What to say?

[Unregistered]

This isn't exactly an aviation question but is medical and a lesson learned. I have seen countless friends be hurt badly, and altering their life from using Weed heavily. I have a very close friend that does so and no matter what I say I cannot convince her that it can be dangerous. I have exhausted my own persuasive powers in this matter and desperately need help. People telling me Weed is a good thing is not want I want here.

 

[murphey]

There is nothing more to do but walk away. No one likes/appreciates being told they are being stupid.

 

[jesse]

My experience with anyone using any sort of drug is that there isn't **** you can do until they decide to help themselves.

I'm not sure I'd get worked up about someone choosing to smoke marijuana if they were functional in life. It's not for me because it's illegal but you just gotta let some people make their own decisions.

 

[Unregistered]

not what I want to hear* I understand what your saying but is there any way to persuade otherwise?

 

[Everskyward]

not what I want to hear* I understand what your saying but is there any way to persuade otherwise?

Probably not. Look at it this way. I assume you are a pilot since you are posting on POA. What would be your reaction if someone tried to persuade you that it's stupid and dangerous to fly small airplanes?

 

[steingar]

It WILL make her stupid over time, and it WILL do damage to her lungs in a fashion analogous to cigarette smoke. I don't know about cancer susceptibility, and I doubt anyone else does either.

If she is cool with those things you're done. Quick question. If she used alcohol in a similar fashion, would you still feel the need for an intervention?

 

[poadeleted20]

Go here: http://www.nar-anon.org/Nar-Anon/Nar-Anon_Home.html. These folks are the experts on just what you're talking about -- coping with the issues of dealing with addict friends/family, one of which is the feeling of helplessness and frustration when your best efforts don't produce any change in the addict's behavior.

 

[Unregistered]

Thanks very much Ron. Michael... that is a very interesting point and I'm honestly not sure I would have such an issue with that even though I should.

 

[steingar]

Thanks very much Ron. Michael... that is a very interesting point and I'm honestly not sure I would have such an issue with that even though I should.

Thanks for your honesty. We have limited information, thus I don't know the degree of her usage. My ol' man had at least one drink every night of his life, and often two or three. He was nonetheless a perfectly functional human being (within operant parameters), ran a small business, stayed hitched, raised 4 kids (hey, maybe that's where I went wrong) and did all the stuff a guy is supposed to do. He liked his martinis. Perhaps his life would have been better without them, but who are we to say?

If that is the level of your friend's drug habit, I honestly wouldn't worry about it over much. She'll get in royal dutch with the FAA if she ever gets caught, but that's the price one pays for using the stuff. I would hope the cops have better things to do than shake down a small and habitual user.

The criminal aspect bothers me very little. I don't know anyone who doesn't speed habitually. Kinda the same thing in my mind.

 

[jesse]

Thanks for your honesty. We have limited information, thus I don't know the degree of her usage. My ol' man had at least one drink every night of his life, and often two or three. He was nonetheless a perfectly functional human being (within operant parameters), ran a small business, stayed hitched, raised 4 kids (hey, maybe that's where I went wrong) and did all the stuff a guy is supposed to do. He liked his martinis. Perhaps his life would have been better without them, but who are we to say?

If that is the level of your friend's drug habit, I honestly wouldn't worry about it over much. She'll get in royal dutch with the FAA if she ever gets caught, but that's the price one pays for using the stuff. I would hope the cops have better things to do than shake down a small and habitual user.

The criminal aspect bothers me very little. I don't know anyone who doesn't speed habitually. Kinda the same thing in my mind.

Pretty well said. Not that I think being addicted to either substance (marijuana or alcohol) is good but I would much rather deal with a pot-head then an alcoholic.

 

[RJM62]

Thanks for your honesty. We have limited information, thus I don't know the degree of her usage. My ol' man had at least one drink every night of his life, and often two or three. He was nonetheless a perfectly functional human being (within operant parameters), ran a small business, stayed hitched, raised 4 kids (hey, maybe that's where I went wrong) and did all the stuff a guy is supposed to do. He liked his martinis. Perhaps his life would have been better without them, but who are we to say?

