[xzins]

That's not a difference in the substances but in their current typical patterns of use. When alcohol was illegal its active ingredient was used to “get high” - nobody went to a speakeasy to have a single social drink about every 1.5 hours or so.

The above is not correct. Social drinking is thousands of years old.

Sorry, jsntn, my years of counseling say that no one wants inactive pot and they always smoke for the high. People do not say, "I only want the flavor."

Yes, we agree about controls.

Nonetheless, at this point in time, legalization without controls would only make the culture more dangerous. We don't need that.

I don't like things that make the culture more dangerous. Some things we can fix and others we simply have to keep rejecting because they are inherently dangerous or unnatural.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

That's not a difference in the substances but in their current typical patterns of use. When alcohol was illegal its active ingredient was used to “get high” - nobody went to a speakeasy to have a single social drink about every 1.5 hours or so.

The above is not correct. Social drinking is thousands of years old.

Was alcohol illegal for those thousands of years? If not, your reply does not contradict my statement.

Sorry, jsntn, my years of counseling say that no one wants inactive pot and they always smoke for the high.

Straw man - I neither said nor implied otherwise.

legalization without controls

Who supports that? Given that Colorado's and Washington's legalizations incorporated controls, there seems to be no reason to expect legalization without controls.