<p>
[quote]
I am surprised, because I though that on average the people who go too far with alcohol and drugs have some loner personlity traits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>rolleyes</em></p>
<p>well, you see, spidey girl, most people who do drugs aren't abusers. hence, the social aspect. </p>
<p><em>rollseyes</em></p>
<p>Hardly what I was saying. I just couldn't believe the stereotype-influenced prejudice.</p>
<p>OAKSMOM: "Uh-oh...looks like some of those parents are going to have to put the twin bed back in the workout room..."</p>
<p>Guns and hard drugs were involved in this bust. I don't think junior will require space at home for a very long time.</p>
<p>THE</a> ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY: COMMON TRAITS ARE FOUND - New York Times</p>
<p>THE ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY: COMMON TRAITS ARE FOUND </p>
<p>"The report finds that there are several ''significant personality factors'' that can contribute to addiction: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Impulsive behavior, difficulty in delaying gratification, an antisocial personality and a disposition toward sensation seeking. </p></li>
<li><p>A high value on nonconformity combined with a weak commitment to the goals for achievement valued by the society. </p></li>
<li><p>A sense of social alienation and a general tolerance for deviance. </p></li>
<li><p>A sense of heightened stress. This may help explain why adolescence and other stressful transition periods are often associated with the most severe drug and alcohol problems. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>The author of the study, Alan R. Lang, a psychology professor at Florida State University, believes that the continuing search for the personality traits that play a part in the development of addictions is an essential part of the broader fight against addiction, an opinion shared by others familiar with the field. ''If we can better identify the personality factors,'' he said in an interview, ''they can help us devise better treatment and can open up new strategies to intervene and break the patterns of addiction.'' </p>
<p>"rolls eyes"</p>
<p>"well, you see, spidey girl, most people who do drugs aren't abusers. hence, the social aspect."</p>
<p>Never said otherwise. Reread the post you commented on.</p>
<p>"rolls eyes"</p>
<p>no, you didn't say it verbatim.</p>
<p>I didn't say it at all. I partied a bit when I was in college, and I do not have the disease of addiction (if I could go back, I would do differently). Lucky me.</p>
<p>You can peruse other posts of mine for more substantiation. I have always been extremely clear on seeing the difference between partying and addiction, and it it has nothing to do with "verbatim".</p>
<p>I am extremely familiar with the number of people who use alcohol and/or drugs, versus the number of them who enter the situation with a biochemical predisposition for addiction (which is surprisingly high). Having experienced both the fun of partying in a classical Greek campus lifestyle, and the devastating path of destruction caused by addiction, I can tell you that I would never touch anything which could cause such suffering if I had to do it all over again. I was lucky, but knowing now what I do, I would NEVER take the chance. I like to pass what I have seen and heard on to others, so they can at least know the truth. But no, there is no difficulty in my mind seeing the difference between partying and chemical dependency.</p>
<p>I wonder if Schwarzenegger dressed up as the Terminator and led the invasion to arrest all of these druggies.</p>
<p>Do you think he can terminate drug dealers?