If that is the level of your friend's drug habit, I honestly wouldn't worry about it over much. She'll get in royal dutch with the FAA if she ever gets caught, but that's the price one pays for using the stuff. I would hope the cops have better things to do than shake down a small and habitual user.

The criminal aspect bothers me very little. I don't know anyone who doesn't speed habitually. Kinda the same thing in my mind.

I know people who enjoy a spliff or two in the evening after work, and who have done so for many, many years, with no apparent harm to themselves. I suppose on some level they're doing damage to some part(s) of their bodies, but in the meantime they're fully functional people, some of whom have been very successful at very demanding careers.

Two of these individuals who come to mind are clients of mine, a very successful couple who are well-known in the upper echelons of New York society for their philanthropic work. They are both in their seventies and have been smoking weed since they were in their teens. They have a mansion in Westchester County, and when I go there to do work for them, the whole place smells faintly of weed. They try to clear it our before I arrive, but it's permeated the furniture, I guess. Yet they're both sharp-minded and energetic, despite more than half a century of daily marijuana use.

On the other hand, I know some people for whom the common belief that marijuana isn't addictive seems not to apply. They have to have it, can't function without it, and don't function very well with it. Their use tends to increase over time until they reach a point where weed becomes the most important thing in their lives. These folks seem to be a small minority of marijuana users, and I suspect there's probably some sort of self-medication going on (in other words, they have other issues underlying their marijuana dependency).

If your friend falls into the first group, I would express my concerns and leave it at that.

Pretty well said. Not that I think being addicted to either substance (marijuana or alcohol) is good but I would much rather deal with a pot-head then an alcoholic.

As someone who deals with both on a regular basis, I agree.

-Rich

 

[steingar]

I am not aware of any sort of physiological addiction to marijuana.

 

[RJM62]

I am not aware of any sort of physiological addiction to marijuana.

Me neither. I suspect people who become "addicted" to it have some sort of underlying psychological disorder for which some compound in marijuana (not necessarily THC) has some therapeutic effect. But the condition progresses over time to the point where more "medication" is needed to achieve a therapeutic effect. Or perhaps they build up a tolerance to whatever the therapeutic agent may be.

But this is just speculation based on years of observation. It's only a small subset of users who manifest this way, which is what makes me suspect that the "withdrawal" is actually a manifestation of the underlying condition.

Some CSACs believe in the poorly-defined concept of an "addictive personality" as an alternate explanation, and maybe they're right. But it's pretty subjective and non-quantifiable. I never gave it much credence when I took the CSAC course.

-Rich

 

[poadeleted20]

I am not aware of any sort of physiological addiction to marijuana.

Nor to gambling, nor to internet porn, nor to..., well you get the idea -- addiction need not be physiological in nature to be destructive.

 

[RJM62]

Nor to gambling, nor to internet porn, nor to..., well you get the idea -- addiction need not be physiological in nature to be destructive.

Actually, recent research suggests that those two particular addictions may have organic physiological bases.

Gambling Addiction has been successfully treated with naltrexone (which is also used to treat alcoholism and opioid overdoses). In addition, gambling addicts often have depressed norepinephrine levels, for which it's speculated that the excitement and stress of gambling have a therapeutic effect, because excitement and stress cause norepinephrine to be secreted.

"Sex addicts" (and paraphiles in general) were first found to be more likely to have depressed serotonin levels in studies conducted in Israel in the 1980's. SSRI drugs are often used (off-label in the United States) to treat these people, with considerable effectiveness. Some researchers speculate that these conditions are actually manifestations of OCD. In any event, treatments similar to those used to treat OCD, including the use of SSRI drugs, have been successful in treating sexual addictions.

Part of the problem when considering possible causative factors behind addictions is that quite often, the behavior crosses into illegality and/or irresponsibility serious enough to be legally actionable. This makes research controversial because the identification of a demonstrable organic component to a condition that manifests in illegal or irresponsible behavior may serve as the basis for a diminished capacity defense, which could complicate civil or criminal prosecution.

Unfortunately, American society seems more enthusiastic about prosecuting people than about the possibility of treating the disorders that underlie their behaviors.

