TheHeretic
Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
Okay, so according to your later posts, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that alcoholics have an easier time becoming sober because alcohol is legal. In other words, according to you, if we legalize everything, very few will be addicts anymore because its easier to get sober when you are addicted to legal substances than illegal substances. Can you cite me something that actually supports this theory. I would like to see some evidence from people who treat addiction that demonstrates how it is easier to get clean if you are addicted to something legal, but much more difficult to get clean if that same substance is illegal. I'm just trying to understand your point, because right now, it really doesn't make sense. Addiction is a chemical dependency that depends on the substance - not the legality of the substance. If you have evidence that shows that legality actually makes it easier to break the chemical dependency please point me to it. Thanks very much.
Obviously, FTP, you don't, and throwing in things I never said isn't going to help with that. Maybe read more slowly?
Yes. For those who seek to break their addiction, admitting the problem and seeking help with it is going to be easier for someone who is only an addict, rather than someone who is an addict, AND a criminal. I'll point you to "well, duh," for the documentation you want.
The disconnect seems to be on your end. Sobriety is not the only possible path to success in an addiction. I mentioned this in the part you left out of your quote. There is functionality. People who are still addicts, and may be that way until the end of their lives, but they are not destroyed by it. The addiction is simply one facet of their lives. You are aware that the AA model of recovery fails 85% of the people who try it, right? Do you think they all just die in a gutter the first night they quit going to meetings? "Detente with the demons" is a metaphor I like to use to describe people who are still active users, but have learned to live a happy and productive life without the drug being all-consuming.
If you want to take the attitude of the totalitarian liberal, that society has an obligation to apply constant pressure and persecution so they will submit to what is best for them, then please just say that, rather than going deliberately obtuse in what you quote, and assigning me positions you feel comfortable dealing with.
As long term addictions go, pot is mighty mild. There isn't a physical dependency involved. It doesn't ravage the body. There is no such thing as an overdose, unless the researchers manage to rupture the stomach of the test monkey. Habituated users can go about daily routines and tasks without any measurable impairment.
Managing an addiction does not have to mean ending an addiction. Some people just need to be able to live with it. That qualifies as finding success, to my way of looking at the world.
_____________________________
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.
|
RE: Republicans and Legal Pot - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread