What do you think of de-criminalising drugs?

I have seen the damage the so-called "harmless" drugs, such as cannabis and amphetamines have done to many people and I am very aware of the impact when the government decided to downgrade cannabis to Class C. In the eyes of much of society, that was "de-criminalising" the drug and so a lot of people now believe that it is legal to smoke cannabis.

True, cannabis can have a really serious affect on some people and may trigger psychotic symtoms in those who are susceptible, so I am not in any way denying the harm caused. But - since downgrading to Class C, cannabis use actually dropped, as far as I understand.

Masha

Hello Masha,

While you are right to guess than many substance misusers would not enter programmes for the reasons you mentioned if there was more centres, it is interesting to note that many of the centre's that do exist fail to address many other issues and it is this area where the treatment centres fall down.

Rebecca, I completely agree with you on virtually all the issues you raised in terms of the problems with current treatment available and especially aftercare. I have worked in addiction treatment for some years and have seen much of this myself - so of course I am not in any way saying that de-criminalising drugs would in itself be a solution, that would be far too simplistic. Much more money and more resources needs to be put into treatment and especially aftercare, though I still see that de-stigmatising drug users will help to minimise the isolation, loneliness and shame that drives so many people into relapse.

Masha

But - since downgrading to Class C, cannabis use actually dropped, as far as I understand.

Masha

Masha, I was not aware of this and would be very interested (genuinely) in seeing the report/figures to back this up. It is a few years since I worked in the drug and alcohol field and I may be out of touch with some of the issues.

Not that I am backing away from my opinions, Conspiritualist - while I'm not sure that cannabis is a killer (and didn't in any way infer that it was!) it is a drug, like alcohol and tobacco, which can most definitely be harmful to the user. I, like many others, will continue to allow the three substances to share paragraphs in any of my writing!

Debbie

Or perhaps cannabis has wrecked a large proportion of my family.

I think we need to hear and resonate with this a little? Not putting the spotlight on the particular poster, Myarka, but that I hope nobody is saying cannabis is harmless? It clearly is not. Yes, I do speak from experience.

I also actually have a very close friend who considers himself "addicted" even if we would like to put, for ourselves, the slant on that that it is a psychological, not physical, addiction. But it looks pretty physical to me as he'd like to stop and can't. Admittedly it's been a long time for him.

Cannabis also gets mixed up in its effect with tobacco, as that of course is also what you are taking in. So it could be that users get addicted to tobacco, and of course regular tobacco smokers would not bother to take this into consideration, yet it is a consideration.

I'd have to look up the references anew TBH, but I've often read that cannabis is far more carcinogenic than even tobacco. It's hardly a soft or harmless drug. Let's not pretend that it is, just because some maybe use it and are therefore defensive.

Stretching the subject farther afield, is this not really about to what extent we want our state to be a nanny state (LOL, the idea of Blair, who kicked it off, being my nanny is pretty repulsive!), or to what extent libertarianism is a good thing? Now, that's a huge subject, and goes into politics, taxation, fire arms, and all kinds of areas.

V

Famous study:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

Source: hxxp://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/16732/Study_Finds_No_Cancer_Marijuana_Connection
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

Regards
Tucker

And while I'm here:

Liberal approach pays off as use of cannabis drops to 10-year low

BYLINE: Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent

The Independent (London)

October 14, 2006 Saturday

The popularity of cannabis has plummeted with 600,000 fewer people smoking or eating marijuana than three years ago.

The new figures for England and Wales contradict claims that the current, more liberal approach to the drug, introduced nearly three years ago, has resulted in rising cannabis use.

Figures released yesterday by the Home Office reveal that overall drug use in England and Wales has dropped, although the abuse of cocaine has risen. The consumption of other class A substances, such as heroin, has remained static. Possible explanations for the decrease include the growing awareness that cannabis can cause mental health problems, and that marijuana abuse is being replaced by binge drinking.

An estimated 2.775 million people aged from 16 to 59 in England and Wales used cannabis in the year up to April 2006 - 8.7 per cent of that age group. This is the lowest level in the past 10 years when figures have been collected by the British Crime Survey.

The biggest decline has taken place since 2002-03 when it was found that 10.9 per cent (3.4 million) of 16 to 59-year-olds had taken cannabis in the past year. In 1998 the figure was 10.3 per cent, or about 3.1 million.