-Rich

 

[sba55]

I don't think it's a good thing - nor do I think it's a bad thing - it's just something people choose to do. Alcohol is much more addictive and there's way more alcohol-related deaths than people who die from smoking pot. And tobacco is much worse than those two. People do many things that I wouldn't do; that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the freedom to decide what to do.

I don't think it's appropriate to tell people to stop smoking tobacco, and so I don't think it's appropriate to tell them to smoke pot.

 

[silver-eagle]

There's a law against recreational drugs. Guilty is guilty. Just because there's an undelying medical (?) cause, does not make breaking the law any less of a crime. Guilty by reason of mental defect. Treat the cause then apply the penalty.

 

[steingar]

There's a law against recreational drugs. Guilty is guilty. Just because there's an undelying medical (?) cause, does not make breaking the law any less of a crime. Guilty by reason of mental defect. Treat the cause then apply the penalty.

There's laws against speeding, jaywalking, all kinds of things. The only difference is the FAA doesn't care much about those, but they'll get their panties in a wad over ganj.

 

[poadeleted20]

There's laws against speeding, jaywalking, all kinds of things. The only difference is the FAA doesn't care much about those, but they'll get their panties in a wad over ganj.

Actually, the FAA will "get their panties in a wad" if you have a string of speeding violations.

 

[steingar]

Actually, the FAA will "get their panties in a wad" if you have a string of speeding violations.

I am actually curious about this. How would they know? I don't recall them asking about non-ethanol related traffic infractions, and I didn't hear anything from them after my last couple speeding tickets.

 

[tonycondon]

I am actually curious about this. How would they know? I don't recall them asking about non-ethanol related traffic infractions, and I didn't hear anything from them after my last couple speeding tickets.

i think they occasionally cross check with state police records?

 

[poadeleted20]

I am actually curious about this. How would they know?

They'll know when your DL gets suspended because your points total went over the limit or you had to go to driving school because of them -- and those are mandatory reports on your medical application in block 18v, even if no drugs or alcohol were involved. Bruce can explain the FAA's thinking on this.

 

[Steve Foley]

Bruce can explain the FAA's thinking

There is not enough server space on the planet to hold that explanation.

Note: This quote was intentionally taken out of context.

 

[steingar]

They'll know when your DL gets suspended because your points total went over the limit or you had to go to driving school because of them -- and those are mandatory reports on your medical application in block 18v, even if no drugs or alcohol were involved. Bruce can explain the FAA's thinking on this.

That does make sense, thank you. I suspect it would take a fair number of speeding tickets to equal one narcotics arrest, though.

 

[TMetzinger]

Hmm., what if you CHOOSE to go to a driving school (to get points back) but aren't "sentenced" to one? I assume that is not reportable, any more than taking an MSF class would be.

 

[poadeleted20]

Hmm., what if you CHOOSE to go to a driving school (to get points back) but aren't "sentenced" to one? I assume that is not reportable

You know what "ass-u-me" does? Because in this case, you'd be wrong. If you have to go to school as a result of driving infractions, you have to report it. MSF ain't the same, because you're only going to school to obtain new privileges.

 

[sba55]

Actually, the FAA will "get their panties in a wad" if you have a string of speeding violations.

I don't doubt it, but that just goes to prove the point. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral or wrong. For example, I jaywalk all the time, and I'm sure almost everybody does. But I doubt anyone would tell me to stop doing that _because_ it's illegal. Maybe because it's unsafe, or a bad idea for some other reason - but not just because it's illegal.

I care less about what's legal and I care more about what's right or wrong. Legality != morality.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't doubt it, but that just goes to prove the point. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral or wrong. For example, I jaywalk all the time, and I'm sure almost everybody does. But I doubt anyone would tell me to stop doing that _because_ it's illegal. Maybe because it's unsafe, or a bad idea for some other reason - but not just because it's illegal.

Unless you were talking to a cop or a judge.

I care less about what's legal and I care more about what's right or wrong. Legality != morality.

