtain them via legally binding partnership agreements.
ReplyDelete@Anon,
ReplyDeleteDo they get the same Social Security benefits as hetero partners would? Do they have all the same tax benefits of a man/woman couple? Do all 50 states have this benefit?
Here's the thing, the constitution grants equal rights to all. If you are a believer in strict constitutional interpretation as your first post implies, how can you reconcile the differentiation between groups? The constitution is clear - equal protections for all not equal protections for hetero's and gays get a second definition of their rights.
However, my point is why should government be involved at all? Many states have even banned same sex unions. That IS discrimination if the hetero couples can get benefits that the same sex cannot. This is precisely why government doesn't belong in the marriage business. Remove all tax benefits, remove all insurance benefits, etc. Make marriage a private contract between two legal and consenting adults and have no other government involvement other than that legal and consenting clause. Government has no business in it other than for control.
And your argument seems to argue that government control is bad, unless it's a subject you agree with.
Viper, I'm glad to hear that the marijuana users you know are "not a threat to society [any] more than the person getting behind the wheel that has been drinking." But what about the person that sold your friend the marijuana (the dealer)? Or the person that supplied the marijuana to your friend's dealer (the supplier)? Or the gang that's behind the supplier? Or the cartel that supplies the gang? I have a feeling that somewhere along the way, there are some pretty unsavory characters involved in this illegal drug trade which results in your friends getting stoned to the bejeezus.
ReplyDeleteSo assume CA passes the law and legalizes marijuana. To celebrate, you go out and buy two joints, smoke them both and have a great night. The next day you dutifully report to your job as a forklift driver at ABC Warehouse. Uh oh, look out. You take a corner too quickly, tip the lift and are injured. Your employer says you have to submit to a drug test. You say "okay, I'll take your drug test" defiantly. "Marijuana's legal in CA anyways!" Unfortunately for you though, ABC Warehouse has a strict policy about drugs. A positive test for drugs means your fired. You don't even have to be under the influence while at work or on company premises. If it's in your system, you're fired! So is this private employer now infringing on your rights as a citizen of the state of CA? If so, what to do? What if you work Nevada instead?
ReplyDeleteHas CA now underminded employment law in different states?
And by the way, this is a pretty big threat: no more than the person getting behind the wheel that has been drinking.
"Has CA now underminded employment law in different states?"
ReplyDeleteNot in my opinion, because you as an employee know the rules at your employer. If you choose to partake in mind altering substances (including alcohol) then go to work, you are responsible for the outcome. That's a principle tenet that I think Viper is supporting here - personal responsibility and accountability.
And my opinion regarding gang/criminal organization violence is that the legalization would reduce if not eliminate this issue for those drugs legalized. I could be wrong, but if our results trend at all like Denmark and other countries that have done this that would be a likely outcome.
I actually am on the same page as viper on this subject. The war on drugs has not worked and is spending a fortune at the same time. Legalize it, tax it and hold its users accountable. That would not only generate new tax revenues, but also remove the drag that drug enforcement has become on many community police departments.
Pot for example can be detected 30 days or so later. What if I used it last week and was not under the influence of it when the incident happened?
ReplyDeleteSo you think the major drug cartels from South America and Mexico would just stop trying to sell their product illegally? That they would now be willing to pay taxes on it or just give up their, let's call distribution network, just like that?
One last thing, let's say they even do lose the market on pot, wouldn't they push even harder to force competition out for other drugs in order to make up that profit? Or are you calling for the legalization of all drugs?
ReplyDelete"What if I used it last week and was not under the influence of it when the incident happened?"
ReplyDeleteAgain, personal accountability. If you know it lingers for 30 days, and you know you'll be fired, you have a choice. Use drugs, and risk firing. Don't use drugs and not risk it. Either way, the choice is yours. It's not governments responsibility to protect you from yourself. The onus for that lies on you.
"So you think the major drug cartels from South America and Mexico would just stop trying to sell their product illegally?"
That is precisely what happened in Denmark and elsewhere.
As a consumer, if you have the choice of buying from a source that is guaranteed to be safe AND doesn't carry the risk of prison vs. buying from a gang member on a street corner you are saying you'd choose the latter?
I'm not against total legalization. Again, you as a citizen have the choice in life. It's up to you to choose well. It is NOT governments responsibility to be your parent. These drugs were legal and available up until the 1920's, how did we survive that if it's such a bane on society?
Educate people as to the risks, but let them make the choice and hold them accountable for their choices. Make DUI a felony and revoke licenses for life if convicted. (like much of Europe with drinking and driving) And use tax proceeds to fund rehab clinics. Remove the prison population of users/peddlers and the crime associated.
It seems pretty common sense. Obviously 30+ years of the war on drugs proves it doesn't work.
Clark - For the record - those that I know partake in recreational use obtain if from self-made sources or sources that are confinded in the lower 48. There is no gang or unsavory character; rather the sources are products of the 60's and 70's Flower Child movement.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - As Truman points out that one, in most cases, cannot show up drunk or intoxicated to work. That same forklift driver that you ponder upon having smoked a few hits the night before is already full aware of the drinking the night before can have on his/her job - accident or no accident. One state making it illegal will not impact employment law as many would like us to believe. Yes, marijuana does stay in the system longer but there are hair test to determine last use and how much. Plus, as a employee you give up certain rights on conditional of employment as your actions can affect the safety and performance of others and/or the company.
And you take my comment out of context in regards to getting behind the wheel.