Even in 16 to 24-year-olds, where drug abuse is more commonplace, the use of cannabis has significantly declined. In 1998, 28.2 per cent of that age group were estimated to have taken cannabis. That figure has dropped to 21.4 per cent, or 1.338 million, in the past year. The penalties for possessing cannabis were relaxed in January 2004 when David Blunkett, as home secretary, downgraded the drug from class B to class C. The police have ceased to treat possession of cannabis as an arrestable offence in most situations. This change in the law led to claims that many young people were using cannabis because they wrongly believed it had been legalised, and that drug dealers were exploiting the confusion. The Home Secretary has come under pressure to reverse the reclassification.

Martin Barnes, chief executive of the charity DrugScope, said: "The fact that cannabis use has continued to fall to its lowest level in nearly 10 years is further evidence that the decision to reclassify the drug to class C was sound. Some warned that the change would lead to an increase in cannabis use yet the reverse has happened, possibly because there is more awareness of the possible harms. The fact that cannabis has been linked with triggering mental conditions could have changed people's attitude towards the drug. Another possible explanation is the rise in binge drinking, which some people may be doing instead of taking cannabis."

Cannabis remains the drug most likely to be used. In 2005-06, 8.7 per cent of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using cannabis in the past year. Cocaine is the next most commonly used drug with 2.4 per cent (776,000 people) claiming to have used it in the previous year. This is followed by ecstasy at 1.6 per cent (502,000) and amphetamines at 1.3 per cent. Heroin (39,000) is far less popular.

The report, Drug Misuse Declared: Findings from the British Crime Survey 2005-06, estimated that about 11 million people aged 16 to 59 in England and Wales have used illicit drugs in their lifetime, while less than 3.5 million are estimated to have done so in the past year. The Government has announced it intends to reclassify the drug crystal meth from class B to class A, the category for the most dangerous drugs. This would mean those caught dealing the drug could receive a life sentence while those found in possession could face up to seven years.

Regards
Tucker

Thanks for that post(s) Tucker and nice to see ya on here again hun x

Cannabis & Alcohol...Hmmm, see this is my problem, when we can’t even be honest about what is and what isn’t dangerous or if we can’t even knowingly differentiate on here between normal cannabis and ‘Skunk’ or charile and crack, dope and booze...then what’s the point?

If we can’t even be straight-up enough to discern between the damage that booze can do (let alone smack or crack) in comparison to natural cannabis – then it is plain to me that most don’t really care about the ‘drugs’ issue.

Statistics are only ever used to tell a story, however like ‘V’ I would be more interested in the real story of somebody’s experience (although I certainly wouldn’t want to pry).

My eyes, my experiences and my feelings tell me what I need to know.
I am life deep in people who have smoked cannabis all their lives… that means 3 generations deep; and the width of the circle covers family, extended family, friends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances and then secondary known individuals & groups that have been got be known through the first.
All living, breathing, working, raising families, interacting with their fellow humans and playing a part in their communities. There are enough of them to fill three decent sized “we’re all goin’ on a summer holiday” coaches… and of all those potential ‘kiss me quick’ beanie wearing ‘casualties (not) – there is only one, yes one individual who I believe should never have taken cannabis.
Booze… have you been to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night?

I gotta say I’m glad that I was responsible for educating my children about the hierarchies of the dangers of drugs and not people like some of you guys.
Wooo, now that'd be scary 🙂

.

I gotta say I’m glad that I was responsible for educating my children about the hierarchies of the dangers of drugs and not people like some of you guys.
Wooo, now that'd be scary 🙂

.

Me too 😉

I think V hit the nail on the head when he said the users of cannabis
are just posting defensive posts.
Your using illegal drugs that do damage and the majority of people feel the same,
thats why it will always be illegal,
i wonder conspiritualist if you would mind your children smoking lots of cannabis ?
you seem to enjoy glorifying its use.

i wonder conspiritualist if you would mind your children smoking lots of cannabis?
you seem to enjoy glorifying its use.

Well "wonder" no more oh 'monkey on my back’…
Just read the previous post... but do it slowly and do take the time to relax and I promise the penny will eventually drop ok!

Now please take your testosterone fuelled outrage to another poster... coz I'm kinda bored with with you trying to bully me honey
....Kayyyyy:rolleyes:


.

