That is very interesting and a sharp observation. Thanks for the post.

I imagine our understanding will grow as time goes on. The brain is a funny thing.

I'm serious, this is the answer.

Don't criminalize drug use in one set of contexts and then medicalize/legitimatize/promote it in others. Just legalize all of it, every damn thing.

The ones who really must have it will still be able to get it, and the people who want to use it as a $500+ a month lifestyle accessory will be able to do so without needing to defend or explain themselves or pretend they have a disorder. Those who want to use for symptoms of depression--whatever the cause--will still be able to seek the guidance and advice of a doctor.

Additional benefits will be that glaucoma patients can get their weed easily, and end of life patients can get hooked on opiates and if that makes their last weeks bearable, all well and good.

I mean, what ARE we talking about here? Trying to find out who needs it more than others and write fewer prescriptions, denying people the drugs they want?

Why bother? I believe people can make their own decisions. Some of them will make bad decisions and burn up on drugs. However, I believe the current atmosphere makes it harder and not easier to talk about addiction and getting treatment. Look at the celeb culture and the fascination with Heath Ledger's toxicology test and you can see what I mean.

Once the pimping of legal drugs by the medical/psych community stops, the whole public discourse will change, and it will become MUCH HARDER to justify forcing people to take medication they do not want. Defined as a choice and not a medical imperative, it will be harder to justify shoving "meds" on someone "for their own good".

Also, the discourse will be more honest and fruitful if we can call drug addiction by its real name. The idiot moralizing will be gone. On the other side, the pressure on people to use whenever they feel bad will lighten up...and people will understand what they are doing, that taking ADs or whatever is a big decision and they are committing themselves for the long haul.

So, I support full legalization, and doctors should be able to write prescriptions so some drug use can be covered by insurance, BUT I would ban all advertising. Completely.

Level the playing field. It's that simple.

Rape is about power and humiliation as every victim knows.

That there is any human out there who believes otherwise is very saddening. The goal of rape IS NOT sex.

Your attitude plays right into the statement of the official who thinks that prostitution would reduce incidents of rape. Many rapists have wives and girlfriends and access to all the sex they want. The source of rape is not pent up desire.

In fact prostitutes are more commonly raped than other women (unless you believe, like some people, that because of their profession they cannot be raped). Why? Because they are vulnerable to this kind of attack.

If you are right, then HOW is it possible for a man to rape his wife? I mean, wanting to have sex with your wife is normal, n'est pas?

Please educate yourself. Rape is not about sex. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't. Please talk to some rape survivors and you will realize that.

Their pain, suffering, and powerlessness was the goal of the rapist. Forcing sex on them was one way to achieve that goal, devastating in its effectiveness.

Oh, and men can be raped, too, and when it happens to them it means the same thing.

For example, do you believe Mike Tyson, the multi-millionaire who has swooning groupies after him, needs to rape a woman? Obviously he doesn't. And yet he did just that.

Why? He is a bully and a psychopath. That's why.

That's what rape is about.

No. Just no. Please talk to anyone who knows, talk to the police maybe.

If sex were the goal the attack would stop when the woman relents. Instead many women are seriously beaten and killed long after they have stopped resisting.

It's not about sex.

it's only the one.

I'm not ignoring that she said it was both. I'm saying she's wrong. The Mike Huckabee case involved a man who had been castrated and still raped women. He had no testicles and consequently no sex drive, so if sex is a factor please tell me how that works?

The state of Texas experimented with chemical castration of rapists, in the belief that rape had something to do with sex. Didn't work.

I suppose now we are going to get the same loving defense of popular misconceptions about rape that we got for "Pretty Woman" myths about prostitution.

If this is even supposed to be a liberal blog, it scares the hell out of me. What would this conversation look like over at Powerline for example?

Understanding that rape is not about a sex BUT only a sexualized crime was a huge breakthrough and has led to recognition of marital rape, the understanding that hookers can be and are raped, increased protection for victims, and many other things.

If you believe that rape is about sex it is hard to believe that a sexually available woman can be raped. As even Sandra says, it changes the perception of rape victims.

However from this budding thread here it's clear there is still so much more to be done.

It's just shocking, you're standing up for rapists now. Poor guy had him a case of blue balls, that's all, right?

You are all disgusting.

rape is an attempt at domination rather than a simple need for gratification. It is not possible to take the two apart,

OMFG