Have you ever had a child with a substance abuse issue? Based upon your statement.....clearly not.

Shame on you, anonymous! How do we know what her parents did or did not do to address whatever problems she may have had? I'm so sorry for what happened to little Jaclyn and her family but let's not make unfounded accusations here...

Her parents need to let her sit in jail. I see on David's FB page that they have gone out to visit Carly. Looks like she was out west, maybe at a rehab??

because the s.a. not the cops determines the charge

I understand the SA determines the charge, but I thought she said in her letter she said it was the SA dragging their feet in not getting the charges out when the investigation was just completed by the PD. Was the PD dragging their feet? I just think she threw the SA under the bus.

Everyone works together in these cases. The HP Police can (and someone correct me if I am wrong) bring charges against anyone in many actions regarding vehicular offences. See the ticket here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105558276/Carly-Rousso-Highland-Park-Citation

In this ticket it is the City of HP vs. Rousso. According to the HPPD, this ticket was just a formality so they could draw blood. The State's Atty can then bring more charges based on evidence collected and/or proceed by the HPPD, witness statements, Illinois Crime Lab, the Major Crash Team, outcome of any Grand Jury proceedings, etc...

The charges today are the result of the past 8-day investigation into the incident. It's possible more charges could come as well, or charges could also be dropped or consolidated based on motions any good defense lawyer would argue.

Was anyone in court today to know what the State's Attorney asked for as an initial bond amount before the judge set the $500k?

Your a lawyer in Illinois??? We don't have Bail Bondsman in Illinois. You post cash only with the county.

Interesting .... possibly she 'huffed' immediately before the accident that might have knocked her out (causing the reported erratic driving by the witnesses). Do any of those fancy cameras that the Lake County DOT put up on top of the spotlights serve any purpose? Do they function? Can the police pull up pictures of them for accident and investigation purposes? I'm curious....

I doubt they will get the max if the Plea it out. If they plea, probably 3 years with the same in probation, hours of community service on release, probably some retribution or hefty fine and revoked drivers license (especially if rumours are true she had DUI before). Regardless, every pay check for the rest of her life will be garnished because the estate will sue and it will never be discharged in a bankruptcy due to her actions. Aside from the fact she will have to wake up every morning knowing she killed a 5 year old girl.

If I were her parents, she'd be out of the house now, or still in jail waiting for all her 'friends' to bail her out. Teach the girl a lesson and show that no matter how much money their family might have, she'll just have to sit in jail until her trial.

Agreed

So true. Hate-filled comments against the teenager only compound the tragedy. Sadly, I think I unknowingly drove by the Rousso home today. My young daughter screamed out, saying, "Mommy, why are there men in black there with guns pointed at us? We have to get out of here!" If that is indeed her home, how pathetic that security is needed. The family who lost their precious, innocent daughter must be experiencing every kind of emotion, but everyone else should follow the example they set in the midst of unimaginable grief, saying only that they were confident justice would be done. I imagine they would be sickened by vengeful comments and armed guards. We are supposed to let all the facts come out in this country before we judge.

yes....

her parents were non-parents. You can be a parent because you gave birth/adopted the child. That is a noun. They are parents. The verb..."to parent: is far more difficult. This is where they failed. They were not involved and did not see the crisis at hand and sent "help" to help. Mommy was not there and all Carly was doing was crying out for Mommy. Being head of the Art Center...which nobody really cares about was more important than her own child getting in trouble. Gabrielle...shame on you. we ALL know. Her self image art center director was more important than taking time off for her child.

Now it looks like she'll have permanent time off if the scuttlebut is correct. Gabrielle..please resign..the Art Center is purel;y under damage control...please step down before you are publicly fired!!!

Elena, what's going on at the art center?
I would think that parents would be reluctant to have their children there given that both of Carly's parents are involved - but then again, too many people don't pay attention.

What the H*LL are you talking about?

Reckless homicide carries a lesser penalty than does aggravated DUI since there is less knowledge that it can happen. Simply put, one can commit reckless homicide while driving a car simply by striking someone while playing a game of zig-zag with the road and then subsequently losing control of the car - i.e. an unintelligent move to start with (zig-zag) that isn't itself deadly or illegal, but turned deadly when the car could no longer keep up with the driver's actions.

Aggravated DUI does not require someone to die, it only requires that there be a permanent disfigurement or disability, or that the car struck someone under the age of 16 (it may be 14, I will go back and check). The key is the DUI - in that case, you knowingly operate a car in a manner that is against the law (not only reckless, but illegal). So the DUI will carry a higher penalty even though it in and of itself is not a homicide charge. Moral - don't judge a book (or in this case, a charge) by its cover.

