Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: patdor
I copied this awhile back from one of the 'drug legalization' threads - didn't write it or the intro. It works to counter the notion that drugs/drug use is a victimless crime and therefore an acceptable 'practice' ... 'legalize'/decriminalize/make drugs avaiale - you WILL have increased use, to the detriment of our society I might add, though the repeated/continued self-administration of some of the more powerful addicting substances that will become available legally (if they are not legal - they are illegal and we're now back to premise of this article and yet ANOTHER 'Drug War' therefore ALL substances WILL have to be made 'legal' - and that implies available) ...
This is writen by RLK, who is so sick of dealing with dopers and their fellow travellers that he no longer participates in these threads. I share those sentiments, and this is posted for those who imagine drug legalization merely a civil rights issue.
"In the normally functioning human being, there is a complex feedback process that directs human thinking and behavior. Old time Freudians call it the pleasure principle. In behaviorist psychology it's looked at as a positive/negative reinforcement behavior shaping and extinguishing process. That is, certain behavior which produces a pleasurable state of affairs is repeated. Behavior or thinking that produces painful outcome is not repeated or is avoided. There are complex corollaries to these rules, but basically that's the idea. This positive and negative feedback system maintains a sense of reality, or maintains the realistic quality of a person's thinking and behavior in their life.

So-called recreational drugs short circuit this realistic feedback process by intervening or replacing it with something that produces unconditional pleasurable feedback. All behavior or thought becomes pleasurable or positively reinforced. Behavior which produces what would normally felt as painful consequences has the discomfort blunted. If you will, drugs occlude necessary danger signals in life. That's one of the reasons people like the stuff.

One of the problems with frequent drug use is that there is a type of unconditional reinforcement within the brain for random thought which results in a drifting mentality or a drift from reality. It's not as noticeable or of concern to the person who develops the mentality, as it is to the person to the observer who doesn't have it. For someone who doesn't share the condition, trying to live with and reason with someone who does have the condition can be difficult or impossible. There are serious social consequences here. People who are high on weed feel wonderful. Attempting to have a lucid conversation with, or counting on any sense of responsibility from, people with the weed mentality isn't very wonderful.

I long ago gave up trying to have any serious productive working relationships with anybody smoking weed. Such people might be able to function as musicians or something similar which are primarily expressions of emotion. But, if I need work done that demands rigorous cognitive acuity, discipline, grit, and determination, potheads can't get the job done. It's a loser. While drug use is claimed to be a victimless crime, working around such individuals, or working in a society of such individuals introduces a harsh unjust burden upon me. Let's make it clear. If I have an editor whom makes tainted or poor decisions, if I have a co-worker who can't function, if I have a supervisor who can't function, if I have an employee who can't function because they are jacking around with drugs, then I am a victim of their drug use. In the event such condition becomes the character of the nation, then I become a victim with little recourse for remedy. In the event such national character facilitates the economic or other decline of the nation, then all of us become the victims of jacking around with drugs. Got it? Drug use is not a victimless crime in the adult real world. Got it?

This state of unconditional positive reinforcement can be very psychologically, that is psychologically, addicting. Many novices are concerned about the physical addiction, the physical side effects, and the physical withdrawal from drugs. The reality is, the purely mental or psychological condition is more of a difficulty than the physical effects.

The initial attraction toward drugs is always purely psychological and occurs before physical addiction. Physical addiction takes time and escalating dosage. When someone comes back for more of a drug a second, third, fourth, or fifth time, they aren't coming back to avoid acute withdrawals or because they are physically addicted. They are coming back because they are psychologically hooked. They like the feeling. Later, they become physically as well as psychologically hooked. Still later, if you can manage to get them off the stuff, they are still hooked on the feeling and a great many other things including the residual mentality.

Frequent drug users adapt to the unconditional reinforcement of the drug world to a point where they slowly develop a mentality that is too soft to want to tolerate real world realistic feedback and effort. They lose capacity to handle real life while simultaneously becoming intrigued with existence in the unconditional positive feedback and insulation of the drug state. When the going gets rough, they head for the insulating state obtained through drugs instead of growing."


25 posted on 01/04/2004 11:21:49 AM PST by _Jim ( <--- Ann Coulter speaks on gutless Liberals (RealAudio files))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: _Jim
No one is suggesting drug use is a good thing (although the majority of drug users are functional members of society.) The issue is that criminalization (at least on the federal level) has cause far more problems than it has solved, and it's debateable it has solved ANY problems.
30 posted on 01/04/2004 11:25:43 AM PST by patdor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: _Jim
Change a few words, and you're making an argument for alcohol prohibition.

I don't like working with people who smoke or dip. I don't like working with people who are alcoholics. I wouldn't want to work with a pothead.

BUT

I don't want my tax money going to fight against the dumb consumption choices other people make in their off time. They should be forced to live with their own decisions, and if that means they have to learn the hard way that you can't succeed in life until you clean up your act, then so be it. I also see the harm to the Constitution and our rights as far more important than babysitting adults to make sure they don't hurt themselves. If that makes me a jerk, I can live with that.

Unless he's planning on banning fast food, SUVs, cigarettes and alcohol, for starters, then RLKs position is flawed and illogical.

35 posted on 01/04/2004 11:32:28 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: _Jim
That is simply the most inane, bizarre rationalization for regulating the private behavior I've ever heard. But, seeing as it was written by RLK, I'm hardly surprised.
36 posted on 01/04/2004 11:33:07 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: _Jim
"If I have an editor whom makes tainted or poor decisions, if I have a co-worker who can't function, if I have a supervisor who can't function, if I have an employee who can't function because they are jacking around with drugs, then I am a victim of their drug use."

If the employer has an agreement with his employees that they will remain drug-free, then the statement above is true, in that the employer is a victim of fraud or a breach of contract. In such a case, the solution is much simpler than waging a war on drugs - just fire the employees who violated the policy. In regards to co-workers or supervisors, if the company has a policy against drug use, then report them. If the company does not, then go find another job. You'll put yourself one step ahead of the game, because your employer won't be in business very long if he only employs burnouts anyway.

67 posted on 01/04/2004 2:03:21 PM PST by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: _Jim
If you don't believe that free people, armed with the truth, can make good decisions for themselves, then our Republic is as good as dead.
117 posted on 01/05/2004 10:28:45 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: _Jim
Sorry Jim, you'll have to do better than one man's opinion (and that's all it is, no more important than yours or mine) on the convoluted, subtle ways that drug use hurts others.

When we talk of "damage" and "harm" we're not talking about emotional unfulfilment of spouses of addicts or the decrease in work productivity of addicts, we're talking about things like assault, battery, murder, rape, etc. Not something vague like a subtle fraying of the emotional and moral fabric of our culture.
147 posted on 01/05/2004 6:35:51 PM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: _Jim
Sorry, don't mean to spam you -- but I had one more discussion point: there's an option in addition to what we have now or legalization. It's decriminalization, and it would replace taxpayer-funded housing for addicts (i.e., jails) with a ticket. I don't support legalization for hard drugs, because then they would be actively marketed to people in a more sophisticated fashion than dealers can swing. And decriminalization would not solve all the problems. But I think it would at least address the most Constitutionally destructive aspects of WOD without turning us into Amsterdam. In the meantime, take the $$ we currently spend building prisons for nonviolent offenders, and spend it on anti-drug education instead.
171 posted on 01/05/2004 9:29:26 PM PST by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson