Considering the number of people who admit to using pot when surveyed, I'd say it is reasonable for the majority of pot smokers to believe they will not be arrested or suffer negative consequences for smoking.
By your standard, drivers in the US are all mostly addicted to speeding. After all, they do it despite the 'potential' consequences of large fines.
Do you suppose that people would be as willing to speed if the penalties more closely mirrored those for marijuana? We don't even have to use the official term addiction -- we can just say, "a behavior people are willing to continue in the face of very negative consequences." I believe you claimed there were no negative consequences, and that's why I brought it up.
And yes, I agree that most don't think they will be caught. But when they are, and when they've already suffered the consequences, the majority continue to use weed. Addiction could explain that, but isn't necessary. Human perversity or a drive toward freedom would work as well. I think it's as simple as, "I like getting high."
I was objecting to the idea that people can simply drop the behavior like changing dirty underwear. Even if they "can," demonstrably, they do not.
It's hard to convey to you what the difference is, but most people who work with addicts, (including alcoholics), understand at once that pot doesn't have the same consequences as other addictive substances. It doesn't ruin people's lives with the exception of the poor sots that were swept up in the Federal Minimum Sentencing webs and given decades to life in prison for marijuana offenses. That isn't the consequence of using pot, that's the consequence of ignorant legislators and not enough public outcry.
I don't dispute this either. I do not like most parallels made to other substances and think marijuana should be evaluated on it's own merits and faults.
On federal minimum sentencing, we are moving from the user's perspective to the dealers perspective. Again, I wouldn't claim that dealers are addicted to marijuana, but in it primarily for the money. This moves an offense from one of possession for personal use into another territory, doesn't it? One where the product isn't as important as the willingness to sell something illegal for profit.
The dealer class is certainly aware of how severe the penalties are and, if they aren't simply using weed for the good feelings it provides, how can they be viewed as anything other than a willful criminal intent on making money by way of great risk?
This is not to minimize the many cases of laws misapplied and resulting injustice. But we are talking about a whole class of crime, not cherry picking. I am not convinced that the majority of cases are of this type. We could look a few up if you like.
If someone sets out to move a pound or two of weed for profit, how is that different than doing it with any other illegal product? It could be elephant ivory for all I care -- they went in with eyes open and evil intent. Or do they have a justification I am overlooking?