I think V hit the nail on the head when he said the users of cannabis
are just posting defensive posts.

Well, I have never used an illegal drug of any kind. I've never even held an unlit cigarette (with tobbaco or anything else) in my mouth. I have an odd glass of wine once a week or so.

However I do not consider myself to be in any way superior or a better human being than a heroin or crack addict. What would give me the right to make such judgement? I would be foolish (and had been for some years in the not so distant past) not to recognise some of the addictive traits of my own - workaholism, comfort eating, rescuing addiction etc. Yes these are more "socially acceptable" and in some cases even encouraged in our society, and all harm the addict themselves and people around them.

I wonder if you may respond to one of my previous posts Louie, asking you if you have ever recognised any strong urges or emotional reactions in yourself?
E.g. needing a cup of coffee to perk you up? Craving chocolate to uplift your mood? Being drawn towards a certain person uncontrollably? Needing to put someone down, to feel that someone is a worse person than you, to make yourself feel better, to feel justified in your indignation, anger or fear?

Do you think you may have ever hurt or damaged something or someone because of an action, word or thought on your part that you couldn't or didn't want to control?

I would be so surprised, so astonished if you can answer "never" to all these questions. To me that would indicate that you are an exceedingly fortunate person - or perhaps you may be deluding yourself - or maybe a mixture of both.

Masha

hi masha
i was addicted to solpadeine and tobacco,
but i gave up both going cold turkey,
solpadeine in particular i found very hard,
but i gave them up,
and conspiritualist you didnt answer my question and im hardly bullying you,
its a simple question and your insistence on trying to belittle me is actually bullying in case you hadnt noticed,
and the fact i have testosterone is hardly a factor

I couldn't identify more closely with Conspiritualist's long post above. As a child of the sixties, I grew up with cannabis use and also know many many people who, like myself, have used it on and off for decades. In my youth, it was far more common to lay around in someone's flat smoking dope and listening to music than to get drunk down the pub. At no time in the past forty years have I ever seen anyone become aggressive under the influence of cannabis or marijuana. Would that I could say the same for alcohol. I don't understand why Louie says that anyone who says these things is taking a defensive stance. I would say that my and Conspiritualist's views are pretty objective given that we have direct knowledge of what we are saying. It is also obvious that there are certain individuals who are going to be damaged by whatever their drug of choice may turn out to be, whether it be cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, sex, shopping or chocolate. One of my neighbours is an alcoholic. She also smokes cannabis. The difference is that she is not addicted to cannabis and functions normally when under its influence. Myarka may well know of family members whose lives are not enhanced by their using cannabis. But what I'm saying is that there is always going to be a risk to some people, whatever they choose to smoke, drink or ingest. But if alcohol and tobacco are legal then certainly cannabis should be too. It's crazy to lump it in the same category as the real killers which are undoubtedly heroin and crack cocaine. Some of the posts on here with regard to cannabis BTW remind me of those old US drug agency films depicting 'reefer madness'. 'Cannabis kills'. Blimey, so does walking down the street sometimes. Eating can kill. Breathing can kill. But then we've all got to go some time.

sunanda i take your points and agree to some extent but the argument people dont get aggresive on marajuana is an old one,
you can get all sorts of social problems, mental illness,turning into a recluse and cancer if you are using tobacco,
of course not everybody will be affected just like alcohol but lots of people do,(i dont drink by the way)
your lucky nobody connected to you has had these problems but then again you only use it on and off because im sure your educated enough to know too much use is not good,
not all users are in that position,
i just find the fact your saying its ok to smoke marajuana incredible,
its not in my eyes and in the eyes of the majority,
its a long long time since the 60's and opinions and medical research have come along long way since then,
i guess we'll never reach middle ground on this one im just glad its illegal and users who get caught with large amounts will be prosecuted

Myarka may well know of family members whose lives are not enhanced by their using cannabis.

I don't particularly like posting when the subject of cannabis comes up because it fuels passions from both sides of the argument. So let's stop flinging mud at each other, but try and understand each others POV, because IMO both sides are either wearing blinkers or rose coloured shades.

So to me it's not about if cannabis is a lesser evil than booze or smoking, or whatever floats your boat. It's more about the nature of addictions. Many can drink in moderation, some can have the occasional smoke and others my have a little puff of pot and come to no harm. But human nature being what it is has the ability to abuse things and when addictions take hold they steal a persons life.

