legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

I have relations with heroin addicts and they are indeed increasing their dosage with the pass of time, maybe i know the wrong ones?
I also have some close friends that are addicted to coke , yes they run their own successful businesses , rise kids and so on but they do get mad when they need coke and can not have it and they do strange things when under the influence .
I guess everything goes down to each personality , my personality is very addiction intolerant so i can not do coke , others may regulate use and have fun with it . Certainly i do not wish to play cop with someone's desires.

Excuse me for being ignorant but if i took the process right you need a tree to extract enough coke that will last you for a week.
How you can grow your own coke in your backyard when you will need a farm to stash enough for a year?
Commercial coke means that millions of acres will have to convert for industrial production , underground waters will have to be violated like never before in order to irrigate non tropical areas and after 20 years you will have millions of addicts and a decreasing amount of supply with sky-rocketing prices and users switching back to cheaper alternatives.
I call this a time bomb!

 

This is actually where the belief that marijuana is a gateway drug fails. Studies have shown that the desire to do stronger drugs exists before the person tries marijuana and is not created by the use of marijuana. The person is seeking an "altered reality" and soon finds that marijuana, because its relatively mild, doesn't achieve this altered reality to the level they desire.

The psychological inclination of the person to do the harder drugs exists before the person ever does any drug including marijuana. If marijuana never existed the users of these harder drugs like herion and cocaine would still use those harder drugs and the use of marijuana really has nothing to do with it. It is a personality trait that leads to hard drug usage and not the drugs they might use along the way to eventually reach their "drug of choice" in becoming an addict or hard drug user. There are many places in the world where marijuana isn't available but people still use "harder" drugs. There is no "cause and effect" relationship between the use of marijuana and the use of harder drugs.

As noted numerous studies have demonstated this to be a fact.

 

People that use hard narcotics may indeed increase their overall consumption but I've found no accurate source indicating that they require more to get high to satisfy their addiction (assuming they're addicted).

Those that become irritated when they can't get the drugs they need are reflecting a personality issue and not a drug issue. It is true that some that do narcotics are mentally prone to violence or anxiety but that is a personality trait they already have and is not caused by the drug usage.

The coca plant is native to South America and grows there naturally although it is commercially grown as well. The new growth leaves are used for cocaine production and it does not harm the plant. With the trimming of leaves the new growth is constant so the supply of leaves (and therefore the cocaine) is fundamentally available year round.

There is also a misconception that legalization will lead to more users and that hasn't been supported based upon actual studies. It could cause a slight rise in the amount of cocaine used per person but that does not reflect an increase in the number of users.

Yes, the increase in total consumption would lead to more planting of coca plants but because they are a native species there are no real negative ecological impacts. It's no different than raising apples in Washington which does not harm the ecology of Washington. In fact, in many cases, commerical agriculture can actually improve the overall ecology of an area. It all depends upon what is grown and how it is grown. By way of example we have blackberries that grow wild in abundance in Washington (where I live) and commercially harvesting blackberries does not harm the ecology of the state.

We can also note that the farmers that grow coca are going to grow something even if its not the coca plant so the same number of acres are going to be dedicated to argiculture in any case. They're actually better off growing a native plant than introducing a non-native species into the area.

Of course the number of acres of land that is required to furnish the cocaine supply is actually very limited anyway. Its not like massive tracts of forest would be cut down to plant coca because, even with legalization, there just wouldn't be that much demand.

It is also interesting that Coca Cola (the name itself is derived from the coca plant used) still uses alkaloids from the coca plant although it no longer uses cocaine (which it once contained) so there is already a huge commerical market for the coca leaves where the cocaine is being processed out. Basically hundreds of tons of cocaine is being "washed down the drain" just to provide the ingrediants for the production of Coca Cola today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula#Ingredient_rumor

We might already have far more coca leaves just for Coca Cola to produce cocaine than are actually needed. As noted they're literally processing the cocaine out of the leaves today and not using it for anything.

 

Are you stating that those specific people would have still tried out harder drugs, even if they had never tried out marijuana first? If you just check out this video, I can refute your entire argument that you just stated. I strongly recommend that you watch that entire video, so you can see some examples of what I was talking about before.

