[Aardwolf]

I feel ignored.

I bet legalizing marijuana would reduce how many people start meth, if not also allow current meth addicts to transition off of it onto something less addictive.

Reasonable hypothesis or no?

And can someone with better Google-fu than me please check whether ALEC had a hand in this?

[Scotty]

It's.... not entirely reasonable, mostly because addiction/dependency doesn't really work in a way that it becomes feasible to transition to something else.  Chemical addictions are formed to a specific chemical (hence the name), and the withdrawals kick in after a prolonged absence (for certain definitions of 'prolonged') of that chemical.  Substituting another chemical to take the edge off would still get you high, but the withdrawals would still suck hard, and then they'd just go back to the thing they're dependent on in the first place.

Addition is an ugly monster.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Addition is an ugly monster.

* AdmiralRalwood pictures a giant, ravenous plus sign

[Aardwolf]

Ok, and what about the first part?

[Scotty]

I can't speak to its validity or invalidity, mostly because I doubt any of us currently talking in this conversation have a good grasp of drug dynamics.

[Nuke]

if you do different drugs every day, then you will never get addicted to any of them.

[Aardwolf]

But if the number of legal non-prescription ways to get high goes from 0 to 1...?

Wait, isn't nicotine a stimulant? What's the difference between tobacco and cannabis then?

Edit: in case some asshole doesn't know what question marks mean: clearly I am acknowledging my ignorance here, someone enlighten me.



And while I'm editing this... I did a little more research, and found out that Tennessee is where the corporate HQ of "Correctional Corporation of America" (which works through ALEC). Still couldn't find the name of the law anywhere, or anything that definitely indicates they had a hand in it, but it seems even more certain they did now.

[headdie]

But if the number of legal non-prescription ways to get high goes from 0 to 1...?

Wait, isn't nicotine a stimulant? What's the difference between tobacco and cannabis then?

Cannabis does a number on your brain including, but not limited to paranoia and memory loss, with prolonged use, especially with the stronger strains of the plant, these effects become permanent.

[Aardwolf]

FINALLY found it: SB 1391 / HB 1295, which became Public Chapter Number 820. That will make researching whether CCA/ALEC had a hand in its origins easier, but I'm tired now.

@headdie: I meant why people choose it over tobacco. And idk if that info is right... I remember finding out that what they taught me in school was a load of horse****, but idr if that was part of it anymore

[Nuke]

if you want to learn about dope, the best way is to light up a dube.

[Dragon]

On a side note, I find the idea of LEGALIZING the drugs downright terrifying.

At least the drug discussed here, yeah. My bad that I didn't notice (at first) that they specifically mentioned meth, which is just as bad as they say that it is, if not worse. Pot is usually what people want to legalize, and usually what's being talked about when it comes to drugs. It isn't any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and even used as a prescription medicine (though this occasionally runs into legal problems, too...). There is, on the other hand, no doubt that meth and similar stuff should be forbidden and the dealers hunted down without mercy.

[Aardwolf]

Ok then. Are there any other non-prescription drugs that are legal, and can be used in a "recreational" manner, legally? (I say "legal" a second time because of stuff like household chemicals used as inhalants, since it's legal to own the chemicals, but it's illegal to use as an inhalant).

Else "legalize marijuana" seems like the best solution, because if marijuana were legal nobody¹ would bother with meth. It also seems like, of the "recreational" drugs to consider for legalization, marijuana is afaik the one with the least deleterious side effects.

Is there a reason why nobody's addressing my comments about the probable involvement of CCA/ALEC in this legislation? 



¹Hyperbole

[Nuke]

tons of them. "synthetic marijuana" is one of those things. they are always coming up with new formulas to get it through loopholes in the law (my state has been cracking down on it). i dont exacty suggest anyone actually use it. its just plant matter laced with chemicals. there are other more "natural" things out there like shrooms or salvia (they were legal last i checked). these things are usually sold at hed shops, though you can order it online in some states. i haven't actually used any of those substances, weed is generally safer, even compared to things like tobacco or booze.

[BlueFlames]

Is there a reason why nobody's addressing my comments about the probable involvement of CCA/ALEC in this legislation? 

What's it matter if ALEC originally drafted the legislation?

Think seriously about that question.  Whether or not this bill was drafted by ALEC, does it change the (in)effectiveness or side-effects of the law?  Are there different alternative solutions to the core problem of meth-use by pregnant women in Tennessee, if the bill was or wasn't written by ALEC?