In any event, the issue for the OP is neither legality nor morality, but how to deal with a friend who is pursuing a self-destructive course. Neither legality nor morality arguments are likely to have much effect on an addict. Pretty much the only thing which changes their behavior is a recognition that they're going to destroy themselves if they continue coupled with a desire not to be destroyed. Until that happens, all you can do is watch and pray and try not to let it bring you down, too. Hence, Nar-Anon.

 

[RJM62]

There's a law against recreational drugs. Guilty is guilty. Just because there's an undelying medical (?) cause, does not make breaking the law any less of a crime. Guilty by reason of mental defect. Treat the cause then apply the penalty.

I've become a bit more pragmatic over the years. Having witnessed the harm people do to themselves and others by way of their addictions, whatever they may be, I'm just happy when they stop. If and when they accomplish that, I see little point in incarcerating them.

I do, however, like the idea of holding the possibility of prosecution over addicts' heads to give them additional incentive to stay stopped. In New York, this frequently is done by way of Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD), which basically puts the case on a back burner for a period ranging from a few months to a few years. If the defendant stays clean for the requisite amount of time, the charge is dismissed.

As for weed... frankly, I think prosecuting casual marijuana use is a massive waste of resources. I also think physicians should be allowed to prescribe "recreational" drugs, and pharmacists to dispense them, as is done in several other countries. Again, my reasons are mainly pragmatic. Most illegal drugs are very cheap to manufacture. Their street prices are vastly inflated because of the risks inherent in being in that business, and it's those inflated prices that are at the root of much drug-related crime.

If, say, heroin were legally available, it would cost about $5.00 a day to keep an addict fixed, thus reducing crimes committed by addicts to avoid withdrawal. It would also take the profit out of the illegal drug trade, thus reducing the number of innocents who get caught in the crossfire of drive-by shootings. (I have a hard time imagining rival pharmacists shooting at each other in the streets.)

Quite simply, I would like to see drug policy handled by the medical profession rather than the law enforcement community. The societal costs of the "war on drugs" are staggering, and it really hasn't been all that effective. My personal opinion, based on my own observations and experience, is that it's time to try a different approach.

-Rich

 

[TMetzinger]

You know what "ass-u-me" does? Because in this case, you'd be wrong. If you have to go to school as a result of driving infractions, you have to report it. MSF ain't the same, because you're only going to school to obtain new privileges.

HAVE to is not the same as CHOOSE to. (echoing you on the CFI task thread). I'm not talking about the choice between a suspension and school, or a fine and school.

One may have some points on their record (say they've lost three of their five "good driver" points due to a speeding ticket), not have a suspended license, and decide to go to a driver safety course of their own volition. End result - submit the class completion to DMV and a certain number of points get added, which makes your insurance carrier happy.

And MSF can be done for the same reason - to recover any points lost on your license and make you more attractive to insurers.

Going to a school for that reason would not be reportable as I interpret the form.

 

[steingar]

In any event, the issue for the OP is neither legality nor morality, but how to deal with a friend who is pursuing a self-destructive course. Neither legality nor morality arguments are likely to have much effect on an addict. Pretty much the only thing which changes their behavior is a recognition that they're going to destroy themselves if they continue coupled with a desire not to be destroyed. Until that happens, all you can do is watch and pray and try not to let it bring you down, too. Hence, Nar-Anon.

Real dumb Ron, a surprise coming from you. You treat smoking the occasional (or even nightly) joint with heroin addiction. Sorry, it just ain't so, and anyone under the age of a Jurassic fossil knows so. Just because someone likes the occasional ganja doesn't mean their following an inevitable slide into bacchanal and self destruction. It'll be legal in California soon. I wonder what the stiffs at the FAA will make of that.​

 

[sba55]

Unless you were talking to a cop or a judge.

Yes, because that's their job. Doesn't change the fact that they most likely privately jaywalk themselves. A law that isn't respected shouldn't be a law.

In any event, the issue for the OP is neither legality nor morality, but how to deal with a friend who is pursuing a self-destructive course. Neither legality nor morality arguments are likely to have much effect on an addict. Pretty much the only thing which changes their behavior is a recognition that they're going to destroy themselves if they continue coupled with a desire not to be destroyed. Until that happens, all you can do is watch and pray and try not to let it bring you down, too. Hence, Nar-Anon.