@Get Real: "Aggravated driving under the influence is a class two felony that can lead to a prison sentence of three to 14 years. Reckless homicide is a class three felony that can lead to probation or up to five years in prison"

In short: DUI = 3 to 14 years, killing someone = probabtion to 5 years.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. The DUI charge in this case is specifically for great bodily harm and/or death. Reckless homicide can include a lot of different acts that are reckless and does not require a person to be under the influence. You and many others are getting hung up on the title of the charge. Example: the lady a few years ago in Lake Zurich that killed the motorcyclist while doing her nails was charged with reckless homicide not Agg DUI (she wasn't under the influence). The State Legislature considers killing someone while under the influence much more serious so they created a specific charge for it. My point is don't get confused or worked up over the title of the charge. The only thing that matters is that she was charged with the most serious charges she can be under the law.

Which of your many lies are you referring to? I don't have time to re-read them, but I believe they consisted of baseless accusations of racial profiling by HPPD and blatant lies that there was an adjudication against the City making such findings.

Thank you Glenview citizen. I should move to Glenview. HP seems awash in nincompoops whose hearts bleed for a voluntarily drug-addled killer in a quantity at least equal to, if not greater than, they do for her dead victim and injured family.

Glenview citizen, you say "I am sure they are good people who were trying to do the best they could with their daughter."

WHY is there a need on the part of some to ASSUME these are good people? Some here are criticized for condemming them without knowing them - why is it acceptable to speak favorably of them without knowing them either?

All most of us know is they are the parents of a teenager who has had a drug problem for years and that problem has not gotten better, but instead escalated into a situation where she finally killed someone.

Given those are the only facts most of us know about their parenting skills, i'd lean towards to side of the ledger that they were horrible parents, in one shape or another.

@ebuddha- I totally get what you're saying. I just wanted the focus of my statement to be on the actuality effects and decision that Carly made and not about her parents. People like @Lou need to understand that huffing while driving is like shooting a gun off in downtown highland park and then being surprised that somebody gets shot. The point of huffing is to pass out. Her past, her depression, her parents...all of this does not matter. There are plenty of orphaned kids in this world that do not get adopted, let alone to a wealthy Highland Park family. There are plenty of people that get attacked by dogs in this world. If every one of these people made the same decisions that Ms. Rousso did, the streets would be safe for no one. I think it is time for people to stop making excuses and asking for sympathy for Ms. Rousso. She is going to learn the consequences of such selfish and inexcusable behavior, and then she will be able to live her life having learned this lesson. The same cannot be said for Jaclyn.

And from the wikipedia: under "Safety" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,1-Difluoroethane

Several reports of fatal car crashes have been linked to drivers huffing 1,1-difluoroethane.[5][6][7] Due to inhalant abuse, a bitterant is added to consumer canned air products.

(Also read the articles in citations 5, 6, 7)

So this is why she had a "commercial cleaning product" in her car -- I guess the consumer stuff is not strong enough. http://www.cityhpil.com/civicalerts.aspx?AID=130

Either way, she's a reckless killer. Should have done this in her basement if at all.

They should have left her in Jail..... I would if my kid was this stupid. They sent her to rehab, she might get more sitting in a jail cell thinking about how she can plea the case out.

i agree. the sad thing is, this girl has not made any attempt of an apology....

yvonne - you are correct -- until the punishment is severe enough, the problem will be common.

people talk casually about legalizing weed - but my concern is that any drugs, substances, or alcohol in the community combined with a casual regard for their use by kids leads to tradegies like this.

it happens far too often on the Northshore - an area people take pride in saying 'what a lovely place it is'. until we all start taking this problem seriously, it's not such a lovely place.

The punishment is severe enough. We have to met it out to the offenders. I'd argue however that the war on some drugs is what's gotten us into this mess. Prohibition hasn't worked, doesn't work, and can't work. We just haven't learned our lessons from alcohol yet.

When we restricted weed, people went to whatever was easier to get because they wanted to get high. As we tightened up things, new designed drugs were created, common substances were abused, etc.

Further restrictions are not the answer - we've been fooling around with that for what 40, 50 years now? Legalization, light regulation, light taxation will go a long way toward solving many problems we suffer from now. We can take the tax revenues, and some of the savings from resources that would otherwise be spent on this useless failure of a war on some drugs can be redirected toward treatment of any addicts. And of course, users shouldn't drive intoxicated - whether it's drugs or alcohol.