Will it stop major drug cartels from muscling in on the legal action; no. Just as ending prohibition didn't stop the illegal booze trade. One can still purchase illegal booze, i.e. Moonshine, or untaxed cigarettes if you know the right people. Legalizing it will, as proponents argue, allow the government of California to tax, enforce and regulate the potentancy as is done with alcohol and cigarettes. Now, do we open the legalization to all drugs; no. While I do not believe in addiction and feel its an excuse one makes for lack of a constitution, I will concede that some drugs can alter a person so dramatically that one forgets who, what or where they are. Those are the types of drugs - and some are prescription mind you - that should not be allowed free reign on the streets of America.
"While I do not believe in addiction and feel its an excuse one makes for lack of a constitution," Well, I know you are wrong for thinking this. Addiction is very, very real. Science and doctors and the ADA all agree on that. The brain of an addict is fundamentally different. I dare you to try meth and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteNot only do those experts think so, I've seen it first hand. I've seen enough people detox from heroin and prescription drugs, people with the shakes in the morning, people who have destroyed their lives, stolen from family, engaged in sexual activity for their next fix.
Addiction is alive and real and don't believe me believe the science that shows. Go to an open NA or AA speaker meeting and listen to the hell that those people went through and tell me it's a lack of constitution.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about on that. I don't care what you respond back with, you are just plain wrong. Think what you want, but you are wrong
Oh, and have you ever blacked out? The forgetting who you are, where you are, what you did, that happens with booze, too. I know people who have had to use water towers to figure what city they are in. So if that is your standard, booze should be illegal.
"Not to say that is a reason to legalize it but those that I know that use marijuana are not a threat to society no more than the person getting behind the wheel that has been drinking" How were you taken out of conetxt? Those that drink and drive are a threat. Whether it's one drink or ten, your ability to drive is diminished. How much pot is acceptable to drive? The only difference is that we have an acceptable level of being diminished. Even one drink impacts your reaction time.
ReplyDeleteTruman, If I were an addict or heavy user, I go with what ever is cheapest and easiest to get. My guess is the cartel would ensure the price is lower in heavy traffic places. They probably don't care what happens in Beverly Hills, but would in South Central. And if they are willing to kill cops in Mexico, I bet they would rough up a few people and stop them from opening a store. Assuming someone would open up a drug store in an area with violence and high drug use already.
ReplyDeleteI see drug cartel activity getting worse so they can recapture lost profit from the lack of sales.
As far as Denmark, you are comparing 5 million people to 35 million in a state with a history of drugs and violence and a major import location for the rest of the country. I'm not sure it's a fair comparison, but I don't know.
I don't see gangs and dealers just letting the business go peacefully Or the government offer the same potency of drugs that will be sought out.
Truman, did you argue in the Arizona immigration discussion that it is the federal government's role to enforce immigration and protect the borders? Couldn't the same logic apply here?
ReplyDeleteI think we can agree that some drugs come up illegally through the border and brought by some here illegally. Part of securing our borders is eliminating this traffic. Wouldn't have a different standard for illegal drugs in CA make the federal job more difficult? Isn't part of stopping illegal immigration stopping drug traffickers?
Viper stated: "While I do not believe in addiction and feel its an excuse one makes for lack of a constitution...".
ReplyDeleteIt's this type of comment that proves your idiocy Viper. I'm glad you have this belief, but it's akin to me saying that "I believe the earth is flat" or that "I believe the earth is the center of the universe". It's just plain wrong.
And it's not the contrarian position either. There was no need for you to make the statement. So don't hide behind the "I'm just playing devil's advocate" excuse. That's not it.
The comment above just shows me that you are willfully ignorant on this topic and so many others. You'll believe what you want to believe in spite of whatever facts, truths or scientific evidence exists to the contrary, is easily accessible and well established. Why? Because your own reality, in which you are right and others are wrong, is the only reality that you are willing to accept. That's the easy thing for you to do. You'll argue until the Raiders win the Super Bowl that you're right even though you know, I know and everyone else knows you're wrong.
Viper, what will you say to one of your children if they come to you years from now and ask for your guidance and help in beating their addiction to cocaine, crack, meth, alcohol, painkillers, etc.? Will you tell them they're just weak? That they don't have the necessary fortitude to beat this supposed addiction? That it's all in their head? Will you tell them to stop complaining and have the guts to just stop using?
ReplyDeleteViper's a Moron, always happy to see my fans return to comment on the blog site. I do recognize that years of drinking, smoking, and drug use takes a toll on the body and mind. Plus, the science that is behind it.
ReplyDeleteI also recognize that the mapping and powers of the brain are not fully understood as does the medical/scientific community. Our brains are capable of so much and with that come the ability to breakdown the "addiction" factor. It's not a matter of I am right and the rest of the world is wrong. Everyone has a different ability to access the powers of the brain as is evident by the fact that not every one of us is Stephen Hawking but at the same time not every one of us is strung out on drugs.
Ahh...I recall the name of the book. Spiritual Intelligence. Inside the book it discusses the chemical reactions that take place and that through meditation and other techniques one can "control" these reactions to the point of strengthening the mind to achieve many things. Now, the books angle is more on lifting the intelligence quotient of the spiritual aspect of things but it applicable to so much more.
Addiction has nothing to do with will power. The brain of an addict is wired differently. You don't know what you are talking about. Spend less time playing Mafia Wars and actually research your outlandish claims.
ReplyDeleteFor a starting point, check out the video The Highjacked Brain.
Clark - My children and I, along with my wife, talk about the potential pitfalls of illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs routinely. I have a book, which I will get the title of when I get back to the homestead, which talks about the mind and its untapped powers to fight the cravings or urges the body encounters.
ReplyDeleteThe kids understand that abusing or even using the list of items you stated can lead to bad consequences. I think Anon asked if I ever tried Meth - no I have not nor do I have the desire to either. My lack of desire is not out of fear of "addiction" rather it has to with knowing what goes into making the product. I figure if I am not willing to digest the individual ingredients then why I would want to digest the final product.