Most everyone in the thread has taken to discussing the quality of this solution and possible alternatives.  Any ALEC involvement in the legislative process is not particularly relevant.  You're free to bring it up, of course, to see if anyone in the thread wants to run with that point, but apparently your interest is not shared by the other participants.

Honestly, I kind of understand why.  Outside organizations write and lobby for legislation.  That's neither new, nor necessarily bad.  There's probably a good discussion to be had about the topic (seriously, start that thread; I'd like to participate), but not in another pre-existing discussion, where people are already drilling deep into the details of a specific piece of legislation.

To be clear, I'm not trying to backseat moderate.  If the discussion does take a sudden turn to outside groups and how they influence the legislative process, then that's fair enough, and I'm perfectly happy to see it happen.  I'm just answering Aardwolf's question by explaining why I feel that would be a big shift in the conversation and why that shift hasn't happened already.

[Aardwolf]

Mmm. I see. It's only relevant if you go along with my proposed fix, legalizing marijuana.



Well then:

Pros:

• People can get the same high, safer, and legally
• Therefore less new meth addicts
• Maybe help existing meth addicts quit
• Drug cartels dry up and vanish; Taliban & Al Qaeda opium trade as well
• Maybe police will become less militarized after the "War on Drugs" funding dries up
• Other stuff I could probably think of

Cons:

• ALEC will do everything it can to make sure it doesn't happen

How's that?

[Scotty]

You're equating a meth high with a marijuana high.  They are not the same thing.  Drugs are not merely different intake methods to experience the same sensation.  The idea that legalizing marijuana significantly negatively impacts the drug trade (see my earlier explanation for why chemical dependency is complicated) is naive at best.

[Aardwolf]

Whatever. Unless I'm missing something, there's currently zero legal recreational drugs that are anywhere near as potent as the illegal ones. I don't care if it's not the exact same effect. If tobacco were "as good as" the illegal stuff, a lot fewer people would bother with the illegal stuff. But it isn't, right?¹

I am not talking about an individual getting their fix for an existing addiction. I am talking about new addicts. That's why that line that said "Maybe help existing meth addicts quit" is prefaced with the word "Maybe" in italics; yes you indicated to the contrary, but I'm not thoroughly convinced. Specifically: can't you fight withdrawal symptoms with another stimulant, maybe one that's less addictive and has less misc. deleterious effects?¹

I don't get how going from there existing zero safe, legal, non-prescription recreational drugs to there existing one could fail to cause to a marked drop in the demand for unsafe, illegal, or prescription-only² recreational drugs.

Edit: And at the very least legalizing marijuana would negatively effect the illegal marijuana trade.



¹Question mark.
²It should also be mentioned that another of the big backers of harsh drug policy laws like this is the pharmaceuticals industry; legalizing anything would break their monopoly on recreational drugs.

[InsaneBaron]

I'm not at all happy with the idea of legalizing Pot. The idea that it's no more harmful than tobacco is just plain wrong. Not only that, it triggers destructive behavior in the user such that even those who don't take it are effected. Making Marijuana use legal, easy, and worst of all, social acceptable would open a Pandora's Box- and I'm speaking as someone who's had to live in close proximity to pot users for longer than I like to think about.

[Nuke]

i think the thing i tripped the most balls on were those 2 boxes of sleeping pills i took back in 2002 in an effort to kill myself. i was hallucinating and all kinds of ****.

a meth high kinds seems like just a heightened level of alertness. granted i didnt smoke that much meth. if it wasnt for the extreme amount of damage the stuff does to ones body, i wouldn't see a problem with it. it would be good for truckers, soldiers, airline pilots, and surgeons to take. anyone who needed to be alert for an extended period of time. it actually makes sense why they give the stuff to people with add.

[Beskargam]

Edit: nevermind

Amphetamine could be distributed, it's methyl-ed cousin, not so much. Even still Amphetamine has some nasty side effects that can get you if you aren't careful. Plus it doesn't replace sleep, just makes you think you don't need it.

Sometimes the reason an individual starts experimenting with illegal drugs is because they are illegal. They, like cigarettes, have appeal because they're taboo. So I don't think potency is a good argument for why people would choose legal vs illegal. It really comes down to "It's not that simple"