Inappropriate topic 420?

[Tinky]

hmmmm Dontcha wish we all lived in Mayberry sometimes?

"Don't worry, be happy"

 

[littleshamrock]

Hey, Man....that's why WDW is so fun, man...

 

[TCPluto]

The patients you have interviewed are most likely people who have either put themselves or someone has forced them to go into rehabilitation.

Also, please enlighten me, of your 25 years of experience and the thousands of representatives that you have interviewed: how many of these succumbed to your help were strictly there for marijuana use only? I'm pretty sure it isn't anyone near the number of people (if any!) who need help for harder drugs and alcohol abuse.

And this isn't to start a discussion of how marijuana is a gateway drug, because as far as opinions go, I think that's been a cop out answer for people who have been busted.

cheerios.

Patients?? I don't have patients. I've never participated in clinical interviews of these abusers. It's all occurred on drug raids and street arrests and such.

Ages? 12-60 something. Drug abuse does not discriminate by any standard. Sadly, many kids from middle and high school. Funny, while drugs were available at the schools to a degree, it's not nearly as prevalent as some would like you to believe. Although, that varies by geographic location and school district.

Many were involved in marijuana use only. Nearly every single abuser of the harder drugs started with marijuana. A coincidence?? I don't think so.

Take care.

 

[1stWDWtrip]

Are you telling me that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder and stronger things? The only gateway that I've observed from pot are ding dongs, twinkies and a big gulp.

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[1stWDWtrip]

They get the alcohol and cigaretes from older brothers, sisters, parents, with or without their knowledge. Or, walk into stores and buy it themselves, right or wrong, it's done. It's much easier to access alcohol and cigarettes, your arguement doesn't work.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying with the 2nd paragraph, some issues with spelling and concepts. "you may are more"? What's the difference between controlled substances and illegal substances?

Well, controlled substances are LEGAL and ILLEGAL substances are NOT. That is a pretty simple theory. (And no, I am NOT trying to make things even worse. I just could not pass up mentioning this one particular issue.)

 

[1stWDWtrip]

Drug dealers are in every school in the country. That is where you get it. Alcohol and cigarettes are not. You may think you are knowledgable on the subject, but you have front line knowledge, great, but it does not mean that is all that is available. It also causes bias. I wont discuss it any further.

Everyone has a different view, there's not right or wrong but its very saddening to see that some people believe the current approach is working. Drugs are part of a bigger problem with the social structure of America. At this point I'd be willing to try many various different approaches to the current war on drugs in hopes of finding something that works slightly better.

 

[TCPluto]

Well, controlled substances are LEGAL and ILLEGAL substances are NOT. That is a pretty simple theory. (And no, I am NOT trying to make things even worse. I just could not pass up mentioning this one particular issue.)

More semantics. Drug laws are VCSA: Violation of the Controlled Substances Act. This inlcudes illict drugs and prescription drugs used illicitly. Hence, they are all controlled substances.

 

[Bunch24]

Hello, I read about nine pages and started to get bored, so I haven't read the entire thread.

But I just want to bring something up that I haven't seen yet. Anybody consider the fact that it might not be marijuana that's being smoked?

The reason I say that is because I worked in a tobacco shop for many years during my younger days (by the way, I don't smoke) and there are legal herb cigarettes out there that smell an awful lot like marijuana.

In fact, we used to have people come in to buy those cigarettes to "pretend" they were smoking weed.

I've been places in public where I thought people were smoking marijuana (concerts, bars, etc.) and when I got a closer look, I realized it was just Djarum cigs or some other clove-type cig.

Not saying 100% of those "marijuana smokers" at Disney are smoking legal herbs, but I'd be willing to bet a few are, in fact, smoking legal cigs.

Just food for thought.

 

[Goobergal99]

Drug dealers in every school, that's where you go to get drugs? Not so much. It happens, and depending on where you're at, maybe not at all. One drug dealer in a school is a problem.
QUOTE]

I was never a drug user, I saw to much stuff growing up that pretty much scared me out of ever even trying them. I am not saying that I am against the use of marijuana either because I am not, it's not for me but to each your own. I will say that I personally went to a catholic highschool and drugs were being sold openly in the hallways. So yea drug dealers are defininetly in the schools and theoretically more so in the suburban and private schools then in the public ones. One reason says it all "financial ability"

 

[Sleepy]

But I just want to bring something up that I haven't seen yet. Anybody consider the fact that it might not be marijuana that's being smoked?

The reason I say that is because I worked in a tobacco shop for many years during my younger days (by the way, I don't smoke) and there are legal herb cigarettes out there that smell an awful lot like marijuana.

Ok, I will bite. I am NOT a smoker and I am very sensitive to smoke smells. Amazingly, I am married to a smoker. He smoked before I met him and has always smoked Marlboro, with varying strengths over the years as milder ones came available. I have noticed that Marlboro does contain something in their cigarettes to give off a marijuana-like scent once in a while. I'm not saying the entire cigarette smells like that, but there have been many times that I have told him that his smoke did not smell legal.