David - if we had a more responsible society, i'd almost agree with you. In Amsterdam, certain acts and substances are legal in certain areas. It turns out 95% of Dutch wouldn't be seen anywhere near any of it - it's mostly tourists and the usual percentage of degenerates.

For me, the key take away from the Dutch experience is the responsibility taken by almost all individuals over there. They serve their kids tiny amounts of beer starting at age 10. People here focus on the fact that things are common and allowed over there. What people NEED TO REALIZE is that the adults SET A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE.

It'd be great if we could legalize certain things over here (even though I've never consumed anything stronger than red wine) - but our society is so screwed up and the example set by the adults and the lack of supervision of our children leads me to think that it'd be playing russian roulette.

Ebuddha: I agree about the responsibility aspect of your argument. I also believe in allowing children to drink small amounts of alcohol before they're 21, but only when they're with adults over 21, and I'd probably further limit it to a "holiday" situation when everyone was at home.

The idea being that it's simply ludicrous to allow someone to do something when they're 21, expect them to be responsible when doing it, but have ZERO experience with it before they turn 21. Allowing children under 21 to get that experience while under the supervision of an adult has worked for a very long time, and it's only relatively recently that groups like MADD, and others have created this crazy "zero tolerance" society.

I've seen the kids that went to college who had zero experience before 21 with alcohol - they were nuts when they turned 21. The ones that weren't binge crazy drinkers? The ones who's parents gave them small amounts of alcohol before they turned 21...

What we've done hasn't worked, and has created bigger problems. It's time for a change (and no, I don't mean that anyone should ever drive while intoxicated, regardless of their age).

David, in "my perfect world" there would be no laws (I'm a libertarian at heart) but severe public repercussions if you mess up. Unfortunately that can't happen in the USA because very few take personal responsibility seriously and even fewer pay attention to what goes on around them and even fewer are paying attention to what their kids are doing.

I have zero problem with teens drinking a bit at dinner at home with their parents (and no non-family members, ie no other teen friends). It also is necessary that kids don't see their parents acting like asses. But, parents around here buy the booze for their kids to go party with their friends, with zero supervision! That's insane.

Ebuddha: "It also is necessary that kids don't see their parents acting like asses. But, parents around here buy the booze for their kids to go party with their friends, with zero supervision! That's insane.".

I agree. However, I do know quite a few parents who go the extra mile to hide all the booze in the house whenever there's a party or a sleepover/whatever. They also make certain to have mom/dad at the house to keep things in check.

The ones that don't... well, don't get me started :-)

Actually, it was several gang banger idiots in West Rogers Park who smashed a guy in the face while he was sifting through a dumpster looking for cans. Why? Because they're gang-banger idiots. The basic nutrients of life: Food is provided by the gang and the State through benefit cards. Love - probably through the gang because who knows what happened to the parental unit(s) in their life (although they may also be in the gang). Their views are twisted, and many of the crime problems in Chicago are exacerbated by the laws Chicago has on the books. I'd hazard a guess that they were well-fed and loved and still killed strangers for fun because that's what gang-bangers do. It's happening all over the City, sometimes en masse. Look at what's been going on around the lakefront with several hundred gang bangers running amok - attacking people on the street, the trains, etc.

I could care less if Carly was adopted - lots of people are adopted and don't go out and drive high. Lots of people get mauled by all kinds of animals - they don't go out and drive high. Lots of people are depressed - they get therapy, take some pills, work to get better - they don't drive high.

Can non-gang banger kids feel impoverished in mind and spirit? Sure. But that doesn't mean you go out and drive high.

If the biggest adversity she has faced in her life are dog bites from 3 years ago, I'll tell you that she's a lucky girl. I think many people endure so much more and do not make decisions that kill other people. Stop trying to contrive excuses for this girl. She made a choice to huff on a major public street, and didn't bother to look around her to see if by chance there was a family walking on the sidewalk that she could possibly hit if indeed huffed and lost control of her car. It really is such a selfish act and resulted in the brutal death of a child. The girl died several hours after being run-down by this car TWICE. I talked to an eye witness who said she tried to flee the scene until she was tackled and pinned down by one of the other eye witnesses. This ADULT should suffer severe consequences. I think that the dog attack 3 years ago is a pathetic excuse for the individual's out of control, reckless and selfish behavior, and should have little impact on her case.

