Replies

Not addictive - right. You keep telling yourself that.

No, I'm not getting it confused with something else. In india, the big thing to do is to get lit on pot till it no longer has it's effect, then they start playing with cobras.
They actually stick their tongues out to get the cobras to bite them on the tongue to get a rush from the poison.

Pot is an entry level drug and has been long known to be such. It is not only addictive, studies that have been quoted long have shown they lead to everything else under the sun when pot no longer does the job. When my Dancer neighbor could no longer get a rush on it, she moved to cocaine. Then she went to rehab. And after being clean for a year of probation started back on pot, then combined it with alcohol and started quickly moving back up the chain. What kind of moron do you take the public for?

Pot is an entry level drug and has been long known to be such. It is not only addictive, studies that have been quoted long have shown they lead to everything else under the sun when pot no longer does the job.

Studies have shown that the vast majority of marijuana users tried alcohol before trying pot. Would you claim that alcohol is an "entry-level" drug as well, and if so, do you support it being legal?

By the way, I'm terribly sorry to hear about your aunt. I can't imagine how terrible that must have been for your uncle to witness it.

Pot is an entry level drug and has been long known to be such. It is not only addictive, studies that have been quoted long have shown they lead to everything else under the sun when pot no longer does the job. When my Dancer neighbor could no longer get a rush on it, she moved to cocaine.

Sorry to hear about your neighbor, but the available research shows that the the vast majority of marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs. Even the federal government's own research has disproven the "gateway drug" arguement. I realize you work with the worst-case scenarios, but if you insist on characterizing those cases as the general rule with respect to the results of marijuana use, then you are no more objective on the subject than Sarah Brady is on the subject of gun control.

When you talk about the seat belt issue, you make a conscious distinction between talking about what you think about it and talking about how you feel about it. You see both sides of the issue and present objective, reasoned observations. I get no sense of that kind of objectivity in your posts about drugs and the drug war.

"Pot is an entry level drug..."

In much the same way that your views are entry level totalitarianism.