[video=youtube;setRrSZOO9g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=setRrSZOO9g[/video]

Here's a better analogy to look as this whole " is pot a gateway drug" debate. Many people who ride bicycles get curious about other kinds of bicycles, and they start out trying one type of bicycle, and then they get into other kinds of bicycles, because trying out their first bicycle caused them to get interested in other bicycles. That's the same analogy with marijuana, which stokes some people's interetst in other drugs. It's not like they had the psychological desires to do harder drugs even before they started pot (for some people, that's true, but for others, that's totally false); pot got them interested in other drugs in general, the same way that riding some brands of bicycles makes somebody interested in trying out some other brands of bicycles.

BTW, the gateway drug theory doesn't state that all pot users try out harder drugs, it just states that using marijuana can lead to some people trying out harder drugs.

 

All drugs should be legalized.

Drug addicts should be able to use prescriptions to buy their drugs at pharmacies. The cost would only be about 5% of what they now pay for illicit drugs on the streets. There would no longer be a need for users to steal, rob and kill citizens to get money to buy drugs.

The drug cartels in Mexico and sellers in America would all be out of business in about an hour.

The U.S. prison population would be reduced by 40%, freeing up space for violent criminals.

The phony, expensive and meaningless "war on drugs," would no longer be needed.

Legalizing drugs would of course send the wrong message to kids -- but it would be the far lesser of the evils.

 

Actually those that propose the "gateway drug theory" are only stating that someone that uses harder drugs probably uses or used marijuana at some point in the past. The the typical analogy has been that someone that rides a motorcycle probably rode a bicycle at some point in the past but riding a bicycle doesn't predict that a person that rode a bicycle when they were young will later decide to ride a motorcycle. There isn't a cause and effect relationship between riding a bicycle and riding a motorcycle and there isn't a "cause and effect" relationship between marijuana and harder drugs.

The use of recreational drugs is driven by psychological factors but we find a difference. Someone that uses hard drugs has psychological factors that lead them to use hard drugs and that can also include the use of marijuana. People also have psychological factors that might lead them the drink alcohol and use majijuana but don't have the pyschological factors that would lead them to use harder drugs. If we address "cause and effect" we could typically state that the use of hard drugs typically results in a person also using marijuana but the use of marijuana does not typically lead to the use of hard drugs. We have "cause and effect" where hard drugs is a "cause" that typically results in the "effect" of using marijuana but the reverse is not true.

Here's another analogy. A person that drinks Jack Danials probably drinks beer but a person that drinks beer doesn't typically drink Jack Danials. A person that uses heroin typically smokes pot but a person that smokes pot doesn't typically use heroin. The "gateway theory" of marijuana is actually juxtaposed to reality.

 

Also, you're assumng (and without proof), that everybody that uses harder drugs does so because of some underlying psychological factors, which is not true. Some people that try out those harder drugs do so, out of sheer curiosity. And had those same people never tried out marijuana, they never would have gotten their interest stoked in those harder drugs.

Here's some of the proof that supports the gateway drug theory. If you check out that " marijuana is a gateway drug" video that i posted in some previous pages, some of the people state that had they never tried out marijuana, they never would have had the desire to try out those harder drugs. That proves a cause and effect in some marijuana users to try out harder drugs. Here's an analogy, since you used bicycles as a metaphor for the usage of some drugs

Suppose somebody isn't really interested in bicycles, but somehow they get interested in bicycles, for some reason, something caused them to get interested in riding bikes. Then after riding one specific brand of bicycles, such as those normal everyday specific types of bicycles, (well obviously due to the psychology of human nature, the desire to try out some newer things), they get interested in mountain bike riding.

Had they never started riding bikes, they never would have gotten interested in going one step further to start riding mountian bikes, because had they never started riding bikes, their interested in other sorts of bikes (such as mountain bikes), never would have been stoked, and they would have no real reason to enjoy riding mountain bikes (since if they never started riding normal bikes in the first place).

Hence, there is some causation between somebody who smokes marijuana and somebody that does other types of drugs.

It's just human nature. If you start eating some brands of cereal, then you obviously might possibly get interested in trying out some other brands of cereal.

 

Here's the five reasons behind drug additions based upon a joint study

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/dacd/appendixa_7.htm

Excluding those that become addicted related to medical treatment (5%) all of these reflect a psychological predisposition to addiction of the individual completely unrelated to marijuana use.