My hope with my kids is that they inherit the same Constitution that I inherited from my father but if they don't I will assist them in any manner to strengthen their mind and subsequent Constitution.
Can ones mind and constitution cure them of cancer? How about diabeties? The common cold?
ReplyDelete"Truman, If I were an addict or heavy user, I go with what ever is cheapest and easiest to get. My guess is the cartel would ensure the price is lower in heavy traffic places."
ReplyDeleteWhile this is possible, empirical evidence from countries that have enacted this type of policy shows results to the contrary. Why would we expect a different result than they saw in this country? I'm not saying it couldn't happen but what would cause that to happen? If you cannot come up with an answer, then it's likely that we'd see the same result. That's because it's the logical conclusion.
"Truman, did you argue in the Arizona immigration discussion that it is the federal government's role to enforce immigration and protect the borders? Couldn't the same logic apply here?"
I probably did, because immigration as part of foreign policy is clearly codified in the constitution as a Federal power. Since this is not a foreign policy issue, it is not an apple to apple comparison.
Again, I'm not arguing that it's not necessarily a federal power but given that it is not clearly stated, it must be implied. And the constitution states that all rights not directly attributed to the federal government are the jurisdiction of the state. Wouldn't this fall into that since it wasn't clearly laid out as a federal power?
Therefore, if it's not written in the constitution, how would you justify stripping away these rights from the states? Or a better way of saying that, how would you justify Federal jurisdiction?
And as to the discussion Viper is having, I see addiction less as a weakness of "constitution" as much as a weakness of character. Not because they can't kick the habit once they begin, but because they began in the first place.
As I stated prior, life is about choices and those choices shape your character. Choosing to relinquish your mental faculties in order to enjoy a temporary high to me smacks of a distinct lack of character because someone with character wouldn't choose that choice in the first place.
"Choosing to relinquish your mental faculties in order to enjoy a temporary high to me smacks of a distinct lack of character because someone with character wouldn't choose that choice in the first place. " So you don't drink, I can assume?
ReplyDelete"So you don't drink, I can assume?"
ReplyDeleteHaving a beer and getting drunk are not the same thing. With alcohol you can control intake to maintain control of your faculties. That's not true of other drugs which is why your comparison is apple to orange.
But generally speaking, no I don't.
But the brain of an alcoholic is not wired to maintain that control. The urge impulse takes over and does not run through the same decision process that a normal drinker does. That is the addiction and has been shown with mappings of the brain. The only way to stop it is not to take a drink to begin with. However, the physical and mental cravings don't allow this to happen without help.
ReplyDeleteWhile you may be able to control what and how much you drink, the alcholic is not.
"But the brain of an alcoholic is not wired to maintain that control."
ReplyDeleteThen how can alcoholics quit drinking? By this very logic they would never be able to quit, because the wiring of the brain would override the ability to choose and force them to drink.
No, this is an excuse to avoid responsibility for making a poor choice. The urges exist, but in the end, it's always the persons choice. Otherwise, people wouldn't have ever quit.
"However, the physical and mental cravings don't allow this to happen without help."
So you are saying that no one has ever quit drinking, smoking or anything else without professional help? I call BS.
"While you may be able to control what and how much you drink, the alcholic (sic) is not."
Again, because they choose to let their cravings drive their choices. I'm not saying that they don't have strong desires to drink, I'm saying that in the end, they still choose to drink. They could always choose not to drink.
And that's the issue, in the end it's all about choice. Government has no place telling people what they can or cannot do as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. The founding fathers never intended the government to be a "nanny state" acting as your mommy.
This is the fundamental difference between Viper, myself and some of the rest of you. You feel that it is the governments responsibility to legislate behavior and control, we do not. While I don't always agree with Viper, on this point I'm in total agreement.
Exercise your personal choice and stop asking the government to do so for you.
They don't take the first drink. It's after that drink that they can't stop. And for the record, most do not unfortunatley.
ReplyDelete"So you are saying that no one has ever quit drinking, smoking or anything else without professional help? I call BS.
"
I didn't say that at all. Stopping drinking does not mean one is not an addict. It means they are treating their disease. It's a chronic and progressive disease. One can stop for 25 years but they are still an addict. No one is cured of alcholism. They are in recovery. Just like a diabetic can manage their disease through insulin, but they are still diabetic.
I'm not asking the government to do anything. I'm merely trying to make clear that addiction is real, it's a disease, that there is medical and scientific evidence to support that.
"They don't take the first drink. It's after that drink that they can't stop."
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying personal choice has nothing to do with whether or not they drink? Then how do any of them ever quit? After all, they have no free will.
And I'm not arguing that addiction doesn't exist, I have very real, very firsthand experience with the ravages it can cause. However, in the end, it's always their choice. To claim that they had no choice but to satisfy their addiction abdicates their responsibility for the devastation they leave in their wake.
And I refuse to accept that they are mindless zombies incapable of making a conscious decision. They make the choice, it's just that it's a very selfish, very self destructive choice.
And that is the lack of character that I speak of.
I'm not saying that all. There is always personal choice to take the first drink and the responsibility is on the person. However, the way the brain chemistry is altred and the impulses that are created, it's not quite as simple as you seem to think.
ReplyDeleteWould you say George W. Bush lacks character? Betty Ford? I'd ask on Glen Beck, but that is always debatable.
The disease wants you to destroy yourself. Unless you've lived with it, I don't think you can understand. Even witnessing it first hand in others is not the same.
If you actually care about understanding what happens in the brain I would check out The Highjacked Brain.
And Viper did argue that addiction does not exist. My only purpose was to make him understand it's a real disease.