So from my experience, I've seen 2 families destroyed by cannabis. In both cases it's not the parents that pay the price, although they dropped out of society at the height of the addiction, but it's the children who watched their parents go through this. That's when cannabis takes over and controls life, but not all cannabis smokers are addicted to it.

I've seen the same with booze, cough medicine, glue, whatever will give a high. Some things kill, others just kill the brain, but all addictions are distructive.

I think and the end of day it's your choice if you want to play with illegal substances, but now it's not my lifestyle choice.

Myarka.

fair point myarka no more mud slinging from me,
it is an emotional issue,
and i agree with you 100% on your points,
and its certainly not for me either

Myarka:

I think and the end of day it's your choice if you want to play with illegal substances, but now it's not my lifestyle choice.

I couldn't agree more, Myarka. I think we should all be able to choose our own poisons.

Louie:

you only use it on and off because im sure your educated enough to know too much use is not good,

With the greatest respect, Louie, you have absolutely no evidence for that statement.
Hey, you don't smoke and you don't drink, so how can you be sure that your opinions are necessarily correct? But you do have, it goes without saying, the right to your own opinion and I apologise if I've given any other impression. And we shouldn't forget (that means I shouldn't forget!) that the thread is about decriminalising all drugs.

well to be fair sunanda you did say you have used it evey now and again for decades and i asume your educated due to your use of the english language so i believe its a fair point.
i stand to be corrected.
and by the way i used to drink and smoke,
but gave up as i dont want to devolop cancer,
and i just wasnt a big drinker and stopped enjoying it,
and with all due respect,
im entitled to my opinion just as you are

im entitled to my opinion just as you are

Isn't that what I just said???
And, sorry to be pedantic, but I said that I have used cannabis 'on and off' which IMO does not equate to 'every now and again.'
But hey, peace and love, man. Let's just chill!:hippy:

initially you didnt,
but after you edited you did,
sorry to be pedantic.

and conspiritualist you didnt answer my question and im hardly bullying you,
its a simple question and your insistence on trying to belittle me is actually bullying in case you hadnt noticed,
and the fact i have testosterone is hardly a factor

Oh mate, you just don't know when to back off do ya!
OK, I'll attempt to give as full and frank an answer as I can be bothered to... is that fair?

With all (the somewhat little) due respect you should be afforded from me Louis147…
At the outset I asked you the question as to what was your compelling argument that justified your (somewhat vitriolic & outraged) position.

Your reply was not a ‘grown-up’ discussion – the nearest you came to answering the question was to reject the opportunity claiming

I wouldnt waste my time explaining it to you as you obviously wouldnt understand.

calling me a “fool” and other than that you only launched into personal insults…(something that you notably did not do to any other poster in this thread) … now I asked you nicely to get off my back, but you mistake my sillyness for some kind of weakness – & still persist - this demonstrates clearly that you do posses some bulling type personality traits.

Here’s some choice gems from your litany of outrage at me: - starting out with

you must be intellectually challenged

that people like me are

disgusting creatures

you also even decided to state that I was a

moron

… do you actually understand the meaning of the word louie147?
You know, like if somebody you met or interacted with did actually fit that category would you not at least have the decency to demonstrate a little compassion?

Back on point…Did you ever actually address the question I posed louie147… nah, you didn’t… you ranted on about how disgusted that a mod like me (I’m not a mod BTW…mmmm dunno if you got that yet, anyway…) could be allowed to write on HP, and that you were disgusted by my constant reliance on the three drugs I mentioned – your response was

you almost sound proud of it,
i pity you

(despite the fact these three chemicals are part of every humans’ natural make-up and totally necessary in order for any and all humans to function normally) – Go figure?
You also ranted at me

im talking heroin and smack

duh!! They are the same thing…
You even implored other readers to "write and complain about me" – jeez what are you on dude… coz you better stop taking it quick

And what was

maybe have a nap old man ? sounds like you need it

was that supposed be some kind of intimidatory statement … were you being manfully cocky… were you flexing your testosterone filled muscles at me lol :p –
coz you’re welcome, come check me out & see if I can be made to “have a nap” so easily.

Now as for answering your question & I take it you mean this one

i wonder conspiritualist if you would mind your children smoking lots of cannabis ?