The video presents anectodal stories without addressing the clinical reasons behind addiction. A person with a psychological dependency problem is most likely to use marijuana first because it is the most commonly available illegal drug. We have roughly 50 million active marijuana users in America today and perhaps 1/2 of all Americans have used marijuana at some point in their life. The vast majority of these never become addicted to any drug, ever.

It can also be noted that prescription painkillers are the Number 1 addictive drugs being abused in America today and many of those addicted to prescription painkillers have never used marijuana. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect anecdotal case of a person that didn't use marijuana being a drug addict to prescription drugs.

Marijuana is not physically addictive, is non-lethal (i.e. no lethal toxicity level), doesn't cause crime (except as related to the black market in furnishing it), and is far less harmful than many other "legal" drugs in society including coffee (caffeine does have a lethal toxicity level).

If there is any "gateway" connection between marijuana and addiction then it's based upon distribution through the black market and not the "drug" itself. Because marijuana is a black market commodity the person selling marijuana generally has access to and probably sells other illegal and addictive drugs. If marijuana is legalized then it removes the "black market" connection that provides access to addictive drugs.

 

What proof do you have that 50% of Americans have tried out marijuana at least once during their lifetimes?

There's a cause and effect relationship between marijuana and people that try out those harder drugs. Those people in that video stated that if they never tried pot, they would have no interests whatsoever in trying out those stronger drugs. And you might claim that "they had the psychological factors in place, and they had the desire to do those stronger drugs even if they had never tried pot", which is not true at all. The only reason that they tried out those harder drugs was because smoking marijuana gave them a curiosity to experiment more and to try out some other, more stronger drugs.

Hypotheically, as one of the guys in that video had stated, had he never smoked pot, he would have no interets whatsoever in trying out some of those more stronger drugs.

And, he had no desires whatsoever to do stronger drugs before he tried out smoking marijuana, which stoked his interest in doing those sorts of things. Had he never smoked marijuana, he stated that he never would have touched any of those stronger drugs.

Also, there are no psychological factors that cause somebody to stop getting high and building a tolerance to cannabis (which does lead some people into seeking out some stronger drugs, if they crave another high). Each drug has different physical affects for some different users, and somebody who would never even have any desires of doing some stronger drugs would do that if they tried out smoking pot and they developed a physical tolerance for that specific drug.

Here's some hypothetical question-if pot was legalized, would those people in that video still have tried out those stronger drugs, or not?

And, also, how are the stories in that video, anectodal, to you?

Also, not every person that has tried out stronger drugs has those five factors that you had mention above. Some of those people just had a curiosity for those sorts of things, and trying out marijuana stokes their curiosity in some pot smokers to try out some stronger drugs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Usage

Admittedly this only addresses Americans age 58 and younger but it also only addresses marijuana use before the age of 21 and not those that experiment with marijuana after age 21. We can also note that significant percentage of those born between 1940 and 1959 have also used marijuana as all of the marijuana use in the 1960's, and it was extensive, was by those born prior to 1960. All factors considered an estimate of 50% of all adult Americans is a relatively good estimate of historical usage of marijuana by Americans.

This is the first time where I've seen anyone claim that a hard drug user was qualified to make a psychological evaluation of themself. I would put forward the proposition that even if marijuana didn't exist at all that these individuals would still have become hard drug users. It is highly likely that all of those questioned have also used alcohol and if we still had alcohol prohibition then those supplying alcohol on the black market would also be furnishing harder "drugs" like heroin and cocaine so the "access" to the harder "drugs" would still be available from the same source and these individuals would be highly likely to try those drugs because of the psychological factors that lead to drug addiction.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the fact that marijuana is traded on the black market by many of the same people that trade in addictive drugs expands the availability of the addictive drugs but there is no evidence that there is a cause and effect relationship between marijuana and addictive drugs. Taking an "addicts" word for why they used hard drugs is the most absurd proposition ever made. They are not experts on the reasons behind drug addiction and their stories are anecdotal where they don't know what the hell they're talking about. In many if not most cases they're just looking for an excuse for their own behavior as they refuse to accept personal responsibility for it.

 

I think I'm going to have to agree with Shiva on this subject. Decriminalization is the only choice. The question is how it should be done.

 

I disagree with your assertion that if pot never existed, those people still would have become harder drug addicts. Before trying out pot, those people stated that they had no desires whatsover to do any sorts of drugs, but they also stated that pot stoked their interest in those other drugs.