Getting to the original question, when we were staying at the HRH at Universal back in 2001, the nature path between the parks and the hotel, late one night we did pass some kids who were obviously smoking something illegal.

 

[taximomfor4]

Hello, I read about nine pages and started to get bored, so I haven't read the entire thread.

But I just want to bring something up that I haven't seen yet. Anybody consider the fact that it might not be marijuana that's being smoked?

The reason I say that is because I worked in a tobacco shop for many years during my younger days (by the way, I don't smoke) and there are legal herb cigarettes out there that smell an awful lot like marijuana.

In fact, we used to have people come in to buy those cigarettes to "pretend" they were smoking weed.

I've been places in public where I thought people were smoking marijuana (concerts, bars, etc.) and when I got a closer look, I realized it was just Djarum cigs or some other clove-type cig.

Not saying 100% of those "marijuana smokers" at Disney are smoking legal herbs, but I'd be willing to bet a few are, in fact, smoking legal cigs.

Just food for thought.

I worked third shift at Dennys. We had a5 group that was always trying funky kinds of cigarettes. I can tell a clove cigarette with one small sniff, from 10 feet away. I have definitely, positively smelled pot at WDW. Several times oin 5 trips. No doubt at all. Although to add to your point a bit, I have smelled clove cigarettes once at WDW.

As far as the right/wrong, legal/illegal,moral/immoral....I wouldn't touch that with a 10-ft pole. There are many different philosophies to decide ethical/morality issues. Deontological: one set of standards for right/wrong, no adjustment for circumstances...everyone lives by carved-in-stone rules. Ends do NOT justify means. Teleological: has grown to refer to goal-directed behavior in biological and mechanical systems. A phenomenon is to be found in the immediate purpose or cause and also in the reason for which the phenomenon was created or exists.

There are many other schools of thought, many ideas about how to change a law or social more. Many different people, with many different thought processes (most of us NOT philosophers), with many different situations, ideas, principles, values, and circumstances will arrive at different conclusions. That is how two very reasonable people can disagree wholeheartedly. So, does this all make the situation (the pot-smoking, or even whether to report the pot-smokers) "right" or "wrong" in the real world? THAT, my friends, is the part I won't even touch.

 

[GeologyRocks]

TCPluto, a LOT of things about your argument upset me.

First, it sort of bothers me that you think that all these kids coming out of the woodwork talking about how easy it is to meet drug dealers in school are just aberrations. Whether you know for a fact that there are much MORE drug sales going on off campus or not is irrelevant - these kids (today's kids) think that drugs are easy to get at school. If that's the impression they've got, it doesn't matter what you or I think, if they want it, they know the drugs are there.

Second, I'm a scientist, and you have made a statement a couple of times that rubs me wrong. You said that *many* of the drug users that you come into contact with began their 'trip' with marijuana. Unfortunately, you are working with data that comes with an obvious slant - many (most?) of the people you come into contact with are not casual users; they are in criminal trouble for MORE than drug possession. Additionally, because of this, you've fallen for one of the biggest tricks in the science book - the idea that you CANNOT prove causality by using a skewed data pool. If you truly think that marijuana is a gateway drug, you need to prove it by using a random pool of data. The statements you made CANNOT be backed up by your observations, except to solidify your position fallaciously.

Third, it bothers me SO MUCH that you aren't willing to consider an alternate viewpoint. I get the impression that you haven't read the books I have (many by law enforcement officers) because you don't even seem to recognize the SIMPLE distinction that I was trying to make (drug abuse victims vs. drug war victims.) You obviously have never heard of Prohibition, or at the very least refuse to learn from it. Actually, I've gotten the impression that you have just spent so long surrounded by addicts, that you've just decided that the only way to make it through the day is to just keep sticking your head in the sand - you must feel just like the red queen, running as fast as you can just to keep up. Why aren't you willing to *consider* that there's a better way? I'm not trying to convince you to legalize drugs; I'm trying to convince you that there might be a way to control drug abuse in this country that does not result in adding to the casualties.

I'm willing to read any studies you've got - but I bet you've never needed studies to prove your points, have you? I'm saddened that you think people like me would never change my mind - obviously you're just tossing that self reflection out onto us. I'm the one trying to come at this logically, and you're coming at it with froth. Stop blindly believing your way is right - either prove it or start trying to find the right path. The very least you owe this country is to not forcibly stand in the way of people trying to make things better.

 

[GeologyRocks]

That response got soooo long that I decided to put this in a separate post because it's less for TCPluto and more for anyone who ever wants to debate something unpopular.

Research your position - don't give someone the opportunity to make you feel like an idiot because you stuck from the heart and ignored many of the issues. Particularly when you are debating against widely held beliefs, you need to be clear and focused, because the burden of proof is on you. Use those facts - and keep gathering more. Don't be afraid to change your position - if you're wrong, admit it, learn from it, use the opportunity to do more research (see a pattern here, lol?) Listen carefully to your opponent (or take the time to read all of their posts) because you need to be able to respond appropriately, and possibly find fallacies in their reasoning. Above all, be VERY polite - you'll garner no support for your position if you resort to immature bickering.