"...it's not quite as simple as you seem to think."
ReplyDeleteYes it is. Choice is always simple. Yes or no. This or that. The choice is yours. The urges that drive them to choose one side may be complex, but that choice itself is simple. The consequences are what are hard. And that is why people look for scapegoats for their poor choices, such as genetics, etc. It's crap. A lack of character that would have driven them to the right choice allowed them to make the wrong choice. Don't cry about it afterward as if it isn't their fault.
"The disease wants you to destroy yourself."
No, THEY want to destroy THEMSELVES. The disease is just the means. As I said, it's a selfish, self-destructive person who does this. The disease is not a living breathing thing, it is the person who wants this.
"Unless you've lived with it, I don't think you can understand. Even witnessing it first hand in others is not the same."
I don't need to experience a gunshot to know that I'm not going to choose to do that to myself. This idea that one can't comprehend it without experience implies that only drug addicts can treat addicts. That's BS.
"Would you say George W. Bush lacks character?"
YES!
Betty Ford?
YES!
"I'd ask on Glen Beck, but that is always debatable."
EMPHATICALLY YES on numerous grounds.
The choices they made were selfish and that shows a lack of character. The fact that they may have remedied those acts later in life does not remove the act itself, only attempts to make up for it.
Truman, two questions. Do people with a predisposition towards addiction always know that they possess that predisposition? Who, in their right mind, uses a substance (i.e. alcohol) for the first time with the express purpose of becoming an addict (in this case alcoholic) in mind?
ReplyDelete"Do people with a predisposition towards addiction always know that they possess that predisposition?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know all the laws, but I have enough common sense to know that doing something that seems "wrong" will probably get me in trouble. And I make a conscious choice not to do those things. That is no different than the choice to use or not use drugs. I don't know if I have a predisposition, but I know that the outcome probably won't be good. So I choose not to do them in the first place. If you make the other choice, you still made a choice - regardless of predisposition.
Therefore, the responsibility is still yours. Quit trying to abdicate them of that responsibility.
"Who, in their right mind, uses a substance (i.e. alcohol) for the first time with the express purpose of becoming an addict (in this case alcoholic) in mind?"
You are mistaking cause and effect. Addiction is the symptom, not the cause. The drug is the cause. You can't get addicted if you don't use the drug, predisposition or no. Therefore, the point at which you make your choice to use the drug is the cause, and the effect is addiction. And since the cause is where the culpability lies, the onus of responsibility is on the person making the choice.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't legislate away stupidity. But you can hold people accountable for being stupid. But it seems like you and Anon want to excuse them of that responsibility because the drug itself is addictive.
Again, addiction is a disease of choice. You can't catch addiction like a cold. It isn't transmitted sexually. It is a disease people must make a conscious choice to contract. Therefore, the consequences are their own, not societies.
"Again, addiction is a disease of choice. You can't catch addiction like a cold. It isn't transmitted sexually. It is a disease people must make a conscious choice to contract."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a disease of choice. An addicts brain is different. They don't choose for it to be different. Two people can drink the same amount of booze for the same length of time and one becomes addicted and the other doesn't. It's no more a choice than having cancer is.
Now, what one does about that addiction and if one continues to use is a choice. But once you are an addicted, you are always an addict. You just might not be using.
Truman, to be clear, my comments and questions on this topic should not be taken as veiled support for legislation on addiction. While the original post from Viper was focused on legislation, I am not advocating for that in the least. Nor am I attempting to completely absolve addicts of any kind of their own personal responsibility for their choices and actions.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you answered my questions through the lens of an illegal drug. My questions used the example of alcohol, a legal drug. To move further away from drugs (legal or not), what about sex? Gambling? The first is legal and the second may be legal depending upon where you are.
Your comments gave me the distinct impression that you believe that people: (1) know whether they have a predisposition to addiction (of any or a certain type); and (2) undertake the subject activity with the express purpose of becoming an addict.
"You are mistaking cause and effect. Addiction is the symptom, not the cause. The drug is the cause." Does the ADA typically cover symptoms?
ReplyDelete@Anon,
ReplyDelete"No, it's not a disease of choice. An addicts brain is different. They don't choose for it to be different."
BUT THEY CHOOSE TO USE IN THE FIRST PLACE. NOTHING MAKES THEM USE THE DRUG THE 1ST TIME EXCEPT THAT CHOICE.
I don't know how much more clear I can make it. The choice is always theirs, regardless of predisposition.
"Two people can drink the same amount of booze for the same length of time and one becomes addicted and the other doesn't."
However, they both CHOSE to drink. That is their choice. They can always choose not to drink.
"It's no more a choice than having cancer is."
So someone smokes for 50 years and develops lung cancer never made a choice? Really? Do you have any concept of personal accountability in your life or do you muddle through it without making any choices or being responsible for anything.
"But once you are an addicted, you are always an addict."
Again, effect, not cause. The cause was the choice to use. The effect was addiction. If you don't make the CHOICE to use, you can't have the effect.
@Clark
"To move further away from drugs (legal or not), what about sex? Gambling? The first is legal and the second may be legal depending upon where you are."
And neither are addictions, they are compulsions. The difference is distinct. Or are you and Anon going to argue that gambling/sex changes your neurophysiology like drugs do?
I don't buy it. Drug and gambling addiction are products of an industry (psychology/psychiatry) that needs to find causation for a problem so they can treat said problem. However, the cause of these problems is not addiction, it is poor choices. A man who sleeps with 100's of women and gambles isn't addicted. He simply likes sin. Why does that need treatment except that our puritanical society thinks both of those things are bad.
I would ask how they are bad since his sex and gambling hurts no one but himself if he falls into debt or contracts a disease.