– you mean that one right?
Well your question is post number 99… there is a post directly before it (number 98 in case of confusion) that is actually from my daughter… Now I didn’t know she’d posted as she’s only ever in the therapies and nail technicians sections as she's too busy with her children, husband, her business and her home to be found lurking in these sections…
I struck me as quite ironic when I saw her post directly above yours ... you know what i mean - that you'd posted that specific question straight after her post… ain't it funny louie147?:)

Hey, maybe the universe is talking to you louie147… hush now honey… listen...can you hear it? :rolleyes:

So, anyway,
do you wanna go pull someone else's tail now louie147...coz some of us have got bills and taxes to pay

Be well louie147 :wave:

.
.

wow !
someone seems a little edgy,
sorry though no more mud slinging from me

I think the thread may be coming to the core of it all.

Why do you (anyone) need "substances" anyway? What is missing in your dear heart, and in your mind, that you feel the need, being inadequate to the task, that you can't get through life without spending money on substances? What is your need and what is your excuse?

In oneness with the One all is resolved, and all the debate about chemical substances comes from people who are frankly in need, and not one with the One.

This is the core of the subject. People apart who are trying this or that way to "get by". And "getting by" is hardly what we were really born to do. So then all the excuses come out, I feel.

V

Why do you (anyone) need "substances" anyway? What is missing in your dear heart, and in your mind, that you feel the need, being inadequate to the task, that you can't get through life without spending money on substances? What is your need and what is your excuse?

Oh V! Nothing is missing. People don't have a glass of wine with their meal or a pint with their mates on a Saturday because something is missing. But because sometimes it's nice to add a little touch of something else to the day to day balance of chemicals which manage the way we see the world. As I have said before, man has been altering his consciousness since time began (I expect.) There's nothing wrong with it - there's nothing wrong with loosening up. It's a supplement - not a replacement. Any drug is a problem to those people it takes over. Maybe that's their karma....I just don't think it's helpful to make criminals out of people who are just living their lives the way they want to.

I think the thread may be coming to the core of it all.

Why do you (anyone) need "substances" anyway? What is missing in your dear heart, and in your mind, that you feel the need, being inadequate to the task, that you can't get through life without spending money on substances? What is your need and what is your excuse?
V

I do believe, Venetian, you are truly hitting the nail of the head - as people who are seriously addicted, in my experience, are indeed filling in a void or a tranquilizing an unbearable pain which they haven't been able to heal in other ways.

However, I think the discussion has been decidedly going off topic for quite a long time now - when I initially raised the question, what was in my mind was not whether it was "right or wrong", "good or bad" for people to take drugs - I have seen the terrible suffering drugs and alcohol inflict on many people and their families and for myself I would be over the moon to find myself out of the job (i.e. with much of my work involved with helping people with addictions) - my question was specifically around de-criminalising drugs (NOT legalising them), under which I meant that people who are found in possession of drugs for their own use (and I am aware this is a grey area and can be difficult to distinguish between users and dealers sometimes) should not be branded as criminals and imprisoned but offered treatment.

Perhaps I have not been entirely clear with this but that was the main theme of my question.

Masha

I hold my hands up as one of those who took this thread off topic, Masha, for which I apologise but I do think that it's right to examine the decriminalisation of presently illegal drugs which can and are used by many people who are not addicted to them. It would be pointless to spend money weaning these people off their recreational drugs, as they harm no one (usually) and are otherwise law abiding members of the public, criminalised by the present laws. So much money in the socalled war on drugs is wasted prosecuting people for doing nothing other than getting high, often less harmfully than if they got off their face drinking alcohol. I don't think, as I've said above, that recreational drugs users are desperately missing anything in their lives. But having said that, I have to hold up my hands and say that it's also a possibility in some cases....We are not clones of each other, everyone's personal story is different.

