Surely most of you know highly productive people who use drugs

In my limited experience, I've never known any highly productive drug users, unless you're counting people on antidepressants.

Like most people of my generation, I did this and that as a college student/young adult, but gave it up when it a) started getting in the way of adulthood; and b) made me fall asleep. But I'm always amused to see to what extent mild illegal drug use continues in my contemporaries. One friend abstains from everything harder than red wine, except on Wednesday nights, when he and his wife share a little Hump Day bowl in the evening. They watch the news, giggle a little, have a snack and go to bed. Never more, rarely less. It's sort of sweet. He's one of the most productive people I know, but he'd flunk a drug test, for sure.

...but gave it up when it a) started getting in the way of adulthood;

True that, Nance, I went that way too, except for the occasional bowl before a concert, if that, and I still drink some wine. Unfortunately, some of my contemporaries refuse to grow up - they're still using like they're 18, and it drives me crazy, because they'll come crying to me when they can't pay bills or whatever, and I say, "well, you didn't have to buy that 8 ball and stuff it up your nose last night, ya know!"

I have a couple of friends who are weekend warriors and that's fine, I guess, if you can handle it, but when you're still using copious amounts of cocaine well into your 40s and 50s, something is desperately wrong, here. The party ended in the late 80s/early 90s, and some people still don't want to go home. o.O

And that's the fundamental problem. Most people don't grow up.

I don't know when this became a problem, but I'm thinking the post-war boom is when it started. Fresh off a war, climbing out of the Great Depression, people coddled their kids and they never grew up. And since they never grew up, their kids never did either.

Sure, some figured it out. But many (most?) didn't.

And that's how we end up with the nanny state. People either can not or will not grow up, so they elect a permanent mommy to tell them when to clean their room.

Maybe, brian, you don't know any drug users because you don't know any yuppies!!! ha! I also find humour in the tone you take that implies the government has a right to regulate our bodies. fascinating

Farker - when your failure to regulate your intake of addictive substances encroaches on my life, you're damn straight they have a right to regulate it.

Although I would find it acceptable for the pre-emptive arresting of drug purchasers to be replaced with harsh sentences for damage caused while under the influence, or damage caused in furtherance of the procurement of consciousness-altering substances.

For instance, rob someone to get money to buy crack, 25 to life. Kill someone to get money to buy crack? Death. Kill someone because you went on a rampage from taking too much PCP? Death.

And mean it. Obviously, the threat of incarceration is insufficient to get people to stop buying and selling drugs. But if you make the harm caused as a by-product of drugs draconian enough, you'll get a reduction in the irresponsible users, either on their own, or because they are on the other side of the dirt.

Stanton Peele calls it 'maturing out'. Getting drunk and vomiting in the car is a funny story when you are in your twenties. It is a sad story when you are in your forties.
That doesn't mean you can't have fun. Even though I've seen and experienced the results of addiction in my own life, it doesn't stop me from realizing the war on drugs is a big shit sandwich. And I am all for Gillespie's cause of pointing that out.

I don't have to take drug tests in my profession at this time. I have in the past, and I always passed them. But when I worked for Microsoft for all those years, there was a strict no-drug-testing policy, straight from billg's office to the entire company. Without weed, there never would have been a Microsoft as you know it, whether you love it or loathe it. There was more weed on the Redmond campus of MS than in the back of my frat house in college.

I think decriminalization of some schedule I/II drugs would help. As for how that would happen, I have no clue. It may happen in my lifetime, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's better to keep the martini glasses and the vodka in the freezer so you are not taken by surprise when your neighbor the cop stops by with his kids trick-or-treating...

I know a number of very successful people in their mid to late 30's who do recreational drugs occasionally, but I don't know anyone who has a serious drug problem who's made anything of themselves. Of course, the definition of "drug problem" is subjective, anyway.

I'm generally for the legalization of certain substances, but I think it's a very complicated subject matter. Where is the line drawn, and how do we decide what's legal and what's not? Marijuana? Fine. Crack and heroin? Perhaps not.

I've never known anyone productive who used drugs on anything like a frequent recreational basis. Once or twice in a life, sure. All the people I ever knew who liked to relax with pot were underachievers at best, who sure thought they were profound. I guess a few people are profound with it :) but not near as many as think they are.

