USE, ABUSE, AND ADDICTION
(Rev. January 2025)
A few years ago, I spent some time with a few relatives and friends. A rare thing, since I usually seek solitude (Only in solitude can I obtain enlightenment). As usual, I mentioned the legalization of Cannabis for medical use. And as usual I was presented with ridiculous and illogical arguments against it. Then I realized that their "main problem" is not just their lack of knowledge regarding the human Endocabinoid system, nor their lack of knowledge regarding the many medical benefits of the many compounds found in the cannabis plant. Their main problem is a "fear" of their "lack of control" as it relates to the use (consumption), abuse, and addiction of narcotics. When in fact, almost all of them are user or abusers of narcotics or other substances. Although most of them do not realize it, or are in denial that they some times consume too much alcohol, fats or sweets. For example, most of them regularly use coffee (a narcotic), some use tobacco (a narcotic & protoplasmic poison that can cause cancer), and most of them consume alcohol (a physically addictive narcotic that cause death if too much is consume in a short period of time. And recently a medical statistical study has linked alcohol to 7 types of cancer).

Therefore, this sermon is not about the many reasons why cannabis should be legalized. It is about the difference between use, abuse, and addiction. And why those who use or abuse narcotics (coffee, alcohol, tobacco, most pain pills, tea, and prescribed drugs) and sometimes abuse food, have no moral justification to deny sick persons (some of them innocent children) the use of a medicinal herb.

First let me define those three words (definitions compatible with most modern dictionaries):

Use  -  To take or consume.
Abuse  - To use wrongly or improperly or excessively.
             To change the inherent purpose or function of something.
Addiction  -  An abnormally strong craving (can be physical or psychological).

When one of the apostles complaint to Jesus that he should not be drinking alcohol. Jesus told him that the fact that he was drinking (in moderation) at a celebration, did not make him a drunk. He was implying that there is a difference between use and abuse.

Mohammad, initially was not against alcohol. However, because he did not like the behavior of an alcoholic uncle he had, he decided that alcohol was evil, or that it made people do evil things.

What both of them failed to do, was to clarify the big difference between use and abuse of any substance. We all use sugar (or sugar substitute), oils, or fats. However, too much sugar and fat can be harmful to our bodies and can reduce our longevity. Are we going to make sugar and fat illegal because some people can not control their craving for sweets and fats? Of course not.

Some people don't know that if you drink too much water, in a short periot of time, you will die. And yet, if you do not drink sufficient water, you will also die. Therefore, the amount of "any" substance we consume is more important than the substance itself.

In every country and culture, certain narcotics have been OK (legal) to consume and other narcotics have not. However, most of those countries based their decisions on cultural traditions and/or political pressure (and sometimes bribes by greedy interest groups) instead of using science. In the past, there have been countries where the death penalty was used for anyone caught drinking coffee. And that time, those countries permitted people to use and trade in opium or hemp (cannabis).

The prohibition of any substance creates more problems than it solves. Some substances should be "regulated" because we do not want minors exposed to it, and because some people have no control of their cravings for anything that makes them feel good. Regulation and taxation is superior, more economical, and more enforceable than prohibition.

Finally, to deny a sick person access to a substance that will cure them or at least reduce their suffering, is inhumane and EVIL.
 
RETURN