I think that's exactly the OP's issue. It might be illegal - like many other things all of us do all the time - but that alone doesn't make it something that is destructive or "wrong." I enjoy wine from time to time, but that doesn't mean I'm self-destructive, either.

 

[Unregistered]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking marijuana. Period.

Anyone who says anything otherwise simply does not know what they are talking about. It may not be for everyone, but there is just nothing wrong with using it. It is a plant. That's it.

 

[timwinters]

I've become a bit more pragmatic over the years. Having witnessed the harm people do to themselves and others by way of their addictions, whatever they may be, I'm just happy when they stop. If and when they accomplish that, I see little point in incarcerating them.

I do, however, like the idea of holding the possibility of prosecution over addicts' heads to give them additional incentive to stay stopped. In New York, this frequently is done by way of Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD), which basically puts the case on a back burner for a period ranging from a few months to a few years. If the defendant stays clean for the requisite amount of time, the charge is dismissed.

As for weed... frankly, I think prosecuting casual marijuana use is a massive waste of resources. I also think physicians should be allowed to prescribe "recreational" drugs, and pharmacists to dispense them, as is done in several other countries. Again, my reasons are mainly pragmatic. Most illegal drugs are very cheap to manufacture. Their street prices are vastly inflated because of the risks inherent in being in that business, and it's those inflated prices that are at the root of much drug-related crime.

If, say, heroin were legally available, it would cost about $5.00 a day to keep an addict fixed, thus reducing crimes committed by addicts to avoid withdrawal. It would also take the profit out of the illegal drug trade, thus reducing the number of innocents who get caught in the crossfire of drive-by shootings. (I have a hard time imagining rival pharmacists shooting at each other in the streets.)

Quite simply, I would like to see drug policy handled by the medical profession rather than the law enforcement community. The societal costs of the "war on drugs" are staggering, and it really hasn't been all that effective. My personal opinion, based on my own observations and experience, is that it's time to try a different approach.

-Rich

+1000!!

 

[murphey]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking marijuana. Period.

Anyone who says anything otherwise simply does not know what they are talking about. It may not be for everyone, but there is just nothing wrong with using it. It is a plant. That's it.

And so is belladonna. And oleander, daffodils, hyacinths, hemlock, lilies of the valley, tobacco, buttercups...shall I go on?

 

[Unregistered]

And so is belladonna. And oleander, daffodils, hyacinths, hemlock, lilies of the valley, tobacco, buttercups...shall I go on?

Not analogous or relevant- those plants actually ARE bad for you.

 

[Doggtyred]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking marijuana. Period.

Anyone who says anything otherwise simply does not know what they are talking about. It may not be for everyone, but there is just nothing wrong with using it. It is a plant. That's it.

The same logic could be applied to tobacco.

But that tobacco plant screws up your lungs and your blood vessels.. then a significant percentage get disabled and cant work... then people like ME end up paying for your healthcare and living expenses while you are on medicare, medicaid and SSI.

If you seriously think putting ANY smoke in your lungs for ANY reason is not unhealthy, then you really need to re-examine what you are thinking.. (or what you've been smoking). Wanna get high? Go get a script for marinol.

 

[Mtns2Skies]

If you seriously think putting ANY smoke in your lungs for ANY reason is not unhealthy, then you really need to re-examine what you are thinking.. (or what you've been smoking). Wanna get high? Go get a script for marinol.

Well theres albuterol for asthma... Or in lieu of marinol, huck yourself off a mountain

 

[Mtns2Skies]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with smoking marijuana. Period.

Anyone who says anything otherwise simply does not know what they are talking about. It may not be for everyone, but there is just nothing wrong with using it. It is a plant. That's it.

That plant has twice the amount of cancer causing agents in it than Tobacco does... You.Are.Incorrect.

 

[murphey]

Not analogous or relevant- those plants actually ARE bad for you.

But it is exactly relevant - these are plants, and you claim that there's nothing wrong with cannabis (and I refer you to the history of the plant cannabis and the etymology of the word marijuana) because it's a plant.

Your logic is faulty. Actually, your argument has no logic.

Thank you for playing. Good bye.