Pot Is A Gateway To Disaster



Recently I wrote (a letter) about convicts that were trying to get back into society, and I gave them a job. And I said that most of them were doing time for crimes related to drugs, and that they all told me they started on pot.

There was a piece on the news a short while back about a drug counselor, who had been helping people for 30 years, who said the same thing, they all started out with pot, got bored with it and started using stronger stuff, which of course takes more money. Thus they did crimes to get that money.

There was a rebuttal by a person who obviously approves of pot. That person said possibly it was the “class” of people that I was talking about, because they knew a lot of people who used it and quit whenever they wanted to. If that were true, then tell me why famous movie stars, performing artists and politicians, have either died or are in rehab? Are they the lower class of people this person said I was talking about? I think not.

Drugs don’t care who you are, what degrees you have, how many songs you have on the charts, how many movies and Oscars you have. Time will tell us if pot is harmless. I already know it is. I’ve seen the broken families and I know how it all got started. I also have a son who has been in prison for more than half his life for doing crimes to get money to buy dope. He is now 50 years old. Guess what he got started on?

Dell Owens

Editor’s note: This letter is being run again due to an editing error.


Rex Hinshaw 2 years, 11 months ago

Mr. Owens, I don't care about the recreational use of pot. My wife has cancer , and if pot can ease her pain...then I think it should be able to be prescribed as a medicine. That's it.Thank you


Meria Heller 2 years, 11 months ago

good to see a sensible comment here. Sorry about your wife, hope it helps.


H. Wm. Rhea III 2 years, 11 months ago

What a person does in their own home, as long as they don't hurt the general public or specific other people, is their business. Now if their particular choice starts to hurt someone, then we deal with that person for the laws they broke in pursuing their choice, but not for the choice itself.


Ronald Hamric 2 years, 11 months ago


I think we will see many more such studies/reports that will substantiate Mr. Owens premise. Still puzzled by those that choose to justify adding another problem by pointing to two we already have. Does anyone not see the lack of logic in that approach? As I have noted before, pot has been perfectly legal for doctors to prescribe for their patients, if they feel it is warranted, for decades. It is nothing new, although some choose to want to believe it has only recently been determined to have beneficial medical uses. The things which doctors can prescribe knows few limitations.


Rex Hinshaw 2 years, 10 months ago

Mr. Hamric, Because of the federal classification of pot ,it is not federally legal for any doctor in this country to prescribe it. Some states now allow it but many don't....including the one where my wife is being treated. You need to do a little more research.


Ronald Hamric 2 years, 10 months ago

Mr. Hinshaw, Might I recommend that you do the research. Start with a prescribed "medication" called Brompton's Cocktail just to become aware of what "substances" a doctor can prescribe their patients if deemed appropriate. The active ingredient in marijuana (THC) was synthesized decades ago and is fully available for doctors to prescribe where appropriate. Also look up: MARINOL®. It is a synthetic version of a naturally occurring compound known as delta-9-THC. Delta-9-THC stimulates appetite and reduces nausea and vomiting by binding to special receptors found in the nervous system. I fully appreciate that pot could provide relief to your wife's problems.

How is it that "pot doctors" can now prescribe "medical marijuana" while you infer that medical doctors cannot prescribe the drug due to Federal Law? Those laws are still in effect even though the Holder Justice Department is turning a blind eye to the "legalization" by states of pot. State laws DO NOT trump Federal Laws. It's called the "supremacy clause" I believe."The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six of the United States Constitution, Clause 2, that establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state."

If you revisit Mr.Owens post, I believe you will find that he is not proposing that "prescribed marijuana" or any of it's medical derivatives is going to lie at the root of the problems he forecasts. I don't believe he nor I would deny anyone access to whatever will provide relief to their medical issues. In all sincerity, I think there is a profound difference in your position and that of Mr.Owens. You're coming from two separate issues. Having experienced what I did in my career while a 1st responder in SoCal for almost 30 years, I agree with Mr. Owens prediction. My best to you and your wife in her battle. I lost my wife of 47 years to cancer 4 years ago.


linda merritt 2 years, 10 months ago

In my experience working with people whose drug problems got out of control, alcohol was usually the first drug, and sadly that question doesn't get asked, only what illegal drug was used first. I never understood the Gateway-starter concept. If it didn't exist for people to start on, no one would be doing drugs and in trouble? Time has shown pot is helpful and medicinal, yet the awful devestation and wreckage alcohol causes continues on with no concern or discussion.


Ronald Hamric 2 years, 10 months ago

Ms. Merritt, I don't believe there is "no concern or discussion" as regards the social problems brought about by alcohol. I believe alcohol is viewed differently than "controlled substances" due to this nation's experience and history with prohibition. In my experience wherever pot was, one would typically find alcohol as well. I do not know of any studies that purport to show that one or the other is more instrumental in causing people to venture on into hard drugs. As to the legalization of "pot", I am as equally baffled that with the two "drugs" we already are having issues with "tobacco (a weed) and alcohol" folks get all supportive and onboard with adding another( marijuana) to the list of problems. Does that logic even make sense? No, not if we are ever going to ameliorate substance abuse of whatever origins. Perhaps we are tired of even trying and should give up the struggle. That approach has been my direction of choice for decades due to my personal experience with this problem. Want true freedom to do whatever you want? Have at it! Just don't expect me or others to pay for the negative results of your poor decisions and life choices.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.