Happy Fourth Anniversary, AMP-L - Part Four of Five

[OnwardMike at aol.com]

Subj:   The AMP-L First Anniversary Anthology - Part Three of Four
Date:   97-02-06 11:22:04 EST
From:   OnwardMike at aol.com
Sender: Maiser at hoffman.mgen.pitt.edu
Reply-to:   Amp-L at hoffman.mgen.pitt.edu
To: Amp-L at hoffman.mgen.pitt.edu (Amputee Information Network)

THE POST: Chuck B.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following post has been excerpted from an 
original that was more than twice as long -- the longest original post 
that had appeared on AMP-L up to then. I wrote Chuck Bryant 10 days 
ago to ask him to edit it, but got no response. I understand he is no 
longer a subscriber to AMP-L.    --MB]

Subj:     Marijuana etc.
Date:     96-03-14 18:59:00 EST
From:     cbryant at peace-ed.org (chuck bryant)
Sende r:  Maiser at hoffman.mgen.pitt.edu
Reply-to: Amp-L at hoffman.mgen.pitt.edu
To:       Amp-L at hoffman.mgen.pitt.edu (Amputee Information Network)

Wayne, thanks for taking the time to respond re: the marijuana issue. I
know e-mail is not good at expressing that I am not offended by you
personally. I DO disagree with much of what you're saying. I do not
consider the criminalization side to have perfect logic. However, the
arguments that come up for decriminalization are FAR flimsier and
overall MUCH more irrational.

I do NOT lump the occasional pot-smoker indiscriminately with crack
whores and crazed PCP gonzos and spouse-beating alcohol abusers. The
symptoms CAN be quite different. But mellow and peaceful does not
necessarily mean GOOD.

Some respond to alcohol similarly. That doesn't mean it's GOOD for one's
cerebral function, or white blood cell count, or muscular coordination,
or installing your gas heating unit safely, or replacing your brakes
properly. Mellow little details can count very seriously, no matter how
nice the smoker.

Further, I readily acknowledge that the anti-drug use side does NOT have
solutions to everything. I suspect that any further disclaimers would
only bore us both. Suffice it to say that I think you know I'll welcome
any response.

As a former substance abuse counselor, I understand the clinical
distinctions within the classes of narcotics, including narcotics as
distinguished from sedative hypnotics, stimulants, hallucinogens, and
various other psychoactives.

WR> When I used marijuana for relief of phantom limb pain I was
    committing a criminal act. It is illegal to possess marijuana, and I
    was in possession of the substance that offered me a bit of relief.
    Five years in a Florida jail. They could have put me in the same
    cell with Ted Bundy.

Then wouldn't it be wise of me NOT to do that as long as those laws
exist? If I CHOOSE to disobey the law, I'm CHOOSING to accept the risk
of putting myself in there. Does my discomfort or pain justify my
breaking the law? If I choose an illegal action, I may pay the price.

I may be hungry despite best efforts to find work, but if I steal food,
I may still end up in jail, at least overnight, and possibly with Jr.
Bundy.

In my former work with alcohol/other drug abusers, they'd complain
about DUI laws. "I wanted to get home!" "I didn't hurt anybody!" "It's
my right to drink like I want!" But when anyone tries to point out
realistic alternatives such as cabs, having friends drive, or recommends
counseling or treatment, the typical response is some variation on the
theme of "AHHH, nobody can tell me whether I can drink or drive. I'm
gonna do what I need to do."

They refuse to deal with THEIR responsibility. THEIR behavior is never
the problem; the LAWS are the problem. This sort of myopia is common
among adolescents; one challenge of adulthood is to see the world beyond
my own shallow gratification. As abusers I worked with saw it, the LAWS
should change to fit THEIR preferred behavior, whether alcohol, ludes,
pot, meth, whatever.

If I work to bring about changes in the law regarding alcohol or other
drug abuse, and the penalites change, then my casual use becomes legally
appropriate (and it may still be irresponsible inasmuch as I use it to
avoid the real world). But as long as those laws stand, I am 100%
responsible for any consequences of my choosing to break the laws.

