"I know plenty of people who smoked pot, and moved on to other substances because it was no longer a "quality" high. Drug use is worse than alcohol or at least thats my opinion and we all know what we say about opinions!!"
Ah Fettsbabe, people who drink are just as likely to progress on to higher drugs in relation to people who don't drink, as the ratio is with pot in comparison with people who don't smoke pot.
"Pot is physically addictive. People also use to say cigs weren't addictive, but we have now found that there is a high probability that they are."
Fettsbabe, any doctor will tell you that THC (the active ingrediant in pot) is not addictive. However just like every other sustance on the planet it is habit forming to that 10 or whatever percent of the population that has an adictive personality.
As far as 'protecting' your kids from any of this, it won't make any difference, if they are part of that 10 or whatever percentage that have addictive personality, they'l abuse drugs (& that includes alcohol) no matter what you do (All one can do is provide emotional support the day they decide to give up). It only works in reverse - say a child gets molested by his/her step dad, or gets raped at the age of 15 or something, often it can turn a kid with a normal personality into one with an addictive personality, because they'l spend the rest of their lives trying to escape from their past (till they come to terms with it). One cannot turn someone with an addictive personality back into someone with a normal personality - that's why many recovering alcoholics will tell you they are one drink away from total destruction. Because even if they haven't had a drink in 15 years or something, they just need one drink & they' be back on a bender drinking till nothings left or until they go on the wagon again.
Anyway as far as that percentage goes avaliability isnt a issue, if pot didn't exist they'd just get hooked on something else. That's why heroin addicts arn't model citizens on the rare occasion when heroin isnt avaliable, as they just become adddicted to drinking alcohol &/or popping benzos or barbs. Which means they are worse off, as alcohol, barbituates & benzodiazapam are all worse for the body than heroin narcotic analgesics are totally harmless to the body, people such as war veterans with shrapnel by the spine have been known to take analgesics*** for even 50 years straight without any negative side effects what so ever.). That's why doctors will often tell alcoholics that they'd be better off being heroin addicts.
*** 'Narcotic analgesics' is a medical term that covers synthetic opiods such as methadone, & traditional opiods such as codeine, morphine, omnapom & diamorphine (the name that mosts commonly used for prescription heroin in places like Switzerland & the UK where its a legal pain control medication & also used for heroin maintenance. Remember virtually all the negative side effects of heroin abuse comers from it's legal status. Wich makes it expensive, adulterated & makes quality quantity inconsistent. Because its illegal people who use it end up having a very sordid lifestyle, also AIDS comes from its illegality - where heroin is cheap there's users don't 'have to' use the most efficient method of administration, ie injecting, look at the UK where some people on its restrictive heroin maintenance program actually receive there diamorphine in a smokable form (actually a cigarette, that's had the daily dose absorbed into it), also criminalisation often comes hand in hand with restrictive syringe avaliability. However in places like Australia, where there are govt funded needle exchanges in all towns IV drug users have a lower rate of HIV than even the general population in the syringe restrictive US (because IV drug users are often one of the main gateways of the virious into the wide community). This has been shown in the UK study comparing the 2 similar sized cities of Liverpool & Edinborough - in Liverpool, where they had both govt funded needle exchanges & diamorphine (prescription heroin) maintenance programs, the HIV rates stayed very low in both the general population & the IV drug users; but in Edinborough where both needle exchanges & diamporphine are illegal, the rate of HIV skyrocketed, both amonst the junkies & to a slightly lesser extent the general adult population. Here in Australia the conservative govt which was initially against needle exchanges, change their mind once they had worked out how many millions they had saved (here the govt pays medical bills) through the needle exchsnge program.
"...Drug use is worse than alcohol..."
I'll let you in on a little secret Fettsbabe, alcohol is a drug.
"BTW, its also pharmacutically incorrect to link any medication with another. All are different. I linked them together because they are illegal substances!"
What illegality got to do with the price of eggs, FB? Are you saying that because Hearst, Dupont & Anslinger conspired to get pot made illegal### & that because alcohol was relegalised (as prohibition didn't work - do we ever learn anything from history?); that Alcohol is ok while pot is bad? Are you that wrapped up in doing what the govt tells you & letting them dictate your morals?
### A new hemp fibre processing machine was invented that would make both Heast's woodchip plantations & Dupont's new nylon product uncompetitive. So Anslinger (Duponts nephew) the bloke in charge of prohibition, was paid in blocks of Hearst & dupont shares (this was found ourt after his death) to add hemp to the narcotic control list, it also let him justify a bigger budget. He convince Roosevelt by saying that it would help him justify appealing prohibition to the religious lobby if he could give them something else by banning hemp instead, after WWII Anslinger was put in charge of the UN narcotics board, when he then put hemp on the international register, which meant no country could get Marshal plan aid unless they too banned hemp. Anslinger was paid an even bigger block of Dupont shares for doing that)