Unintentional mistake? I would agree she did not have a specific intention to kill anyone, that is why she is not up for first degree murder. But she intended to put herself in a pleasant, but highly impaired state, which equates with wanton negligence and recklessness.

The apologists for Carly on this website are losing sight of the victim, Jaclyn. I suppose that's easy now that she is underground.

Old News, why bring it up again

Lee -

why not? what do you care? if you've already seen it, move along.
others may not have.

HP Resident:

I have found my original posting, put up last Saturday. I retract my accusation and apologize for calling a lie your assertion about the pit bull episode, subsequently supported by a 2009 local story I assume to be authentic and pertaining to Carly. I of course first Googled and found nothing associating a Carly Rousso with such an attack. Evidently her name was withheld. Having said that, nothing about the pit bull attack exonerates Carly's killing of Jaclyn while voluntarily impaired four years later. If it did, Carly would have a license to kill.

Its time for TOUGH LOVE as an intervention. Let her sit in jail. I fear Carly has been enabled and has a sense of entitlement. Very sad.

What does that even mean? You can't make up the story that you needed hundreds of stitches in your face in a $200k lawsuit... I think that the court would remember to ask for medical records...

interesting fact...good observation

Certainly it would seem that a though investigation has taken place. If you go back to the couple of days after the tragedy we all wanted to know what was taking place and without information there was wild and in many cases, inaccurate conjecturing within the community. I think the Mayor as the representative of the people; resident and mom had the same frustrations with a larger platform to express that frustration.

Finally, this whole huffing thing was a completely new action that many of us had no idea existed. Obviously, the investigative bodies of HPPD and Lake County were on the job and understood better than the public what needed to be done.

Myself and many other members of the community are upset because the driver was never detained and the name was withheld. I might be wrong on this point but I think the driver retained her license after the accident. Regardless of any pending investigation the question as to why she was treated differently than others has still has not been answered.

I would say it sounded like a rather unique case as I'm sure there are additional details we don't know. Either way it didn't sound like she was going to get away with anything as the details of the case were discovered.

shot the gun before aiming
where have i heard that before?

Benny - I know precisely what Difluorethane is, and that it's a refrigerant chemical. It happens to be packaged and sold under a brand name of "Dust Off" that's used to clean computer keyboards, etc. (As an IT guy - I've used it to clean many things). what I've said is not incorrect in the least - we weren't discussing the chemical composition of the substance, we were discussing it's use/abuse by addicts.

You don't know me - so you don't know the experience I have. I understand the addict mindset, and I've also known and dealt with addicts. You can only get so much information into 1500 characters, so that prevents a full discussion of whether or not one would provide any intoxicant to anyone of any age if their family had a history of addiction (whether it's alcohol or something else). Obviously if that were the case I wouldn't proffer alcohol to someone of any age. But short of the statistical outlier case, my argument holds when not talking about addicts or those so predisposed.

Relax. Again Benny, I do understand the issues fought by addicts. It's a life-long battle that they engage in, and yes, they do have to want to stop. Some of it has to do with brain chemistry/structure, DNA, and some has to do with past experiences.

I never claimed that it'd be possible to "cure" an addict by giving them some drinks before they were 21. I stated that expecting persons to act responsibly when using a substance after they're 21 requires some experience beforehand, and the way they get that experience is under the supervision and direction of a parent/guardian.

Obviously this doesn't apply to those who are pre-disposed to addiction or who have a familial history of substance abuse.

I agree Huffing is a serious addiction. Before "dust off" it was spray paint, or paint thinner, or whatever they could get their hands on.

There's many reasons for the abuse, but look at one of the root causes - the inability to get a different, less injurious substance. Arguably, marijuana is one of those less injurious substances - no one's ever overdosed and died on marijuana because humans fall asleep long before they even get close to the LD50. Contrast with paint thinner or some other inhalant - they can cause, and have caused, death pretty quickly. They also have deleterious effects from long-term use.

If you don't want kids to abuse drugs or other substances, you need to talk to them. Find out what the reason(s) is/are for using the substances, and go from there.

Benny,
You make a lot of great points about addiction. It certainly is something that needs to be handled differently than a bunch of out of control teens binge drinking.

However, I still think a controlled introduction to alcohol within the family hone makes sense becaus I'd rather find out in that context than after my kids are not under my care.

Once it is recognized that there is an addictive person, professional help should be sought and driving and other dangerous activities curtaied.

Benny - there was nothing funny intended about my comment, and taking portions of it out of context is ignorant.

People who are depressed get therapy, take medication, work to get better, and don't drive high - that's 100% serious, nothing is uninformed either - it's a fact.