"Midnight Express" is a good case in point. It accurately depicted the
young man's plight for a minor drug offense. Some complained about the
horror he endured. I agree, it was horrible. Terrible. Cruel. Barbaric.
Senseless. And completely his own responsiblity, with no excuses, and no
whining allowed.

What few people will own up to is that he consciously decided to do
something damned stupid in the worst possible place. He got what he
asked for. And he deserves no pity. He's no noble hero, no martyr.
Anyone who deliberately and willfully jumps from a plane from 12,000
feet with no parachute because the freefall feels good has no right to
complain about how solid the ground is.

WR> What is suspect is that smoking marijuana may not have anywhere
    near the terrible side effects of some other readily available drugs.

"May." I'm glad you did include that crucial term. I repeat: abuse of
our already-legal drugs causes massive death and tragedy, while
contributing no benefit (other than the individual user's transient
chemical gratification). Legal tobacco and alcohol serve as the most
obvious illustrations. Where's the intelligence in adding to the array
of psychoactives available? The fact is we don't fully understand the
majority of the over 460 elements of THC and therefore CANNOT declare
pot safe. The fact that typical pot's THC content is often three to four
times higher now than it was a few decades back complicates the
situation further.

WR> It is not likely marijuana would harm you.

Wayne, do you consider lung cancer "harmful"? Marijuana advocates are
sounding more and more like the tobacco companies.

WR> Texas has thousands of marijuana users locked up. These jailbird's
    crime was to possess (often smuggling) a weed, and it is costing you
    and your family a buncha bucks as well as destroying the lives of
    some otherwise decent people.

OTHERWISE, yes. I also know of OTHERWISE good community leaders who
embezzle funds or dole out favors to their cronies. There are child
abusers who are OTHERWISE great people. There are hookers spreading HIV
who are OTHERWISE wonderful people.

Before anyone misappropriates this illustration and incorrectly says I'm
EQUATING a potsmoker with a child-abusing-embezzling-HIV-positive-
hooker, NO.

I'm simply pointing out that the phrase "OTHERWISE decent people" makes
NO difference when I'm still doing something ELSE illegal or immoral.
(another one of those examples of the absolutely illogical sort of
argument typically used in rationalizing so-called "recreational" or
casual use).

And so it's a weed. Of course it is. Organic. Natural. Therefore good,
right? That's the line of thought. Hey, if organic = good, then drink
some mountain stream water and enjoy the giardia. If "nature" always =
right, then pick mushrooms at night and put them on your pizza. Maybe
you'll have the safe kind; maybe you'll die. If organic = pleasure, try
getting a .3 or .4 of yeast/grain/alcohol, and see how healthy and
normal a coma or death can be. If "natural chemical" is good for us,
aggravate a rattlesnake and let him share some natural chemicals with
your veins.

WR> Prison often turns decent folks into not-so-decent folks.

Then if I'm a decent folk, wouldn't it be sensible of me not do anything
that could get me put into prison?

WR> I can obtain anything I want, heroin, speed, rope, barbiturates,
    opium, or marijuana five minutes from my house.

Medication to address genuine physical pain (and phantom pain is
genuine) is one thing. I support meds to alleviate that symptom, and I
support THC for that purpose if enough clinical studies support it (I
realize that they do seem to indicate objective benefit for glaucoma;
phantom pain is unfortunately a more subjective thing for which results
don't necessarily come across as convincingly or reliably in clinicals.)
Our disagreement does seem to center largely on the role of chemicals
for so-called "recreational use," as if forcing a drastic change in the
body's normal, healthy function were just another form of listening to
music, enjoying a sunset, jogging to release endorphins, etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Chuck Bryant
cbryant at peace-ed.org
Miami, Florida USA

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to
everything else in the universe."

John Muir, 1869
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

END OF ANNIVERSARY ANTHOLOGY -- PART FOUR OF FIVE