Civilized said:
Good point, and keep in mind that I know a lot of people who watch TV, movies, youtube, read low-brow fiction stories, etc all of which take away time from doing something significant. All of the brilliant potheads I know eschew those forms of "entertainment" that so many Americans waste so much time on, and instead spend their time in the world of ideas.
Ouch, that's a punch to the nether regions (as a practising procrastinator).
Anywho, in terms of what "educated" people believe I think the point has already been made that educated vs. non-educated is probably the wrong way to draw the proverbial line in the sand. I, for one, consider myself educated (take that for what it's worth) and I've certainly done some weed, although it's never been for me. However, I am a proponent of legalising a number of drugs. I think it'd be difficult to argue that the current division between illegal and legal drugs has come from a place of pharmacological analysis (morphine legal, heroin not, alcohol legal, weed not, ritalin legal, speed not). Furthermore, I understand and, in many cases, support the desire to change ones mood, perception, outlook. I wager that there are very few amongst us who cannot lay claim to some treasured memory or encounter that probably would not have been possible without some form of "social lubrication" and the correlation between what we call "artistic genius" and substance abuse is difficult to deny. Plus, from the perspective of neuro-pharmacology I think we're coming to understand that things like "athleticism" and even "self-rightousness" are a form of drug addiction, although good luck getting the majority of people to agree to that. Some people have this quasi-religious notion of "wholesome" and "unwholesome" happiness which I find is often used as a parapet from which to toss condemnations of drug use but if you ask me that's a whole lot of bull. However, I think, in the end, the pharmacological debate, which is often pushed to the forefront in the press, is comparitively meaningless.
Ultimately I think the war on drugs and substance abuse is not a battle on pharmacology and neuroscience but a battle on cultural. Many drugs that are now illegal were legal at one time or another and yet civilization as we know it did not crumble and die. Most of europe has significantly laxer laws on legal drinking age than north america (and as a Canadian I think a drinking age of 21 is absolutely ridiculous) and yet europe manages to magically do quite well for itself despite the suggestions to the contrary from america's puritan right wing. I mean, let's face it, the arsenal for attack in drug debates has never been comprehensive analysis of statistic on the benefit of drug users (including occasional) to society, often a statistic is simply thrown up stating the number of drug users and it is taken as a poor assumption that all these people (or rather a greater percentage of these people than the non-drug using public) are a useless lout.
Anywho, I think the biggest note of caution on the legalization issue has already been stated. Whenever we legalize something that was legal before you're going to see a glut of abuse. Whether it be legalization or maijuana or a teenager reaching drinking age. However, I don't see how you can chuck this up to anything other than culture and psychology. People will abuse the opportunity to partake of the forbidden, especially in the short term after it becomes freely available once becoming unforbidden.
In conclusion, I am not an illegal drug user but I support its legalization. Now excuse me while I get another beer.