One of those girls in that video admitted that she started out smoking marijuana as something, "casual and fun". It wasn't as if she had the desires to do harder drugs even before she used marijuana, using marijuana got her interested in the harder drug usage. She became very emotionally dependent on it, and they she sought out other highs (ie, some harder drugs) after she built a tolerance for the marijuana. If she had never smoked marijuana, she wouldn't be in that state of desperately searching for other highs to find.

Which refutes your earlier arguement.

"This is actually where the belief that marijuana is a gateway drug fails. Studies have shown that the desire to do stronger drugs exists before the person tries marijuana and is not created by the use of marijuana. The person is seeking an "altered reality" and soon finds that marijuana, because its relatively mild, doesn't achieve this altered reality to the level they desire."

What about the guy that was offered some marijuana at a party? He didn't seem like the kind of guy that wanted to do any sorts of drugs, but smoking pot stoked his interests in doing that. That girl that I mentioned above didn't seem to fit your description at all, and neither did that guy also.

Now, here's another very good question that I have for you. Would you think that it's fair to state that if marijuana was legalized, and there wasn't any black market exposure, that all (or at least some, or maybe most) of those people in that video never would have been exposed to those harder drugs?

The second thing that I wanted to state is this. Even if alcohol and tobacco were just suddenly illegalized, and even if marijuana was never made into an illegal substance, I would still believe that alcohol and tobacco still wouldn't be gateway drugs, and I would still also believe that marijuana would keep being a gateway drug. Here's why. Smoking pot, despite being a soft drug, has mind altering effects that more closely mirror those harder drugs, than do alcohol and tobacco.

Whenever somebody smokes pot, it releases their dopamine levels to very high levels, just like the mind altering effects that using heroin, crack, cocaine, and crystal meth, which gives a very strong euphoria to the smoker. Smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol doesn't get people "high". It just doesn't have that same strong mind altering and very strong euphoria that smoking pot does.

 

Once again this is contradicted by the actual facts. The "girl" had a psychological dependancy to seek an "alternate reality" before she ever tried marijuana. Marijuana does provide a limited experience outside of "normal" reality and that never changes. A person does not build up a tolerance to marijuana over time. A person that has smoked marijuana daily for 30 years gets the same "high" that they got 30 years ago.

The problem is that the "marijuana high" for those with a greater psychological dependancy isn't enough to statisfy their psychological dependancy over time. It started out as "fun and casual" but did not meet their psychological dependance in seeking an alternative reality. When they took up "harder" drugs (i.e. addictive drugs) it was also "fun and casual" at first before the addiction set in.

She had the "emotional" (psychological) dependancy long before she ever smoked marijuana and that emotionaly dependancy was greater than the marijuana could satisfy which is why she ended up doing harder drugs.

Remember one fact and that is the "addict" is trying to rationalize their addiction. They don't typically accept the facts related to their pyschological dependancies that lead to their addictions. We've seen examples of transposed psychological dependancies related to those that were "drug junkies" and then became "Jesus junkies" where they simply transferred their drug dependancy to a religious dependancy but they were still "junkies" as they never addressed their psychological problems of dependancy.

 

I actually support "legalization and regulation of commercial supply" and there is a difference between that and decriminalization. One key difference is that under "legalization" a person can grow and even process the "drug" for their personal use but cannot sell it. A person could grow their own marijuana plants, coca plants and opium poppies so long as they didn't engage in the sale of the product. They could process the raw coca leaves into cocaine or the opium into heroin so long as it was limited to their personal consumption.

BTW I also support "moonshine" production without regulation so long as it's for personal consumption and not for sale.

Once a product becomes "commercial" then it can be regulated but the government should not be regulating what we do for our personal consumption.

 

Well, your theory being true depends on whether or not which one of my two theories below is true or is false

(A)-Some users actually build a physical tolerance after smoking marijuana, and they stop getting high after using it.

OR

(B)-some users don't actually develop a physical tolerance for it. Smoking pot still gives them that same high, but they just want something more stronger and intense.

If Situation A is true, then some of those people in that video didn't have any previous psychological desires or needs to do some drugs and seek out some alternate reality, they just stopped getting high after building a physical tolerance of smoking pot and they stopped getting high from it, which directly caused them to seek out other drugs.