"Drug and gambling addiction are products of an industry (psychology/psychiatry) that needs to find causation for a problem so they can treat said problem." Actually, these are as much addictions as anything else. The same responses in the brain are created as other addictions.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion and personal experience, the choice is not the same. While the initial choice to use always exists, the choice to stop further down the road does not. An alcoholic doesn't set out to be an alcoholic. Yes, they have the same initial choice to drink but at some point the chemistry in the brain is altered and that choice is not the same as a normal drinker. However, the drinker doesn't realize it until that point is crossed. The choice not to drink is not the same as you choicing not to have a drink. And if you don't want to believe me and my experience then please check out the previously mentioned video to learn about the science behind addiction.
Addiction causes the physical and mental cravings and desire to drink. The effect is to take the drink and the addiction is the cause.
And you will respond back that the lack of choice is an easy way out and I'm trying not to place responsiblity. And I'll say that unless you've been there, and I hope you never are, you don't understand that the choice is as easy as you believe.
"I would ask how they are bad since his sex and gambling hurts no one but himself if he falls into debt or contracts a disease." Sex addiction doesn't hurt others? It doesn't tear families apart? Ask Tiger Woods wife about that one. Or how about the spreading of disease to others? Or how about the gambling addict that takes the grocery money to place a bet while their kids go hungry or the rent isn't paid? Or who robs a store or steals a car to support their addiction. If those are victimless acts, so is addiction since the only body harm is that of the addict.
Whatever. We won't agree. I know what my personal experience is. You can say I lack character, fine. I don't really care because I don't see that way.
What was the bad choice a six year old with Leukemia made? Or the millions of women with breast cancer?
ReplyDelete"What was the bad choice a six year old with Leukemia made? Or the millions of women with breast cancer?"
ReplyDeleteI wasn't the one who drew the correlation to cancer, you were. You took an absolutist stance that cancer is NOT a choice. I pointed out that there are cases where it definitely is. However, I never claimed that all cancer was a disease of choice so don't try to put those words in my mouth.
"You can say I lack character, fine."
ReplyDeleteMy friend, we all lack character, it just how far down that road do we all choose to go. It's always a choice though.
And to end this civily, since I typically like what you say since you typically support your arguments with fact, but don't always agree with it, I only ask that you be willing to the think that the choice is not as easy as you seem to think. I can say that based on personal experience.
ReplyDeleteActive Addiction makes people do things they otherwise wouldn't do even when they know their actions are wrong.
Now, once an addict is sober, then the choice is purely theirs.
You don't have to agree but at least being willing to keep an open mind on it. That's all I can ever ask of anyone in a debate. And that willingness and openeness to thinking one might not be right I think could be used more here. Especially by the host.
And for the record, but not to endorse anything, taking personal responsibility of ones past actions and current actions is the cornerstone of most 12 step programs.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a society that people are taking less and less accountability for their actions. If personal responsibilty is part of a 12 step program then why can one not partake in the "addiction" going forward?
ReplyDeleteIf the brain is saying "I need more alcohol" then later expels the alcohol, isn't the brain saying I don't need anymore? Thus stopping the "addiction"?
I agree with Viper on the point that people use the term "addiction" as a crutch. We all have will power and to the degree we apply it dictates the extent to which one partakes in risky behavior or any behavior for that matter. Weak minded people will partake to excess more often then strong minded people. One can train the mind to be strong; instead most people hide behind addiction to justify the lack of will and accountability.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between a habit and addiction. People use claim their habit is an addiction when the habit is not part of society's norm.
Raise your hand if you watched "The Hijacked Brain" video!
ReplyDeleteAnyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Viper? Viper?
Viper, who said they can't partake in the addiction? They can and the results will continue to be destruction. Who with a clear head would choose that?
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't stop being an addict. They just don't use. There is no cure of the disease.
Anon, so you can only believe that science, medicine, and decades of experience that shows will power is not the issue and that addiction is a disease of the brain are wrong.
There is a great difference between a habit and addiction.
You two can feel free to believe what you like. Just know that medicine and science says otherwise. Your belief shows an incredible lack of knowledge on the subject and can only show that you know more than those that have spent a career studying addiction. I guess I'll side on facts.
@Anon,
ReplyDelete"I only ask that you be willing to the think that the choice is not as easy as you seem to think. I can say that based on personal experience."
I have no doubt that the addiction is difficult to kick once you are at that point, it's obviously a difficult and painful road. I don't envy those who have to walk it.
However, you say that the choice isn't easy, and once addicted I can agree with you. But the point I've been trying to make is that at some point along that road, all addicts made a choice to become addicts in the first place (whether they know it or not) by making the conscious choice to use that first time.
That is the easiest choice to make, and the one I want them accountable for. That the could have said "no" and didn't is where their culpability lies. I only ask that they own that role in the decision making process and know that all decisions that followed, however compelled by drugs were the effect of that first choice which was the cause.
@Viper
"If the brain is saying "I need more alcohol" then later expels the alcohol, isn't the brain saying I don't need anymore? Thus stopping the "addiction"?"
The brain is far more complex than this. I'll point out. Typically the process of addiction is linked to endorphin release or some other chemical reward process within the brain that is being abnormally triggered. Typically the more reward processes activated the more powerful the addiction.
I won't deny that the process of addiction, once triggered is real and powerful. However, I won't admit that the addict never had a choice to become an addict in the first place. We all have that choice, we aren't born addicts. We choose to be through our decisions to use or not use.
That initial choice triggers the addiction. But that initial choice is still a choice, it is not predetermined.
