Nope. And Marijuana is not a “gateway drug” either, any more than alcohol. It’s not the drug. It’s the person.
It’s like I’m arguing with a 50 year old in the 60’s. We’ve gotten past Reefer Madness.
I’ll tell you a little story about how I started smoking the stuff in December of 1972.
I graduated from high school in 1972. I was a real drug prude. My friends would smoke it but I never touched the stuff. In fact, my final paper in high school was on the evils of marijuana.
Guess what I found out? It was, at the time, not that different from our “evils of man made global warming” talking points now. I felt duped. I still got a good grade on the paper though.
I still didn’t touch the stuff because I was CHEAP. It was $10 a lid when gas as $.28 a gallon and I made $2 an hour.
And the reason I stopped was I thought I acted stupid when I used it (1977). I have not touched it since. Thing is, it’s not an addictive drug. That’s why people can “move on” from it.
And ALL of my friends that smoked it have moved on. One became a permanent “loser” but that’s not about drugs. It’s about his character.
I’m against marijuana use because the ONLY reason for using it is to alter your perception of reality. As a Christian I do not bellieve that is good stewardship of the body God gave me.
But as a Christian I also believe people should be allowed to make their own decisions except in cases where it overtly affects others.
And I’ve never heard of a beligerent stoner. ;-)
And that, in a nutshell, is the root of most Libertarian idiocy on this subject. We are born the center of our own universe, and the notion that there are others out there who are different, is mostly incomprehensible to the average person.
Most people think: "Well, if it doesn't affect me badly, it probably doesn't affect anyone else badly either."
If it should happen that their friends also can put it down and walk away, so much more so is this false impression strengthened, and eventually they become convinced that "it's harmless and non addictive."
Fate has decreed that they simply won't be exposed to conditions necessary for them to see the error of this assumption.
They will dismiss the experience of others who have seen numerous people wrecked on this stuff, and attribute it to "Nanny State" mindset, or delusional exaggeration. After all, their own experience was nothing like this, and so therefore must everyone else's experience be the same.
How does one crack such a shell of false knowledge?