If Situation B is true, then your theory is true, because those people were seeking some sort of "highs" anyways, but marijuana didn't satisfy them, so they sought out some other, and more stronger highs. Their "tolerance" was just their psychological desires to seek out some stronger highs, that they were looking for even before they tried smoking pot, which was just their nearest available drug that they had available to them.

Which all depends on this question that's below.

However, do you have any evidence from studies or from science that people don't actually build a physical tolerance from smoking marijuana, and that their "tolerance" is just their mental dissatisfication with marijuana and it's actually some desire to seek out some stronger highs?

Here's another question that I have for you.

Alcohol and tobacco do release dopamine levels whenever they're used, but they don't release dopamine levels anywhere near the levels of those harder drugs. Does marijuana release dopamine levels closer to that of alcohol or tobacco, or is it more closer to the dopamine levels of those harder drugs (such as crystal meth, heroin, crack, and cocaine)?

Hypothetically even if we still had alcohol prohibition, and if we suddenly just illegalized tobacco, I highly doubt that alcohol nowadays would be classified as a gateway drug-despite that black market exposure. Here's why. Alcohol's mental effects are nothing similar to the mental effects that happen as a result of harder drug usage. Do alcohol and tobacco release dopmaine levels to very high levels and put people into altered states of consciousnesses, and does alcohol and tobacco get people high? No, it doesn't.

You argued earlier that the exposure to the black market is only what causes the true cause-and-effect gateway effect. However, if that was so true, then you would expect that alcohol prohibition led to an increase in harder drug usage, which it didn't.

Why didn't alcohol prohibition lead to an increase in harder drugs usage, if if exposed people to the black market? Why didn't people consider alcohol to be some sort of gateway drug during the alcohol prohibition era?

 

Marijuana (and LSD) are non-addictive drugs and, as such, no physical tolerance is established by the body. A person can only build-up a physical tolerance to a physically addictive drug. For example a person can build up a physical tolerance for caffeine in coffee and soda because it is physically addictive. Tolerance build-up is related to the physical "need" for the substance and lacking that the body does not build-up a tolerance.

Those with mental (psychological) dependancies don't become physically dependent but because their psychological dependency is not being met by marijuana they will tend to use more and more over time to try and fulfill their psychological dependancy. They will actually reach a plateau related to marijuana because a person can only get "so high" on marijuana and when that still doesn't fulfill their psychological dependancy they are very likely to try harder drugs.

The simple fact is that those that use harder drugs are driven to do so because they have a psychological dependancy that marijuana won't satisfy. They have this pyschologically dependant personality well before they try any drugs and they initially marijuana as their first "illegal" drug because marijuana the most available "illegal" drug. They've already tried "legal" mind altering substances (I've never met or even heard of a hard drug addict that didn't start out drinking alcohol) before trying "illegal" drugs in their quest to meet their psychological dependancy.

Once again always remember that the "addict" is trying to rationalize their addiction as opposed to taking personal responsibility for it. None of us would like to admit that we have psychological disorders and would prefer to blame "something" else for our problems. When we hear most addicts discussing their addictions we have to understand that they are trying to avoid personal responsibility for their actions and are trying to blame something, anything, other than themself for their problem. All of us have a psychological defense where we try to rationalize our own actions and often seek an "excuse" for those actions as opposed to simply recognizing that we're wrong and we're the problem.

By way of analogy how many bank robbers blame the police for the fact they're in jail as opposed to accepting personal responsibility for them being in jail because they robbed a bank?

 

This was a very interesting question because I didn't know the answer so I did a little research. Increased dopamine in the brain has a relationship to hyperactivity in the human body. Stimulants like crystal meth, heroin, crack, and cocaine do increase dopamine levels. I didn't find information that indicated depressants like heroin or alcohol increased dopamine levels but my research was limited.

Marijuana, from what I've found, is an anandamide that normally inactivates dopamine in the brain reducing the levels. Dopamine typically results in higher activity levels and can be increased with physical activities like exercise and by some foods such as chocolates or coffee which contain chemical stimulants. Marijuana overwhemlingly tends to be relaxing as opposed to causing hyperactivity associated with increased dopamine levels.

An interesting question though but it really has little bearing on the subject of legalization of currenlty prohibited illegal drugs.