All the people I ever knew who used harder drugs developed, at some point after the first few recreational uses, a habit that was problematic in their lives. And I've known a lot of users, thanks to my college roomie and college boyfriend. Not necessarily bad people, but not high achievers, and most did turn to crime because at some point the money's just not enough otherwise.

I think jailing users is dumb. I am all for jailing dealers. I also think there should be a "personal use" amount of most everything, where it's just not the government's business what you do with your body. Yes, letting people have an item it's illegal to sell is odd, but it takes the pressure off the cops and jails for enforcing small-time crap.

I also think people who commit crimes under the influene of illegal substances should have the book thrown at them. Just taking out the trash, really, and we need to do more of it.

I don't really care how productive people are, how much they achieve, or what substances they like to ingest. As long as they mind their own business and let me mind mine. I'm productive enough, and achieve enough, to take care of myself. Beyond that, I don't see much reason for it. Being an "overachiever" has never been on my to-do list. Too many other things take a higher priority once I've achieved 'enough.'

rob someone to get money to buy crack, 25 to life. Kill someone to get money to buy crack? Death. Kill someone because you went on a rampage from taking too much PCP? Death.

Why concern ourselves with the reasons for those acts? Killing someone for money or on a rampage should carry the same penalty (whether that should be death or life without parole is another discussion) regardless of whether PCP, crack or anything else was involved.

I don't know anyone who has a serious drug problem who's made anything of themselves.

That's pretty much a tautology. Anyone who can use drugs and still make something of themself doesn't have a serious drug problem, by definition.

I think jailing users is dumb. I am all for jailing dealers.

It's the anti-trafficking laws (under which dealers are jailed) which cause most of the social pathology associated with drugs: the high prices (resulting in crime by users to finance their habits), the control of production and distribution by criminals (resulting in turf wars and drugs mixed with deadlier substances), etc. The most effective way to cut down on drug use without the nasty side effects of our current laws would be to legalize the manufacture and sale of drugs, but increase penalties for their use. (I don't advocate this, mind you; I think all drugs should be as legal as alcohol.)

This might seem outlandish, but think about it--it closely resembles the current legal state of tobacco. Anyone can manufacture, buy, or sell cigarettes in any quantity (subject to age restrictions and laws governing any other kind of retailing), but smoking itself is prohibited in a constantly growing number of situations.

> I probably drink a glass of wine
> three times a week on some weeks.

Right. People drink for purposes other than inebriation. I'm not sure that's true about weed.

What do you think there are more of? Brilliant drug users, or jobless loser drug users? Drugs don't contribute to success. They may not eliminate it for some very smart people. I'd say they do eliminate it for plenty, though.

You want a brilliant, top of his feild surgeon operating on you after having relaxed with heroin the night before? (or, more likely, fentanyl?)Doubt it. Drugs stay in the system longer than alcohol.

Oh, well, here we go again - another appeal to let people drug themselves.

On the face of things, Amy - this is inconsistent at best. Personal responsibility for all your actions is your point in every other aspect of life - but, by definition, the bulk of drugs exist to escape these responsibilities. Yes, they come in all grades and strengths, from camomile tea to LSD, but the lay public, no matter how trained in any other field, has no ability to evaluate the effects on themselves.

There is an inescapable public debt that all people owe: their behavior must not (usuakky) be a risk to others.

This means there is an entire caste of workers which somehow have to be excluded from any relaxation of drug laws. They produce chemicals, run power plants, are in the military and police forces and serve as emergency services workers. You flatly do not want anyone on call under the influence of anything. Police, when off-duty, still have police cars and guns and the desire to use them against bad guys. I dearly hope I don't have to point out the megatons of outright deadly substances which produce and ensure your standard of living..

You have anecdotal evidence - curious how that's disregarded on other topics. Cue the alcohol and nicotine examples. Previously, these were used to show how drug availability is a plus - the hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed citizens these produced are ignored.

For those of you who might see this and not know my extended position on drug availability: there are abundant examples of user ignorance of the effect of legal, prescription drugs of all sorts. Several thousand people a year die from these, with varied levels of doctor participation and monitoring, in all venues. Decriminalization does NOT address the legal position of innocent people affected by a person under the influence. Legalization requires controls on the production and distribution of the substance.