Read here: Arnold</a> Schwarzenegger Drug Comment 'Just a Joke' at Hollywood.com</p>
<p>I suppose casual use of marijana is not harmful but most users go from casual to chronic. They become burnouts and losers, and they hurt people around them. I can't figure out why some people are so adamant about legalizing something that is so unnecessary and potentially harmful? And I don't care what you say or think, smoking weed IS more addictive than drinking a beer. There is a big difference.</p>
<p>Not physiologically addictive, like nicotine, or ethanol. Psychological addiction is a whole different can of worms and has more to do with the person than the substance, e.g. the compulsive gamblers of the world.</p>
<p>Also, find me one study that shows that casual use becomes "chronic" use. I would assume by "most", you meant more than half.</p>
<p>People want to legalize it because it's no more demonstrably harmful than anything else that is already allowed, but maybe has a better lobby. There's no reason for one to be illegal but not the others- short of knee-jerk reactionism.</p>
<p>By saying you don't care what people say or think, you've just told the world that you're not planning on participating in the debate anymore- that you're going to take your toys and leave the sandbox, as it were.</p>
<p>Those are some pretty broad generalizations, Collegebound. "Most people" who smoke marijuana are casual users and are functional human beings. Many drugs are safer than alcohol; there is just a stigma associated with them because they are illegal, and because of the stereotypes about users. Before classifying an entire group of people in a negative manner, you should probably do some solid research on the topic. </p>
<p>
[quote]
They become burnouts and losers, and they hurt people around them
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The exact same thing can happen with alcohol, or any addiction. Using drugs doesn't necessarily harm the people around you; abusing drugs probably would. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't figure out why some people are so adamant about legalizing something that is so unnecessary and potentially harmful?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>People should have the right to choose which drugs to ingest. It's not the government's place to intervene. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And I don't care what you say or think, smoking weed IS more addictive than drinking a beer. There is a big difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's the big difference? Is it that one is illegal and one is not? I take it you've never smoked weed, so I don't know how you're privy to its relative addictiveness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose casual use of marijana is not harmful but most users go from casual to chronic. They become burnouts and losers, and they hurt people around them. I can't figure out why some people are so adamant about legalizing something that is so unnecessary and potentially harmful? And I don't care what you say or think, smoking weed IS more addictive than drinking a beer. There is a big difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg</a></p>
<p>kthxbai</p>
<p>Why is this surprising? SDSU is a 4th tier pos school.</p>
<p>I take issue with the notion that people ought to choose which drugs they ingest. Yes, a nice libertarian thought, and perhaps that thought should be extended to marijuana. But really, no one with any public health sense is going to suggest that we decriminalize something like PCP. Ask any experienced emergency room people in a major city - they won't even think of working on PCP patients unless really restrained and tranquilized - and police officers are rightly scared to death of them. So like virtually everything else drug control is a line drawing exercise - balancing the harms versus the cost of enforcement. There are certain drugs that just shouldn't be legalized. </p>
<p>And Galosien - there are sound arguments for legalizing marijuana. But decriminalization is one thing, and countenancing its use is quite another. It is a drug, it involves smoking (most of the time), it creates a wasteful dependency in some and a true lifetime of motivation killing misery for a few, and all too often, although varying with the individuals at issue, is a gateway to truly harmful drugs. Your arguments (and I suspect you are younger) have a tone that purports to defend the use of the substance - which - from a public health perspective, is not defensible. </p>
<p>The economic arguments for decriminalization are reasonably strong- and in fact - given the tax revenues that could obtain as well as the diminution of drug traders and dealers who operate outside the law and enforce their contracts accordingly (with negative externalities that we bear) - it begins to make sense. The credibility of decriminalization arguments, however, is undercut by those that appear (and you do give off those vibes) to exalt in the efficacies of the substance. I think it works to you detriment. It needs to be approached from an unemotional public policy and health perspective.</p>
<p>If the government is so interested in public health maybe it should make fast food illegal as well. </p>
<p>I don't think decriminalizing something like PCP would necessarily result in an increase in PCP use. It's safe to say that most people would not do PCP, regardless of its legal status (or heroin, or E, etc.). I doubt it would ever happen, anyway, because the public would never support such a policy.</p>
<p>I'm really torn on this legalization issue. At least with Marijuana.</p>
<p>I agree that legalizing harder drugs wouldn't make everyone run out and try them, but I DO think that it would 1. Make them way too easy to get for both kids and addicts and 2. Make them more enticing for people who are one the edge, considering use. I mean if the gov. says its okay, why not? As a former user, I'm glad drugs aren't easier to obtain and use than they already are. </p>
<p>I go back and forth on the marijuana issue. In my ideal world, people wouldn't use drugs without medical supervision by a responsible doctor. Obviously that isn't going to happen.