Truman - I agree that the brain is complex which is why I believe that it is very possible to train the brain and assert ones will power to beat any "addiction". That training and power of the brain is why I argue that "addiction" is an excuse to a habit and has lead to a cottage industry to solve the excuse instead of training the brain to use it's complex and untapped power.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct it's a choice that one makes and I don't believe that one has to "walk in ones shoes" to understand the issue; to experience it one does though.
Like I've said, feel free to believe what you like but science has shown the addict brain is permanently different. And 70 years of 12 step experience has shown the best way to recovery has nothing to do with will power.
ReplyDeleteI guess your belief trumps science and experience, though.
Viper, how exactly did you arrive at your conclusion that "addiction is simply an excuse to a habit" and nothing more?
ReplyDelete"I guess your belief trumps science and experience, though."
ReplyDeleteLet me be clear, I believe that once addiction sets in, the disease is very real. My point is that no one is born addicted, they make a choice to become so. They may make that choice rashly or without thought to the consequences, but that doesn't abdicate them of the choice.
In no way do I discount the science of addiction in drug addicts once the addiction has set in.
Clark - I did my own scientific experiment with friends of mine that smoke. The challenge was to go two weeks without smoking before getting to work and let know what happens. To a T, they all drove at least six days to work without the radio on. A few of them have over 40 minute commutes too. I asked them why that happened. They were not sure. Then I asked them to describe to me their typical morning before work.
ReplyDeleteThere was one step they all had in common. After starting the car and before turning on the radio they light the cigarette. Based on that and from my other experiences I have concluded that addictions are habits and strong willed people can break habits.
That is not sufficient. Addiction is two fold both the physical and mental craving. They might not have physically hadit but were they still craving it? Were they thinking about it? They also only had to go a limited time without. They new they would be rewarded later. So if an alcoholic usually drinks in the morning but waits until noon is it no longer an addiction? Your test proves nothing, hate to tell you.
ReplyDeleteYour conclusion flies in the face of science. I have never seen the curveture of the earth with my own eye. I look and it's flat. Therefore, I conclude the earth is flat.
Why do you insist on not accepting fact? So the medical profession, science, and the government are all wrong? That's the only thing that can happen if you are right.
What don't you educate yourself: http://www.hbo.com/addiction/
12 step programs have always proven to be the most succesful way in dealing addiction. A key component is accepting you don't have power over your addiction. Meaning you alone don't have the will power to stop. Because will power isn't the issue.
Truman, that was directed at Viper who seems to not accept the science, not you.
ReplyDeleteViper
ReplyDelete2 things:
1) tobacco is not nearly as addictive as Heroin, meth or cocaine. All three of those trigger multiple response centers in the brain. For example, meth hits 2 components of the brain. It spikes dopamine higher than any other chemical known and it slows the natural ability to remove dopamine (reuptake). Once addiction has set in, it is nearly impossible for a normal person to quit Meth without intervention and treatment. And even then, relapse is >90%.
The physical response to withdrawl of the drug is proof positive that addiction is a physical disease. Seizures, vomiting, irregular heartbeat, insomnia, depression, hyperventilation....the list goes on and on. It's hard to call the problem a "compulsion" when there are physical responses to it. It is these physical responses that, IMO, differentiate drug/alcohol addiction from those of gambling, etc. Those "lesser" addictions do not trigger debilitating physical responses to the removal of the stimulus. The most typical response in those cases is "craving" from what I've read which I interpret to mean "desire". That's a mental response, not physical.
2) Your sample for your "study" was likely less than 10 people. That is neither statistically significant enough to draw a conclusion that was within a reasonable confidence level (>95%). Nor would the size of that "study" give you a sample size capable of negating the "false positive" possibility common in small sample sets.
And even if you could draw a conclusion from your "study" it would be correlative and not necessarily causative. Correlation does not equal causation.
Truman - Are we arguing the fact that "addiction" exists or the degree of seperation of "addiction". Studies have indicated that if your parents and their parents displayed signs of "addiction" that you are prone to become one. If that were the case, then why am I unable to develop an "addiction". Before anyone says, "try meth" let's be realistic about the vice chosen for the "addiction".
ReplyDeleteDo I get urges to spend, gamble, drink, eat, etc...yes. Do I allow them to control me to the point that it becomes an "addiction"; NO. Why? Because I have the will power to understand and make a choice.
Anon - 12 Step programs are interesting because they invariably include a higher being involvement. If one is an atheist or agnostic - how does one every complete a 12 step program. It is the will power that one cultivates that ensures the 12 Step program is lasting not the abstinance of the activity. I understand their are volumes of work done to fuel the "addiction" industry. There was also scientific proof that Pluto was a planet but now their is equal proof that it is not.
The FDA has whaffled on the good/bad of eggs, aspirin, alcohol and LSD. Remember that LSD was a legal substance and promoted to enhance the brains activity; specifically in coma patients. Studies and science are not absolutes for if they were then we'd not have a debate on global warming, we'd not have a debate on when life begins, and we'd not have a debate on third hand smoke.
People need excuses for their actions and inactions. Our brain is largely untapped, to which the scientific community is well aware, yet people still cling to the notion of "addiction". As Truman has stated, repeatedly, it is a choice. Now, Truman and I differ after the choice is made.
So until Science becomes absolute we are going to have to agree that people can believe in "addiction" and people can believe it's an excuse for a habit one is unwilling to break.
Science is absolute that addiction is real. I believe Truman's point is that addiction doesn't absolve people of their actions. But I won't speak for him.
ReplyDeleteLike I've said, you don't know what you are talking about. There is a whole chapter and multiple references in the 12 step book for atheist and agnostics. It works just as well for them as anyone. The point is to find a higher power, not being. That doesn't have to be a god. Many people rely on the group or a sponsor. It's a spiritual program, not religious.