You demand consumer protection from everyone you buy legal goods from. Don't even begin to pretend the same protections won't be demanded when Silly-Sibin® is available over the counter.

All great points Radwaste. Amy, you are inconsistent at best. Yes there are laws to keep a dr from abusing fentanyl (my husband works on the McKesson machines that control all access to such drugs), just like there are laws to keep EVERYONE from using pot.

That's great that anectodally you and your friends do fine with drugs. I've done shrooms and they didn't do a damn thing to me but make me want to do nothing, but I'm glad they produces some great revelations to you. Do you think that holds true of the general population? Do you think allowing people free access to their purchase will somehow improve the level of decisions they make? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, people would show the spectacularly shitty level of responsibility they tend to show in all other areas of their life?

Now, if you want to argue that free access would kill off the idiots, I might could get behind that. If I could hide in a cave somewhere while it's happening.

Did your brilliant medical friend never toked up, then worked on his fabulous amazing invention?

Are you seriously comparing drugs, of any kind, to sugar? Who is being absurd now? Reach on, Amy, reach on. I've yet to hear about someone under the influence of chocolate blowing down the wrong side of a freeway and causing a horrible accident.

"Because some people abuse drugs or alcohol isn't a reason to deny them to all.

Entirely correct. Just like cell phones. Now, count the people doing stupid stuff with their phone, and realize that these are the people you expect to control themselves.

So.

When you say "drugs", you mean something which has to be codified in law. Alcohol intoxication, for better or worse, is now testable and defined at a blood concentration defined by law. But just how do you test for other substances, for the workforce I named above?

Hey, at SRS, 100% of the people inside the Tank Farm gate have to be able to follow instructions on the alert system in case of an accident. Only 10% are actually Emergency Response personnel. How many people paid with your tax money do you want to show up impaired, and how will we test for that?

What's "impaired"? LSD, heroin, mescaline, psilocybin, THC, methamphetamine... all affect people differently. What are the heritable effects? People don't know - even the people now doing them. They don't care. Being happy for a short time is more important to them than anything else.

It's the same across the country. People get in cars after slugging a fifth of JD, and, given the chance, they'll do anything else they can get and then drive.

Maybe, then, I will hear of someone who did brilliant things with a car while under the influence, just like the tales above. If I do, it will be the exception, among many fatalities.

One last thing: if you want people to be responsible, that can and has to come first. We are already in a societal rut w/r/t blameproofing. No one is ever responsible for what they do. "The car crashed", "the gun went off" and so forth are routine excuses.

I'm not in favor of banning alcohol. If alcohol stayed in the system, like drugs, then that might need to be discussed. Why do you think drug tests work? Drugs stick around, some have very long half-lives indeed. I can tell I've had some vicodin well more than 24 hours later, and I have a high drug tolerance level. Am I impared by it? No, but I feel just a little more wellbeing than I would normally. How would I feel 24 hours after having shot up heroin? Don't know, since that's one I've never done, but I wouldn't count on my being able to work, or drive, or do anything requiring reflexes. So you legalize the drugs, then what? Here come lots of laws saying "you can't have done X within so many hours of doing X Y Z OR QQ". And the enforcement required for that, and you might as well be back where we are right now.

Drs, since you love that example, are for all practical purposes never off call if they are in town. Doesn't matter if you're off that night and your partner is on, if a patient with a relationship with you has a serious situation, you are going to get called because you know that patient's history best.

Cops likewise are never really off. Or firefighters. Or any first responders. Or the military. The list goes one. Yes, I am aware these people do drink. It's not the same as drugs. If it was, you would be able to detect alcohol in the body weeks after imbibing.

I've said, in my posts here and otherwise, I think all the little users in jail sucking up my tax money is dumb. I just don't think widening access to all the people who make shitty decisions with regard to responsibility, is going to improve matters.

Someone who comes home and smokes pot every night after work does have a problem, if only mentally. As would someone who drank every night at quitting time.

"But when I worked for Microsoft for all those years, there was a strict no-drug-testing policy, straight from billg's office to the entire company."

I missed this earlier. That explains a lot!

Someone who comes home and smokes pot every night after work does have a problem, if only mentally. As would someone who drank every night at quitting time.

Not necessarily. Sometimes a beer is only a beer.

There's a bit of equivalence going on in the Libertarian (yes, the big L is intentional) argument for legalization (or decriminalization, which is the same thing).