But I do think that the marijuana culture (as it is today) can lead people VERY easily to more dangerous drugs. It might be different if the government regulated marijuana. </p>
<p>That said, I am bothered by people who say that marijuana is completely harmless. I have seen people who's lives have been negatively impacted by this drug, and it shouldn't be taken lightly. That said, alcohol is legal and that drug causes more harm than just about everything else combined, I think. No, the law doesn't make sense, but I don't really think there is a good answer right now. </p>
<p>But getting back to this San Diego issue...I'm really glad to see the DEA looking for drugs in places besides the border, African American ghettos, etc. I'm writing a paper about the crack cocaine sentencing disparity and the stats are absolutely atrocious. I'm not saying that there isn't a drug problem in other places, it's just nice to see that the scope of the "War on Drugs" is being widened. </p>
<p>This raid also brings the issue of drugs into the laps of college students, parents, etc. I think this is so important. All too often I think people think that drugs are just "not their problem" and that drug problems "happen to other people." Drugs don't discriminate. Addiction can happen to anyone.</p>
<p>banana - I agree with your points. Keep in mind as you write your paper, however, while the crack cocaine disparities are real, the fact is that leaders of both parties, including the Democratic Party and significant numbers of urban black leaders, insisted in the 80's on stiff penalties for crack cocaine - it was that disastrous for the communities involved. In hindsight, these statutes (and sentencing guidelines) need to be re-examined, but the laws on crack cocaine were NOT the result of a conspiracy - they were merely a desperate reaction to an out of control problem. </p>
<p>And more to the point, I would think you would want to concentrate on the economics of crack cocaine. A single hit of crack cocaine is much cheaper than cocaine, but with a high lasting for a short period of time - causing a user to go back and back again with greater frequency. The smaller dollars "per hit" along with its addictive propensity make it a perfect street drug - petty crime or prostitution can support some level of use, and demand can mushroom quickly, meaning that more get scooped up in the criminal justice net. All are a disaster for the inner city. </p>
<p>And as far as economics goes, cocaine is a drug for the rich or well off. Nothing bothers me more than hearing about spoiled college kids indulging in the destructive passions of the rich while sponging off Mom and Dad - my respect for these kids at SDSU, if they are convicted, is exceedingly limited. This is of course a harsh judgment, but for those of us that financed our own way through school worrying about having anything to eat, such wasteful conduct does not sit well.</p>
<p>mam1959: I'm definitely not going the "conspiracy" route. I'm just saying it was a pretty big overreaction. In fact, the democratic party, in its effort not to appear "soft" on drugs is a major part of this. Bill Clinton is only second to Reagan in being tough on drugs, although he has made a public apology since. </p>
<p>Although one thing I do have to say...I was pretty young when all of this happened, so I wasn't really "there" but I'm not sure it was an "out of control" problem. I know it was depicted that way in the media. But cocaine use peaked in 1982 before crack was on the streets. At that time, it was still rich kids, but they had learned to freebase. It wasn't until crack was marketed to the lower classes that the media freaked out. If there is one thing I do think about this? The media was completely out of line. I'm looking over headlines from the 80s and it all these sensationalist ******** comparing crack to a "plague," an "epidemic," etc. No wonder it seemed so terrible. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that crack isn't a terrible drug. It is. I've been there. But the idea that it is "100 times more addictive than cocaine" and that it incites violence and prostitution? Not necessarily. I take issue with a legal system that sentences someone to more prison time for having 2 rocks in his pocket than someone who rapes a woman. </p>
<p>And the numbers today, 20 years later, just don't match up. Most crack and cocaine users are white. Most people sent to jail for crack and cocaine? Black. By a huge margin. </p>
<p>And who gets offered treatment instead of prison time in a lot of cases? Usually whites. </p>
<p>Conspiracy? I think not, but it certainly tells you where we focus our efforts in the "war on drugs." Probably because its easier that way, but that doesn't make it okay. </p>
<p>I can send you links if you want. I also don't want to change the overall discussion from the San Diego bust.</p>