Or should I say, wisible?
Not that I condone any drug being made illegal.
joanna
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Michael:
>
>
>>Meanwhile, if you don't think drugs are fucking people up, what can I say?
>>
>>
>
>RTFM. I said:
>"So if you believe that drugs are "fucking people" and solutions not excuses
>are needed (which I happen to believe as well),"
>
>As to your argument about "sociologists" - could you be more specific? Who
>sez what about what drugs? I do not think that anyone would seriously doubt
>the addictive properties of opiates, but with weed it is very different
>story. The anti-drug crusaders argue it is addictive because it scares
>people, but there is no evidence supporting those claims. So what is wrong
>with questioning fraudulent claims or moral crusaders?
>
>In fact I read some interesting sociological argument (do not recall the
>source) showing that strict prohibition and intolerance of substance abuse
>can have a negative effect on abuse rates. The argument was that tolerant
>societies are more likely to develop social norms guiding "safe" use of mind
>altering substances i.e. telling people how much is too much as well as
>support networks to help them if the "cross the line." In intolerant
>societies, you are on your own as soon as you start using it with no social
>norms to guide you. Oftentimes, people who violate the strict taboo and see
>that none of the predicted dire consequences happened, develop a false sense
>of confidence that using the substance is safe. So they are more likely to
>fall into the crack (no pun intended) and less likely to be helped when they
>do.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050422/8dfaae1d/attachment.htm>