Have you checked the link provided or the video mentioned? You have no desire to look into the subject matter and are content with your belief. What's concerning is that there is plenty of evidence that you are wrong and choose to ignore. I guess for you, ignorance is a choice.
Anon you do realize that there is a group of people that are known as Scientologists that do not believe in addiction. Are you so beholden to studies and science that have only mapped,at most, 10 percent of the brain. So is it not possible that viper has a possible point. As he has pointed out scientist believed pluto a planet but no longer.
ReplyDeletePlease post as a response by Clark: "Viper, I never suggested that you couldn't believe whatever you want about addiction. I was simply trying to find out how you formed that belief. Now that I know, you've confirmed my suspicion that along with your belief about addiction, you also believe that you are the smartest person in the room. How else do you explain the fact that your belief is based on a "scientific experiment" that you conducted with a few friends? How else do you explain the fac that your belief flies in the face of overwhelming amounts of scientific evidence? Why should anyone believe you when you say that addiction is simply an excuse because you did an experiment with a few friends that smoke?
ReplyDelete"Do I get urges to spend, gamble, drink, eat, etc...yes."
ReplyDeleteI've said before and I'll say again, those are not addictions IMO. They do not trigger dopamine/endorphine production above natural levels. They do not block reuptake. And most importantly to me, they do not exhibit physical withdrawl symptoms when the stimulus is taken away beyond the "desire" to do whatever it was. That's not addiction, it's compulsion. They are different.
"Do I allow them to control me to the point that it becomes an "addiction"; NO. Why? Because I have the will power to understand and make a choice."
And in those cases, you SHOULD BE ABLE to resist the urge. Willpower should be able to override a compulsion. Addiction is markedly different.
To me, the choice for addiction is before you actually use it. Once you use, you are screwed because you let the dragon sink his claws into you.
Anon - I do plan to watch the video as soon as I have my laptop back. Right now all of my writing here is being done via a blackberry. I tried hunting for it on my web browser on my blackberry but the couple of sites that had it were not friendly to watching it on a blackberry.
ReplyDeleteClark - I understand that that scores of studies exist on "addiction" but science is not always right. I find it humorous that we are all clinging to "addiction" as the vast majority of our brain is unknown to what powers it has. I don't claim to have access to them but I do know that through my own experiences and use of meditation I have been able to increase the strength of my will power even when partaking in "addictive" activities.
Also, I am not saying my findings are conclusive evidence that it's a habit vs. an addiction either. I am simply stating what the results of my experiment was. Now, have similar experiments been tried on a larger scale? I don't know. We are creatures of habits and part of those habits is drinking to excess, taking drugs to excess, or partaking in any activity to excess because he have made it a habit of doing so.
ReplyDelete"I don't claim to have access to them but I do know that through my own experiences and use of meditation I have been able to increase the strength of my will power even when partaking in "addictive" activities."
ReplyDeleteAgain, the activities you lay out are not addictive. They do not affect the neuro-processes that I noted above. At no point does gambling block dopamine reuptake. At no point does eating trigger 5x the normal endorphine production.
If they did, you could become addicted. Because they don't, you can't and it's a compulsion and compulsions can be beaten with willpower. Addictions rarely can.
That's why people shouldn't start in the first place and why I hold them accountable if they choose to do so.
Viper, you are missing a huge aspect of addiction. It's a disease of the brain. Not everyone's brain is the wired the same. Just because you don't become addicted doesn't mean addiction isn't real. To be honest, you would be lucky. Now, some people develop addiction through continued use. Which is their choice. But that still doesn't change that they are addicted. Two people can use the same amount for the same length of time and one becomes addicted and the other doesn't. It's not will power, it's the rewiring of the brain.
ReplyDeleteFor one a habit stays a habit for the other it turns into something far worse.
Viper, I have to admit, part of what you are saying makes sense to me. You believe that if you can tap the under-utilized resources within the brain, you could beat addiction, and it's entirely possible you can. I don't discount that. But most people can't once addicted for one simple reason - making the decision to go down the path you discuss means making rational and logical decisions consciously. Addicts don't have that ability anymore due to their altered state of mind.
ReplyDeleteTo say that they can do this, is to say that an epileptic should be able to use willpower to override the chemical triggers for a seizure. This is the same as addiction because both epilepsy and addiction involve altered brain structure/chemistry. If you can defeat one with willpower, then it stands to reason that you can do so for another doesn't it?
Why should anyone attempt to enter into an open and honest discussion and/or debate with a person who refuses to acknowledge scientific fact? If you are unwilling to accept scientific facts and choose to substitute your own personal experiment for gospel on this topic, then how could anyone ever expect you to accept a view that differs from your own on any number of topics, like Constitutional Law, the history of the U.S., economics, finance or foreign affairs?
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm asking is, what's the point of this blog?
Anonymous - just because I don't agree with your point and your unwillingness to recognize that scientific facts are not gospel in themselves either poses the same question to you about entering into an open and honest discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe mind is a very powerful tool and the scientific community will admit that they do not understand it all either. How else does someone that is on their death bed suddenly recover? I have and do acknowledge the current scientific belief but that does not mean we do not continue to challenge it.
As I did earlier with my short list of items that scientists have wavered on, are you to say they are definitive here? I have a number of the boxes checked that scientists and psychologist require to label someone with an addictive personality but I don't have one. Why? I'd like to think it's because of my meditation and strengthening of my will power.
Truman - as for seizures, I am not sure will power can heal that divide since, as I understand it, is a sever of neurons in the brain and misfiring or non-firing synapses. Now the body does have some tremendous healing powers and perhaps someday people will find a way. With your comparison to an epileptic you come very close to making the pre-determined wiring of the brain toward addiction.