To the libertarian, a beer is a shot is a toke is a line is a hit. This is clearly not the case.

I tried reading that paper that was linked here some time ago that claimed that drugs don't cause addiction. It made no sense at all. Clearly, some drugs are addictive.

So how do we deal with the drugs that have no purpose but to turn their users into junkies. How many productive or recreational heroin users are there? Crack?

Society has placed limits on behaviors that can be detrimental to others. It does not require that they be harmful in themselves, just that they might. You cannot fire your pistol into the air in any city that I know of. You cannot drive your Viper at 170 miles per hour on any public road in America.

Just about the only argument that can be made in weed's favor is that it was intentionally classified with hard drugs as a result of explicit racism, and therefore ought to be reclassified.

All the others will have to stay where they are.

Radwaste -

When you say "drugs", you mean something which has to be codified in law. Alcohol intoxication, for better or worse, is now testable and defined at a blood concentration defined by law. But just how do you test for other substances, for the workforce I named above?

You test for them the same fucking way you do now. You seem to act as though it's not until we legalize drugs, that this will be a problem. Yet for employment purposes, I have peed in cups, given hair samples and even blood samples. Is it a perfect science, no - but neither is the breathalyzer.

What's "impaired"? LSD, heroin, mescaline, psilocybin, THC, methamphetamine... all affect people differently.

The presence of any of these in the system (the only one without a reliable, immediate test, is LSD) should be considered impairment. With every single one of them, it is easy enough for the user to believe they are perfectly fine, in spite of being completely and utterly fucked. I know this from personal experience.

What are the heritable effects? People don't know - even the people now doing them.

Have you been using some of these drugs? What do you think toxicologists who research illicit drugs do with their time? While it's certainly true that we don't know everything about everything, the same is true of legal, prescribed pharmaceuticals and a great many other products on the market. We deal with it, sometimes correcting problems only through lawsuits.

They don't care. Being happy for a short time is more important to them than anything else.

Ok, so your not actually high and have little, if any experience being high. Some percentage of drug users are like that, most just use on their own time and that not often. Addicts are a problem, but that's the point, they are a problem, not one that is suddenly going to pop up if illicit drugs are legalized.

People get in cars after slugging a fifth of JD, and, given the chance, they'll do anything else they can get and then drive.

Which again, they do now with illicit drugs and yet we still manage to prosecute a large number of people who do. My attitude would be to make the penalties far more severe for doing so.

if you want people to be responsible, that can and has to come first.

So I assume you agree with the lefties who want to take away our guns, because of this same irresponsibility? I mean this is pretty much the strongest argument they have for it. But on it's face this is a load of bullshit. We don't give up our rights because some small percentage of people are irresponsible with that right. If that were the case, not only wouldn't guns be legal, neither would cars - at the least it would be a hell of a lot harder to get a fucking license and easier to lose it.

We are already in a societal rut w/r/t blameproofing.

Which has exactly what, to do with legalizing drugs? It's a problem to be sure, but not one that has the least to do with illicit drugs or making them legal, excepting a far periphery that makes it just as relevant to driving, guns and pretty much everything else.

brian -

(or decriminalization, which is the same thing).

No, absolutely it is not the same thing. I am not an advocate of decriminalization, which comes with minimal regulation and no special taxation. It is what it implies - you no longer go to jail for it.

Legalization, OTOH, would allow for heavy regulation and taxes beyond normal sales tax. I am all for the notion of taxing most illicit drugs more than tobacco or alcohol are taxed in most places.

To the libertarian, a beer is a shot is a toke is a line is a hit. This is clearly not the case.

What exactly is the difference? Keep in mind that I've actually done all of those things. To be sure there are differences in the highs, but they all pretty much do the same things.

I tried reading that paper that was linked here some time ago that claimed that drugs don't cause addiction. It made no sense at all. Clearly, some drugs are addictive.

All drugs are addictive. Every single fucking one of them. The difference in addictive qualities is only a matter of degree.

Heroin, cocaine and amphetimines are commonly held to have an addiction rate of one hundred percent - which is clearly not the case. There are a great many people who used the cocaine when it was in vogue, who never got addicted. A large percentage of users did and do, but even the percentage for heroin (the most addictive, excepting tobacco) is less than ninety.