Hello Masha thank you for your lovely reply xx

I think this thread has gone a little off topic, although Louie trying to get one over on Conpiritualist and failing miserably has been helerious.
All I know is what I have already said twice before on this thread which is both myself and Transform don't believe that de-criminalisation is some kind of utopia or ideal we both just think it's better than what we have now, I see first hand every day what we have now, there is an area half a mile from my home where the effects of drug addiction is evident everywhere I look some of the things I see are heartbreaking I see drug dealers in very expensive cars, an orderly queue usually appears just after dark depending on what time of year it is this queue of people are ragged, filthy and ill looking many have children and small babies who are just as ragged and filthy, the prisons are overflowing, (American locked up it's millionth person for drug related crime in June) my friend of 20 years was sent to prison yesterday for shoplifting to feed her Heroin habit it was her 13 conviction this year and her 659th in 20 years, most people have been a victim of drug related crime and those that have not know somebody who has.
Over the years I have visited my drug dependant mate for a coffee and a chat she usually lives in squats she shares with fellow users and I have sat with them while they have 'chilled' listening to Bob Dylan and the ilk and many a time upon leaving her home I have ran straight into a fight outside a pub!
These desperate, sad people who live desperate sad lives are just that they are people human beings who are relegated by society as being the lowest of the low because people cannot and willnot understand that the drug is not the problem the illegal status of them is.
My friend is a sweet, kind person and I love her, I don't understand why she has to go to prison for wanting to get out of her box through sheer choice and chill, yet if I so choose at this very moment I can drink a litre of vodka and go and pick a fight with my next door neighbour.

Sometimes I wonder if we keep drugs illegal so that society and people like louie have somebody to look down on.

Love

Rebecca x

Hi V I don't understand what you meant when you mentioned excuses, the only problem I have with drugs is that I've got none because I can't afford them but if I could I don't feel I need an excuse.

Rebecca x

Sometimes I wonder if we keep drugs illegal so that society and people like louie have somebody to look down on.

I wonder as well..and it also distracts from the people who cause real damage to this planet. People which sit on top in powerful companies (all neat in Armani if they got taste) that are only interested in profit no matter how much suffering is involved for this to achieve.

I don't think, as I've said above, that recreational drugs users are desperately missing anything in their lives. But having said that, I have to hold up my hands and say that it's also a possibility in some cases....We are not clones of each other, everyone's personal story is different.

I would make a distinction between (a) "recreational" drug use, (b) substance abuse and (c) serious addiction/dependency - to me, recreational use means an occasional, every now and then, social use of substances, "for fun" (e.g. my glass or two of red wine per week, in my view, comes under this category.) The (b) and the (c) actually have an "official" definition in diagnostic & statistical manual of psychiatric disorders DSM-IV (it's American but used widely in the UK) - for clarification, below is an adapted version of DSM-IV criteria for both

If you can tick at least 3 of the symptoms below as true AND present in the last 12 months, this may indicate substance dependency:
 Evidence of tolerance, i.e. the need to take larger quantities of the substance to achieve the same effect
 Evidence of withdrawal, i.e. unpleasant physical or psychological symptoms when trying to stop or cut down on the use of the substance
 Using more or longer than planned
 Having a persistent desire or unsuccessful attempts to reduce or control use
 Spending a great deal of time obtaining, using, or recovering from the
effects of the substance
 Reducing or not attending important social, occupational or recreational
activities because of substance use
 Continuing to use after identifying that social, psychological, or physical
problems are being caused or exacerbated by the substance

If you can tick “true” for even just one of the following 4 symptoms, this may indicate substance abuse (“a maladaptive pattern of substance use”), but without the additional symptoms as above the individual may not be necessarily dependent/addicted.
 Using has resulted in absences, poor performance or other problems with major role obligations
 Repeated use in dangerous situations
 Repeated substance-related legal, or financial problems
 Continuing to use after identifying that social, psychological or physical problems are being caused by the substance.

For me, whilst recreational (as per my own definition) drug users may not have a particular gap to fill, but with virtually every single dependent drug/alcohol user (or a person suffering with eating disorders, a gambler, etc) I have ever worked with, they would have a deep void, an abyss, an emptiness, an unmet need (whichever language they used to describe it) which they were trying to fill with the narcotics, the food, the adrenalin of risk-taking etc.

People who are "off their head" on drugs may not be aware of this emptiness as the drugs are actually doing their job in numbing their feelings, in masking the true proportion of "the elephant in the room" (i.e. the fear, emptiness etc). But if you ever worked with a substance-dependent person who is cutting down or going "cold turkey" - the emotions, the pain, the fear that surface can be completely overwhelming and unbearable.
It really is no wonder that so many people relapse. And at that particular point, the most unhelpful thing, in my opinion, would be to remind the individual how bad, how worthless they are, how much they are despised by the society, how criminal they are to the core and that they belong in jail.

Masha