 

Well, this question about "whether or not marijuana leads to these harder drugs" all depends on whether or not marijuana really is or isn't some physically addictive substance, in which some sort of tolerance of this drug can be developed.If this drug isn't, then your theory is totally true. If marijuana is actually some physically addictive substance which you can build some sort of tolerance for, then my theory in favor of the gateway drug theory is false. This all depends on whether or not marijuana actually causes some withdrawal symptoms or not. I strongly recomend that you read both of these two articles that I posted some links there, for you to read. Some evidence out there actually suggests that marijuana users actually do develop have some sort of physical addictions to this drug, as this two articles will state.

http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-addictive-causes-withdrawal-study-796751

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20001127/heavy-pot-use-can-cause-physical-dependence

 

The majority of why something would become a "gateway drug" has to do with who you associate with to get it.

Alcohol is both physically and psychologically addictive, but it's not considered a gateway drug, because the guy at the ABC store isn't also trying to push heroin on you.

Marijuana could certainly be a gateway drug, but if it was legalized, then it would cease to be one in most cases, because the market would eventually become legitimate, and the social circles involved would be less sketchy.

In short, it has more to do with suppliers than the substance itself.

 

Well, I was debating this issue with some of my friends, and here's what they all stated, in defense in his theories that marijuana is some gateway drug. I'll just paraphrase some of those statements that he made to me. And I'll highlight his most important statements in black, in order to focus on and emphasize on those statements, in this discussion, that's about debating these very controversial theories.

"if somebody smokes marijuana, then those people might possibly get interested in trying out some other, more hardcore drugs. The reason for that is simple. If you try out something, then you might possibly want to try out something else.


And well, when i told him that alcohol and cigarettes might be considered gateway drugs by some people, he stated this to me.

"alcohol and cigarettes aren't gateway drugs, because they don't get you high, which is what those hardcore drugs do to you. Even if pot was legalized and sold on legal regulated stores, that were right next to liquor stores and tobacco shops, pot would still be a gateway drug, because it makes some people interested in experimenting with some ways of feeling high".

And he made two good points-this gateway drug theory makes sense because human psychology and human nature goes like this. If you try out one thing, you might possible get interested in trying out some other things to do.

 

Nicotine is a pretty mild but addictive high.

Alcohol is technically a depressant, but it's still very much a source of enjoyment for a lot of people.

I would argue your friend's logic is very semantic. Alcohol alters your state of mind just as much as pot, just in a different way.

And like all drugs, the effects vary by individual. Some pot users can hold down a steady job, while others veg out and become useless. Still others (who are schizophrenic) become violent.

I just support legalization out of principle. Someone should have the right to use any substance they want. However, if they become hopelessly addicted, then they have to go to rehab whenever they reach a point where they can't help themselves.

I don't think bans have done a very good job of reducing drug use and instead have created massive illegal markets. A much more effective way to reduce drug use is simply informing people of the dangers involved and using peer pressure to discourage their use.

Generally speaking, private action is more effective at manipulating behavior than laws.

 

Why is the same not true of that other, powerful mood altering drug known as alcohol?

Appealing to the ignorance of any form of Reefer Madness should be considered worse, in modern times.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's assume that legal means it must have an FDA label on it.

 

Why such a lack of faith in Capitalism?

Engaging in Commerce usually means market friendly transactions and potentially, better products at lower prices.

 

Regulating forms of Commerce among the several States is specifically enumerated while Prohibition has the distinction of being repealed as a bad idea in modern times. Why repeat historical mistakes and claim we are not really like that, afterward?

 

Where was I suggesting anywhere, to illegalize alcohol and cigarettes?

Well, what I was stating was this. I'll paraphrase it a little bit better now. Smoking cigarettes or drinking some alcoholic beverages will give somebody a very mild "high", or it'll give them some forms of relaxed feelings, which some people would call "getting buzzed".

However, smoking marijuana is doing something which always gives somebody some very intense and euphoric "highs", which is far more mind altering than either alcohol and tobacco, which also puts people into some very intense altered states of consciousness when they smoke cannabis, which means this. Well, what that means is that it's not just the black market exposure, which is due to the prohibition of marijuana, which leads people into trying out those harder drugs, it's also just the simple fact that the mind altering effects that result from smoking marijuana, unlike those mind altering effects that result from smoking cigarettes or drinking some alcoholic beverages, smoking marijuana gives somebody some extremely intense and powerful mind altering and also very euphoric "highs", which is very similar to what happens when somebody is taking those hardcore drugs.