But more to the point, who cares? People want to become addicts, that is their choice.

I would also note that when I am able to get coverage, I will be taking an amphetimine every day. Hardly any problems with addiction, because it is pharmaceutical grade and I won't be smoking, snorting or shooting it.

How many productive or recreational heroin users are there?

I've worked with a couple. All out junkies, who shot up the minute they were done for the day, one of whom smoked throughout the day to keep from getting "sick." Not that many junkies are, but they certainly exist. It should also be noted that before prohibition, your average opiate junkie was as productive as anyone else.

Society has placed limits on behaviors that can be detrimental to others. It does not require that they be harmful in themselves, just that they might.

The fact that we do, doesn't make it right, nor is it consistent. If it were consistent, there are a lot more things that would be illegal, including alcohol and most drivers.

Radwaste -

When you say "drugs", you mean something which has to be codified in law. Alcohol intoxication, for better or worse, is now testable and defined at a blood concentration defined by law. But just how do you test for other substances, for the workforce I named above?

You test for them the same fucking way you do now. You seem to act as though it's not until we legalize drugs, that this will be a problem. Yet for employment purposes, I have peed in cups, given hair samples and even blood samples. Is it a perfect science, no - but neither is the breathalyzer.

What's "impaired"? LSD, heroin, mescaline, psilocybin, THC, methamphetamine... all affect people differently.

The presence of any of these in the system (the only one without a reliable, immediate test, is LSD) should be considered impairment. With every single one of them, it is easy enough for the user to believe they are perfectly fine, in spite of being completely and utterly fucked. I know this from personal experience.

What are the heritable effects? People don't know - even the people now doing them.

Have you been using some of these drugs? What do you think toxicologists who research illicit drugs do with their time? While it's certainly true that we don't know everything about everything, the same is true of legal, prescribed pharmaceuticals and a great many other products on the market. We deal with it, sometimes correcting problems only through lawsuits.

They don't care. Being happy for a short time is more important to them than anything else.

Ok, so your not actually high and have little, if any experience being high. Some percentage of drug users are like that, most just use on their own time and that not often. Addicts are a problem, but that's the point, they are a problem, not one that is suddenly going to pop up if illicit drugs are legalized.

People get in cars after slugging a fifth of JD, and, given the chance, they'll do anything else they can get and then drive.

Which again, they do now with illicit drugs and yet we still manage to prosecute a large number of people who do. My attitude would be to make the penalties far more severe for doing so.

if you want people to be responsible, that can and has to come first.

So I assume you agree with the lefties who want to take away our guns, because of this same irresponsibility? I mean this is pretty much the strongest argument they have for it. But on it's face this is a load of bullshit. We don't give up our rights because some small percentage of people are irresponsible with that right. If that were the case, not only wouldn't guns be legal, neither would cars - at the least it would be a hell of a lot harder to get a fucking license and easier to lose it.

We are already in a societal rut w/r/t blameproofing.

Which has exactly what, to do with legalizing drugs? It's a problem to be sure, but not one that has the least to do with illicit drugs or making them legal, excepting a far periphery that makes it just as relevant to driving, guns and pretty much everything else.

brian -

(or decriminalization, which is the same thing).

No, absolutely it is not the same thing. I am not an advocate of decriminalization, which comes with minimal regulation and no special taxation. It is what it implies - you no longer go to jail for it.

Legalization, OTOH, would allow for heavy regulation and taxes beyond normal sales tax. I am all for the notion of taxing most illicit drugs more than tobacco or alcohol are taxed in most places.

To the libertarian, a beer is a shot is a toke is a line is a hit. This is clearly not the case.

What exactly is the difference? Keep in mind that I've actually done all of those things. To be sure there are differences in the highs, but they all pretty much do the same things.

I tried reading that paper that was linked here some time ago that claimed that drugs don't cause addiction. It made no sense at all. Clearly, some drugs are addictive.

All drugs are addictive. Every single fucking one of them. The difference in addictive qualities is only a matter of degree.

Heroin, cocaine and amphetimines are commonly held to have an addiction rate of one hundred percent - which is clearly not the case. There are a great many people who used the cocaine when it was in vogue, who never got addicted. A large percentage of users did and do, but even the percentage for heroin (the most addictive, excepting tobacco) is less than ninety.

