In my case, it was. Or was it alcohol? Or cigarettes? Or those candy cigarettes we used to puff back in the "good old days?"
I have only anecdotal experience to offer, which is about all the evidence that exists in this particular quandry. As is the case with everyone I know who's sampled "the hard stuff," the road to powder was similar, preceeded by alcohol and weed. For us, apparently, pot was one of several gateways (along with various other hallucinogens). Certainly, I know of no one who took the opposite approach, sampling heroin, for instance, before "graduating" to ganja.
So, obviously, the answer to the question posed above is a resounding "yes." Or is it? I've also known many whose experimentation stopped with the green. Are we supposed to believe every pot smoker will develop into a needle fiend?
It's different for everyone, and, besides, the argument is false since a legal product (alochol) almost always precedes illegal intoxicants. Perhaps if the pot lobby had a more substantive face than, say, Woody Harrelson, things would be different. Not to mention more money, the life blood of every influential special interest.
I would've been better off as a teetotaler, but not everyone is as weak as me. Why should they be punished by our increasingly bipartisan nanny state? Leagalizing marijunana may increase the temptation for the undisciplined among us, but has government approval ever mattered in this regard?
Why not take the greater good into account? We continue to waste resources (and jail space) pursuing Deadheads, and we don't have enough of either to waste. Good government requires a nod to Darwinism, cold though that may sound.
I may not be among the fittest, but that was my mistake, one I would've likely repeated no matter the governmental restrictions.
Now, about those Draconian non-smoking ordinances ...
No comments:
Post a Comment