 

[TCPluto]

that drugs are easy to get at school.

many (most?) of the people you come into contact with are not casual users; they are in criminal trouble for MORE than drug possession.
Additionally, because of this, you've fallen for one of the biggest tricks in the science book - the idea that you CANNOT prove causality by using a skewed data pool.

If you truly think that marijuana is a gateway drug, you need to prove it by using a random pool of data. The statements you made CANNOT be backed up by your observations, except to solidify your position fallaciously.

Third, it bothers me SO MUCH that you aren't willing to consider an alternate viewpoint. I get the impression that you haven't read the books I have (many by law enforcement officers) because you don't even seem to recognize the SIMPLE distinction that I was trying to make (drug abuse victims vs. drug war victims.) You obviously have never heard of Prohibition, or at the very least refuse to learn from it.

Drugs are available in schools, althouh not as readily available as you suggest, you're wrong about that.

You make assumptions about the "data pool" that are incorrect. Hundreds of these folks were involved in possession only circumstances, sorry.

Considering alternatives, happens all the time. One of the alternatives that would cause us greater problems would be legalization, it would increase the user and addicition base ten fold. It's not a viable option.

You obviously didn't read my other posts. I won't bother to go into your other comments, as they've been addressed.

Sorry my opinion doesn't work for you. I've spent a career in the mix, I know what it's all about.

Interesting, your screen name/account was created for this thread........

 

[GeologyRocks]

Actually, I created this account because I just booked a free-dining trip for this fall, and found your board. It seemed as though a bunch of nice people got together to talk about Disney. Thanks for the incorrect assumption.

So, hundreds of the people you've met over the course of 25 years in law enforcement were guilty of possession only. I'm not sure what percentage that must be, would you hazard a guess? In order for your data pool to prove anything significant, your samples have to look like the population - and you just won't get that with your samples. You can't, because you are preferentially looking for the trouble-making sort. It's what you've got to do, you can't avoid the bias, but you darn sure shouldn't be continuing to base policy on it.

I've read every post you've made, and you've presented nothing but opinions, backed up by a poor understanding of statistics. You haven't 'addressed' anything - you've just told me I'm wrong. It's the mentality that upsets me - not your position. You could easily convince me that you're totally right, just pull out real studies. Have YOU ever considered the alternatives, or are you just repeating what someone higher ranking said to you? Perhaps you're just too close, and too jaded - your samples tend towards the bottom of the bucket, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[soupy11]

it would increase the user and addicition base ten fold.

This is totally untrue and a poor attempt at scare mongering. Again, give me a link or source to back this up.

I have to agree that your arguments seem arbitrary, and coming from someone who is in the field everyday, it further undermines the governments stance on the war on drugs. It just seems that this is a fight that can't be won. Some people want to partake in drugs and there is no way that you will ever be able to stop them. At least make some money off of them to cover health care and other costs and reduce the trafficking and illegal movement.

Anyways, no pot at DISNEY and stay in school, kids!

 

[majortom]

The law, however, is black-and-white.

In some cases laws are black and white, and in some cases, they are not as clear.

Eliot Ness targeted illegal breweries during prohibition. Once prohibition ended, he was known to drink spirits.

According to most biographies of Elliot Ness, he was known to drink even during prohibition.

/carmi

 

[jarrdisney]

Anyways, no pot at DISNEY and stay in school, kids!

- Where you can obtain the drugs! We need a little humour here. I graduated HS not too many years ago...and yes it was just as easy or easier to access weed than alcohol. (in the school)

 

[lark]

Pot is ubiquitous, and WDW is not an exception. I expect that many people who haven't smelled it at WDW either don't really know what it smells like or just are focused on other things.

As for the legalization question, it has always seemed so extremely easy to me. I think the legalization people all make some very good points, particularly about the drain on our resources. But the problem would be smoking and driving. At least with drinking it usually takes a little while to get intoxicated, or at least a few drinks. But with weed, you can become impaired extremely quickly and easily -- I think if pot were legal, the incidence of smoking and driving would go way way way up, and people would get hurt and hurt others. (Not to mention the cost of enforcing all the new driving while impaired laws that would have to be created.) Just seems like a no-brainer to me. We've got enough problems trying to eradicate drunk driving, and it seems like since so many wealthy or at least middle class people do it that we don't have the public will to truly crack down on it. We pass "one night in jail" laws for drunk driving and we think we've accomplished something, when if we truly wanted to erradicate it we'd give people real jail time for first offenses. But every legislator has probably gotten behind the wheel drunk and knows they might again, so they'll never do that. Until we have the national will to get our house in order on drunk driving, I just can't see allowing Marlboro or whomever would make pot cigarettes to legally market them to the general driving public.

Cracking down on medical marijuana use, though -- now that's one where I think our politicians have lost their minds.

 

[lark]

According to most biographies of Elliot Ness, he was known to drink even during prohibition.

I am virtually certain that neither the 18th amendment nor the Volstead Act prohibited the DRINKING of alcoholic beverages, for what it's worth. In short, contrary to popular belief, it was not a crime to drink during prohibition.