And again, I DO understand the addictive personality traits. There's nothing wrong with attempting to understand an individual's personality or make sense of it - it's not ignorant, and psychologists/psychiatrists do it every day.

Peer pressure? Inability to obtain some other substance that isn't instantly addictive? Ready availability of cash for purchases? Disbelief that they'll become addicted because they grew up in a "good neighborhood"? Bad dose? Too strong of a dose? Some adulterant in the dose? Or any of the others you mentioned.

I agree with you about the legal system - it doesn't do anything to address the root causes, just the actions. Other countries have addressed the root causes and provided treatment rather than incarceration, and they've had great success with many (but not all) users. Given that we've been fooling around and wasting money on this War on Some Drugs for decades, it certainly couldn't hurt to try a different approach.

Dewey, Cheatum and How

Benny - I don't know what you misunderstood, but to help clarify:

* Alcohol was prohibited. That prohibition created lots of crime - black markets, and people used alcohol despite the law. Bad booze was made sometimes, and it made people go blind or killed them. We repealed the prohibition - now we regulate and tax alcohol, and things have largely gotten better. Are some people still addicted? Sure. Do some people still do stupid things? Sure. You're never going to get rid of all the problems. We tried - and it didn't work.

* The war on some drugs is quite similar to the war we had on alcohol. Only we haven't repealed the prohibitions yet. So we have black markets, overflowing jails/prisons, gazillions of dollars spent on enforcement that doesn't work, cartels digging tunnels/building submarines to bring in the substances. People who are addicted can't really get the help they need unless they fund it themselves. People sometimes die from certain substances due to variability in potency or adulterants.

Other countries have decriminalized, and they have less issues. Again, a full discussion can't take place in 1500 characters.

* With regard to alcohol - we used to let kids drink when they were 18. We used to allow them to have alcohol at home with their parents. Then "zero tolerance" came on the scene and it's made the problems WORSE.

Got it now?

Benny-Chill out with the melodrama, calling me a putz isn't going to get me mad at you and only makes you look like a fool because I've never done anything to you to warrant your anger toward me. I'd prefer to have a civil conversation.

I know precisely when MADD was founded. Over that timeframe, they've been pushing and pushing and pushing for harsher and harsher laws and it's only relatively recently that "Zero Tolerance" has been implemented (and not just by MADD).

I've NEVER said that people should drive intoxicated. What I've said about "zero tolerance" and alcohol is that it's caused issues with people because we have "ZERO TOLERANCE!!!!!!" (finger wag) for people under 21 imbibing any amount of alcohol, and then somehow we expect them to know how to drink responsibly when they turn 21. It's insane (and again Benny, I've never advocated giving addicts or those predisposed to addiction intoxicants).

I've never discussed pills so I don't know why you think I did. Personally I believe that you take the pills that are prescribed for you by a Dr. and nothing else. I agree that Rx abuse is pretty bad too.

Finally, in 1500 characters it's difficult to get into a discussion of "zero tolerance"-but here's an example of Zero Tolerance that's just crazy:

"Elementary School has a ZT policy against firearms. Kids are playing 'cops n robbers' in the playground, one kid makes the shape of a gun with his fingers - and is brought up for expulsion." Now that's insane.

The points I've made are not irrelevant and are do follow the argument that I was making which is that the war on some drugs, and zero tolerance of alcohol have created many more problems than they've solved.

We don't know all the aspects of Ms. Russo's personality or birth-family history, so maybe there's a predisposition of addiction, maybe not. Was she sent to "rehab"? Sure. But there's many reasons why she may have ended up there to begin with, and being an addict is one possibility - but what triggered the abuse is perhaps another.

The bearing on this incident is that the War on Some Drugs has attempted to restrict marijuana greatly. Tests have been developed. And it likely drove her to a different substance - with greater effects.

Ms. Russo may have been using marijuana to deal with some issues she was experiencing or maybe just because she enjoyed the effects. Regardless, the illegality of the substance got her into trouble, she was sent to rehab, and knew testing would pick up future use. She likely still had the underlying issues disturbing her, so she turned to a different substance - one which wasn't so easily tested for, chose to use the substance in a vehicle, and tragedy ensued.

David Said: ""I could care less if Carly was adopted - lots of people are adopted and don't go out and drive high. Lots of people get mauled by all kinds of animals - they don't go out and drive high. Lots of people are depressed - they get therapy, take some pills, work to get better - they don't drive high.

Benny said: "Take some pills".....This is just funny and so uninformed."

