Or, more precisely, they aren't addictive the first time you try them. Not even Heroin, Crack or other crazy substances out there which can destroy a person within a short period of time are addictive when you take them the first time.

Really, does that count for all people and not a single drug?

Well, as far as I know it is all of them. And you really need bad luck and a specific genetic precondition for a substance to be hooked up the first time. It is very rare and affects "only" about 1-2% of the population.

In difference to what you might expect, this fact is actually not good news, but a rather bad one considering the mainstream anti-drug campaigns.

If Drugs Were Addictive The First Time, No-One Would Recommend them And No-One Would Take A Recommendation Seriously

Imagine there was a new thing that you've picked up and that is more fun than anything you've ever done before and makes you feel better than you ever thought was possible.

Sex for example. You would recommend that to others, wouldn't you?

Now, what if after the first time sex had a few side-effects, like you have to do it three times a day or you go literally insane (not even tubo-masturbating all the time helps) and you can't focus anymore on anything else and even (or especially) when you are on it, you can't lead your life.

If those side-effects were present after the first time sex, would you still recommend it?

And if someone saw you completely depraved of your senses in the negative way and the saliva driveling out of your mouth while you try to tell that person how great it is...

...do you think that person will try it after seeing you?

This is of course just a speculation, but I'd say that most people would not try sex if someone who did it looked like that. A few would say "sure, take me" but there also people out there who on purpose have unprotected sex with HIV patience because of the thrill. So, maybe one in 1000 would do it anyway. But the rest not.

It is about the same with drugs. From alcohol and cigarettes to marijuana and hard stuff like cocaine, heroine and amphetamines. If people got devastated by them the fist time like falling from a cliff, no-one would do drugs.

The Big Problem With Drugs Is The Opposite Of What You Think

Only because drugs aren't addictive the first time, people recommend them in the first place.

"Hey, look at me. I have it under control. You can stop. It's just propaganda and sure, it is dangerous and you can slip, but you don't have to allow it to get there. It actually is possible to stop without side-effects."

This is a normal sentence. And it comes from people who are either in for the business or they have a (genetic or otherwise) resilience or they haven't taken that drug for more than half a year. Half a year of occasional consumption is the rule of thumb for getting hooked up on a drug. Before that it usually is not too late and people can actually walk back again without crashing their lives.

With this I do not say that you have a free pass on hard drugs. Not at all. But if you see someone who did hard drugs, it is not necessarily a death sentence. Actually, most users get away with a few mental and physical scratches. About seven in eight users of hard drugs don't experience any problems.

Beyond genetic reasons, the death sentence is predominantly the emotional and social state of the person and if these problems get mixed with hard drugs, it is almost a certain death sentence. The fewest are strong enough to get away again.

Generally, Anti-Dug Campaigns Are So Absolute, They Completely Miss The Point

I still remember, in school - I believe it was 9th grade - we had a drug counselor in class who told us how bad drugs were. The lesson after that has been canceled and so we decided to smoke marijuana and drink beer to pass the time. Not all youths do that but I still remember it as prime example for the irony and the complete waste of time, effort and money. Later a friend of mine (he was present in the scene before) became an actor and he was part of an ensemble that toured through the country with a theater play against drug use. I hung out with them on several occasions and what did we do? Well, drugs.

Of course that is a very subjective experience and surely not suited to be generalized. But it gives you a little insight that I might know what I am talking about when I say, public programs and the mainstream view are so bad, they are possibly counterproductive.

When a person is told all his life that cigarettes are addictive the first time and eventually he tries one out of curiosity (after all they are legal) and does not become addicted by doing so, the entire fasade gets an unrepairable crack. When that person eventually tries marijuana and doesn't have a mental break-down but more of a laughter (and hunger) break-down, what do you think will be the reaction towards the official version of things?

Right, that ill be pushed away as baseless scaremongering.

And depending on the person, his environment, curiosity and coincidences, this trial and error path with drugs gets explored more and more. Usually, this collecting of experience comes with bad advice by unaware addicts and salesmen while even the correct half of the government propaganda is ignored because the other half turned out to be a lie.

And so the dice are thrown and every 6 loses.

What Should Be Changed And What Would I Tell My Kids About Drugs?

I am not in a position to change anything. But even if I was, I don't think that I would be too successful beyond rather cosmetic changes. The attitudes of a portion in society that never did drugs because they doesn't count alcohol and cigarettes as such, is so strong that a "useful" drug and drug-prevention policy is hardly possible.

Maybe the development of cheap genetic tests to see what substances a person is prone to die would be something I'd do. That might help but it could also be criticized for being the entry ticket to take all other drugs that are not on the genetic exclusion list.

It's a complicated business...

What I would tell my kids (I don't have any, but who knows maybe one day) is that drugs are like a medal but only with one side. They are the best thing and the worst thing for you at once.

The reason for that is that drugs are chemically pure emotions. Especially heroin which resembles pain relieve, something that is even stronger and a better feeling than love. Heroin is chemical and therefore pure which is almost impossible to be achieve by nature. That is why you shouldn't take heroin (or any other drug) to induce a feeling on purpose to replace another feeling. But it renders this negative feeling not away, but is in every case an overcompensation into the positive direction.

If you do that and replace a negative feeling with a positive one by chemical inputs, you take the first step towards an addiction, because it happens regularly that we feel pain or negative emotions. The temptation is just too big that you might do it again. And when you do it a second time, you are almost lost because you can call it a habit of replacing feelings and the downward spiral with increased input begins.

So, never replace something - a physical or emotional state - with drugs. That is what gets you addicted.

But when you don't take drugs when they have a specific function for your emotional state, why then taking that drug when it does have no function? If something is not necessary and full of risks, it doesn't make sense to do it. Sure, you can have these great feelings, but the risk for your physical and mental health is still there.

That is why drugs are a medal, but one with only one side.

What Do You Think About It? Have You Experience? Negative Ones? What Did Your Government/Parents Tell You? What Did Your Friends Tell you? Let Me Know In The Comment Section!