But more to the point, who cares? People want to become addicts, that is their choice.

I would also note that when I am able to get coverage, I will be taking an amphetimine every day. Hardly any problems with addiction, because it is pharmaceutical grade and I won't be smoking, snorting or shooting it.

How many productive or recreational heroin users are there?

I've worked with a couple. All out junkies, who shot up the minute they were done for the day, one of whom smoked throughout the day to keep from getting "sick." Not that many junkies are, but they certainly exist. It should also be noted that before prohibition, your average opiate junkie was as productive as anyone else.

Society has placed limits on behaviors that can be detrimental to others. It does not require that they be harmful in themselves, just that they might.

The fact that we do, doesn't make it right, nor is it consistent. If it were consistent, there are a lot more things that would be illegal, including alcohol and most drivers.

All the others will have to stay where they are.

No compelling reason has been given why they should. Sorry, but the fact that they are ugly is just not a reasonable excuse for making them illegal.

momof3 -

Why do you think drug tests work?

Because the body metabolizes different substances differently. Alcohol is only testable for about five to eight hours after drinking (except in an actual blood draw), yet the effects of a heavy night of drinking can last well into the next day - even after the ability to detect it in the blood is substantively reduced.

Marijuana, OTOH, is testable for as many as sixty days after smoking, because it stores in the fatty tissue. The higher percentage of body fat a person has, the longer it can be detected. This in spite of the fact that for average marijuana, the high lasts about five hours for the average person smoking average pot. If it is ingested, the high lasts longer, but is less intense - has no effect on how long it lasts in the system, but doesn't accumulate as much in the fatty tissue.

Meth and cocaine are pretty much untestable after 24-49 hours, while measurable impairment is entirely dependent on the amount used and the method of use.

Not saying that I want to see folks using heroin and going to work at a nuke plant the next morning - but neither would I want to see them drink a whole lot and go to work at the same. Honestly, there are a lot of jobs where the employee should be tested for a lot of drugs and alcohol - if they aren't clean of all - they shouldn't work. The aforementioned nuke plant being a prime example.

Cops likewise are never really off. Or firefighters. Or any first responders. Or the military. The list goes one. Yes, I am aware these people do drink. It's not the same as drugs. If it was, you would be able to detect alcohol in the body weeks after imbibing.

Is that the criteria? Sweet, then meth, cocaine, psilocybin, mescaline and a whole lot more are all fair game. Opiates and the marijuana are about the only things that last for weeks in the system, because they store in fatty tissue.

And do you really want a first responder to the accident where your child is bleeding badly, to have just finished his fifth or sixth beer? Do you want the off duty cop who's in a beer run, having polished off a case already, to pull out his gun to stop the robbery in progress, while you're in the store?

Different my ass, you think it's different, because it happens to be legal. Sorry to burst your bubble, but after to opiates and speed, alcohol is more addictive than any illicit drug. It is will also impair function far worse than speed, unless the speed is used IV. I won't accuse you of it, but I find most people who think there's a difference, happen to imbibe the occasional (some not so occasional) cocktail.

Someone who comes home and smokes pot every night after work does have a problem, if only mentally. As would someone who drank every night at quitting time.

Here you come close to a reasonable point. Though in a clinical sense, it is very dependent on a number of factors. First and foremost, is how the person reacts, if for some reason that routine is disrupted. If you can't stop thinking about what you're missing out on, you probably are an addict. If you drink/smoke yourself into a stupor every night, you're probably an addict. There are a lot of diagnostic criteria to put into it, but frequency does tend to be more important than quantity.

One minor quibble, mentally is physical and in the context of addiction it is an important distinction. People who are substance addicts, usually have a physiological problem at the root of their addiction/s.

For my own part, it is severe ADHD, which among other things is distinguished by the fact that baseline, my brain produces far less dopamine than most people. Thus I am very prone to wanting substances that increase dopamine production, even artificially. These days, I happily settle for caffeine, nicotine and occasionally, when I can afford it, medication. Being bipolar also adds to the strain, as I am inclined towards drugs that will balance out my cycles. Unfortunately, the medications to treat it are really expensive and because I was too much a fucking moron to accept state assistance for my health care, I don't get them.

Even your average addict, is dealing with a physiological neuro response. So mentally is still a physical response.