Anon - Also, the purpose of the blog is to create discussion on the topics that face us today or observations I experience. I do welcome others, if they want to, to put their original blog entries here to spark debate.
ReplyDeleteCivil discourse is what is badly needed in America today while the ruling class continues to run their Ponzi Schemes. We will not always agree but we will be respectful of each others thoughts, comments and stance on the topic with hope that we can find middle ground. To find that middle ground is not easy as each of us have our ideals. Let's think beyond ourselves here and come up with real solutions and vigorous debate.
BTW....it is not as cut and dry as many are making it out here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.drug-addiction-support.org/Drug-addiction-Choice.html
It appears the debate is still open and not as conclusive as some may think. If we are really creatures of evolution then, I ask, why cannot one develop the internal strength to combat "addiction"?
Viper,
ReplyDeleteSeizures, at least most of them, are caused by hyperactive neurons that "misfire" as you say and cause involuntary responses within the body.
Addiction is caused by hyperactive neurons that "misfire" when triggered by a chemical stimulus. This "misfire" causes the high. However, the chemicals that cause this high (dopamine, endorphine, etc) typically are limited in their quantity of production which means that the cells shut down after this burst of production. This causes the subsequent low and desire to repeat that process. (It's also why neurological damage is common as neurons burn out)
How can you say that in scenario #1, they have no control via willpower yet in scenario #2 they do? I'm not talking about prior to their first use, I'm talking about once they're in full blown addiction.
The neurological triggers for epilepsy and addiction may be different, by the neurochemical actions are actually very similar. The difference is where in the brain they occur. One is in the motor reflex portion and one is in reward center.
Will power alone should be able to control both if that's the case.
PS - I'm in no way saying that willpower isn't important, but it is not enough in and of itself.
Same would have to be true of MS then.
ReplyDeleteTruman - where I'd differ on your assertion is that, typically, people that have seizures "Afterwards, the person does not remember the episode" http://www.everydayhealth.com/health-center/seizures.aspx
ReplyDeleteSo the willpower to fight the need for stimulant is not the same as one that is prone to seizures. Typically seizures are not from burnout but a result of traumatic event in ones system.
Viper, I think you've proven to me that you are a master of Google searches and Wikipedia research. It's like you're Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jimmy Wales and Kim Peek all rolled into one.
ReplyDelete"Truman - where I'd differ on your assertion is that, typically, people that have seizures "Afterwards, the person does not remember the episode"
ReplyDeleteI know plenty of drug/alcohol addicts that would say the same thing. Blackouts are a VERY common occurance for people suffering from neurological disorders.
Founding Fathers - For starters, I have never do and do not use Wikipedia - not even as a jump off point. Now, since I do not have New England Medical Journal or Psychology Today in my home Google is a great way to get many sources on any topic. I do perform multiple searches on several sites to vet my information. I hope it will be okay for me to do a Google search on those people you just listed.
ReplyDeleteTruman - one does not have to be and addict to have a blackout. All one has to do is drink too much. Now more one abuses the more likely a blackout will take place but that does not translate to "addiction"
Did anyone read the article above?
"Truman - one does not have to be and addict to have a blackout."
ReplyDeleteBut your assertion was that epileptics black out, therefore addiction is not the same as epilepsy. So how does saying that you don't need to be an addict to suffer a blackout buttress your argument? Using mind altering drugs (alcohol included) can induce blackouts. Having a seizure can cause blackouts. If you can control addiction through willpower, why not seizures since by your logic they are the same? (which contradicts your earlier point)
"Now more one abuses the more likely a blackout will take place but that does not translate to "addiction""
You know that by definition, if you are abusing a drug (including alcohol) you are BY DEFINITION an addict right? Social drinking is not addiction. Abuse of alcohol is. Abuse is the key. And the studies have shown that the chemical and physical structure of your brain is also altered by the chemicals you are abusing. Therefore, there are physical effects to what you have done. This is part of what leads to the physical symptoms if you attempt to quit the addiction.
A great example of this is methadone addiction. The physical symptoms are so severe that people have commit suicide to escape them. Excruciating pain, sickness, etc. If addiction is all about compulsion, why do they have physical effects from quitting?
I can go play poker, but when I quit I don't throw up and get sick from it. That's compulsion, I can avoid that with will power. Addiction, once set in, is very real.
Again, that's why I hold people accountable for the original choice. But once addicted I understand they need treatment. I just don't feel it's the governments job to pay for it.
Even if they don't remember the seizure will power should be able to stop it before it happens. You seem to be arguing the effect, blackout, as the cause of the seizure.
ReplyDeleteNow, back to the reference of MS above. It's a disorder where the immune system attacks the brain. So should ones will power be able to override that?
Blackouts are not a cause of seizures they are a result of having a seizure where the person having the seizure has no recollection of what took place.
ReplyDeleteAs for someone who drinks too much and doesn't recall the nights events doesn't mean they are "addicted". Binge drinking is a prime example of that. If a Binge Drinker is addicted then, by definition, they'd be an addict and not a Binge Drinker. Just as one that is slipped a "roofie" and doesn't recall the nights events, Are they an addict too?
Truman - yet people claim to be addicted to gambling that they have uncontrollable urges and need to get that next winning hand high, that thrill of the horse crossing the finish line, or getting Quads. I used to work in the industry and I witnessed this thirst for the next winning hand or horse. Never once did I say they were addicted but, by previous definition of addiction - reward center, that activity would be one.
ReplyDeleteNow I still contend that it is a weakness in ones will power to bet every last dime one has chasing that next winning proposition and not that one is addicted.
So because they don't remember the seizure after the fact will power isn't the issue?
ReplyDelete