Commenting on one portion "take some pills", calling it funny and uninformed was taking it out of context.

What is it that you believe I don't understand? Or that I haven't explored deeply enough?

Sometimes the obvious isn't so obvious for some people. I'd argue that many people in this Country have had their heads in the sand with regard to the War on Some Drugs, and recent discourse on that issue - legalization by States, etc. has helped to illuminate some of the abuses and problems that have arisen as a result of the "War".

Benny, calling me a liberal has me ROTFLMAO - everyone who knows me, knows that I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

It's entirely possible that Ms. Russo went on to another substance such as DustOff, not because she couldn't acquire marijuana, but because she would be tested for it. And perhaps the main reason she'd be tested for it is because the War on Some Drugs made it illegal. Granted that it ought to be illegal for those under 18, but right now - it's the Drug War that's created many of these problems. People are prohibited from using something, want to get high, and get something else.

And I'll concede the point that dealers will give you whatever you want - it's a business, they're out to make money, and that's done by fulfilling customer wants and desires.

Benny, marijuana is not lethal for anyone - there is no LD50 for humans. The one rat that they determined an LD50 on was essentially soaked in a tank of the stuff, (and probably died a very happy rat). There's no way for a human to ingest enough marijuana to die from the marijuana itself via overdose.

Now that said, if someone gets into a vehicle and is driving stoned - that's a totally different discussion - whether they're an "addictive" personality or not. Marijuana is not physically addictive - a user can stop anytime. Contrast with alcohol or heroin - both can be physically addictive.

I also agree that there's no such thing as recreational huffing - it might start out that way, but rapidly degrades into addiction.

The War on Some Drugs has only served to drive people to substances different than the ones they may have preferred to use, had this silly war not been undertaken in the first place. Whether someone is an addict by nature and gets addicted to something, or isn't - has nothing to do with the drug war. It's genetics, family history, etc...

In her case? From what we've seen reported thus far, probably.

And yes, SOME are caused by the War on Some Drugs because users were essentially forced to use a different substance because of the "war". I know, I know - no one literally held a gun to their head and said "HERE! HUFF THIS!", but when someone wants to do something, they're going to find a way to do it. And when they want to get high, if they can't get their drug of choice (for whatever reason), they're going to move on to something else. In this case, the young lady apparently moved on to something that was quick, cheap, and not easily detected.

I never said we were going to "solve" the problem by blaming the War on Drugs. I said that SOME of the problems were likely caused by the War on Some Drugs.

Drug addiction - whether it's alcohol or something else is a complex disease. You want to solve it? First look at genetics to try and figure out who's predisposed to it, then counsel those individuals accordingly (yes, there's a whole other discussion related to genetic testing, and counseling - I understand that).

Then look at the root causes for someone wanting to drink, needing to drink. Address those root causes. Economic issues? Family issues? Abuse? Stress? More counseling.

And yes, the key part is that the person has to WANT to get better. I understand that (always have). But we have to accept that some people may not want to get better - and in their case, we need to keep them from getting behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Benny-there are two main types of addiction-Physical and Mental. Some substances such as alcohol and heroin can and often are physically addictive. That is, when someone stops using the drug, they have physical manifestations that can sometimes be life-threatening, and that makes getting off the drug a long process because they can't go 'cold turkey' or they could die.

The aspects of mental addiction take many forms and can have many root causes-but stopping cold turkey isn't going to cause a physical manifestation that kills the user. Marijuana has no physical addiction, but it can have mental addictions.

I keep bringing up the LD50 because people claim that Marijuana will kill you from mere use - that's incorrect. You can't overdose on it because the LD-50 is so extreme that no human could ever reach it-they'd fall asleep long before doing so. No one has ever overdosed on marijuana.

As for going from marijuana to "Dust Off" because she couldn't use or obtain marijuana makes perfect sense. We have someone who's not physically addicted to marijuana, but apparently has a mental addiction to escape from *something* unknown to us. Getting in a ton of trouble, just getting out of rehab for marijuana, still being tested for marijuana, and still having the mental issue that requires escape forces a user to become creative in obtaining their high. So why not turn to something that's not often tested for, and is for all intents and purposes, virtually undetectable?

There is a physically addictive substance that we all use. If we use too much (overdose), we can die because of an imbalance in our bodies. If we use too little, we experience a longing for it that drives us to the substance until we get it, and if we don't get it, we can die from an imbalance in our bodies. We have to ingest it in a specific manner or we can die.

That substance? Fresh water.