Posted on 08/21/2014 2:13:56 PM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Turning once again to what the sociologists call "coping mechanisms": There is marijuana and then there is alcohol. They are increasingly the civilized options.
Consider alcohol. Consider a suave scotch and soda. One does not sit down to a scotch and soda to get blitzed, unless one is a veritable drunk. One sits down and sips a scotch and soda while conversing with friends. Perhaps one reads a book. One enjoys the scotch for the taste. With scotch there are scores of different tastes. One drinks a single malt. One drinks a blend. The same is true with bourbon and all manner of alcoholic drinks. One imbibes for the taste, then for the refreshment, finally for the relaxed feeling it imparts. Very, very finally, some drinkers drink a scotch and soda to get blitzed and drop out. Maybe the pathetico drinks to pass out or to throw up. A true alcoholic is a sad spectacle. A drunk is a person who has ruined many a good drink.
Consider the increasingly civilized option, marijuana. One smokes a joint to get stoned and steadily to dropout. Is that really civilized? I have never heard of a connoisseur savoring a joint for the taste. One smokes it for the effect. One takes it in a brownie or cookie for an even more immediate effect -- sometimes a deadly effect. Colorado, which has legalized recreational marijuana, has already reported at least two casualties and many more hospitalizations. Possibly the marijuana smoker becomes more convivial at first, but mainly one becomes steadily more isolated, more alone. Is this really civilized? A pot party, as opposed to a cocktail party, can be a pretty gray affair. With contemporary marijuana, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) rate, that is to say the psychoactive ingredient in the drug, is about 15 percent higher than it was in the 1960s or 1970s. The increased level of THC makes the drug at least five times more powerful and brings with it increased medical problems. This little known fact hints at how widespread our ignorance of marijuana really is during the current debate about marijuana, or I should say the current non-debate?
Recent polls indicate increased tolerance for a drug that until recently was considered malum prohibitum across the nation. In January, a CNN/ORC International study found 55 percent of Americans favoring legalization of marijuana. Most consider it harmless. I would not be surprised if they adjudged it less harmful than scotch and soda. Yet, in a very instructive piece in the Wall Street Journal, former drug czar William J. Bennett and attorney Robert A. White wrote that "while almost all the science and research is going on one direction -- pointing out the dangers of marijuana use -- public opinion seems to be going in favor of broad legalization." In sum, the studies show that in teenagers and young adults regular use of marijuana -- which means about once a week -- leads to cognitive decline, poor attention and memory, and a decline in IQ of about six points -- and our young people's IQ rates are low enough already. This mental impairment seems to last for years. One study found that teenagers who smoked marijuana daily developed abnormal brain structure. Moreover, there are psychiatrists who for years have argued that extended use of marijuana was linked to psychosis and to permanent brain damage.
Possibly these findings might bear on Michael Brown's erratic behavior in Ferguson, Missouri before his tragic death. We know that the 6' 4," 292-pound teenager was at least on marijuana. We know that 10 minutes before he was shot, he robbed a liquor store of cheap cigars. And, at least some of us know, that those Swisher Sweet cigars are used as a conduit for ingesting a mixture of PCP and marijuana. My guess is that Brown's senseless death was brought on by what the psychiatrists mentioned in the above paragraph have referred to as psychosis and permanent brain injury.
Yet, marijuana, despite these findings is increasingly considered the civilized alternative to moderate use of alcohol. How can this be? How can a country that has recently driven out tobacco -- whose problems most people were well aware of -- suddenly legalize a drug found to be so dangerous by modern science? Lung disease is terrible, but mental health disorders are arguably worse and they occur across a wide range of human behavior.
My answer is weariness. We have been fighting marijuana and other drug use for years, and it seems to me the country is fatigued with throwing up the same arguments. They are valid arguments, but many fellow citizens, especially the young, are tired of them. Another way of saying it is that Americans have become bored by the subject. So, as Colorado goes so goes America, and recent events in Ferguson, Missouri may just be just a harbinger.
>> One does not sit down to a scotch and soda to get blitzed
Scotch diluted with soda water? I disagree — dare be nottin pophisticated bout dat!
One does not necessarily sit down to a neat single malt to get blitzed.
>> One enjoys the scotch for the taste.
Emmett kind of jumped the shark on this one.
I don’t like drugs and I don’t think they should be legal, for a variety of reasons. But, c’mon... people drink alcohol PRIMARILY for the buzz. There is a whole spectrum of psycho-states between stone cold sober and falling-down drunk, and some of those states have their place in polite and responsible culture.
That explains a lot.
“Consider alcohol. Consider a suave scotch and soda. One does not sit down to a scotch and soda to get blitzed, unless one is a veritable drunk.”
The author shoots himself in the foot right there. He wants to compare the two, but then he only wants to compare them on his terms: civilized scotch & soda drinkers who meet his criteria, versus all pot smokers in general. You can’t learn much if your analysis is that flawed from the get-go.
How about an honest comparison, including all manner of drinkers, not just your civilized sippers? A “pot party” may seem less civilized than an upper crust cocktail party, but what about a frat boy kegger, or a bunch of homies with their 40 ouncers on the stoop? Or the local winos who gather under that overpass?
What a stupid statement.
Proof the author doesn't know what he's talking about. Edibles take much longer to show an effect, which is why people get in trouble with them. "I don't feel anything. Let's eat more."
“But, c’mon... people drink alcohol PRIMARILY for the buzz. “
I frequently have a late night drink for the taste .... I get no buzz.
LOL.
All those folks throwing up on Bourbon street 365 days a year are so veddy veddy upper crust.
I especially like how the author brings Michael Brown into the discussion, because he certainly is representative of all pot smokers.
Ditto.
Scotch, scotch, scotch. I love scotch.-Ron Burgundy, Anchorman
I agree with you, one that enjoys a single malt NEVER spoils it with soda.
“I agree with you, one that enjoys a single malt NEVER spoils it with soda.”
Yeah and who needs tonic with gin?
Ah Hell, just go to the expert on alcohol vs. pot.
We have one in the White Hut.
While we’re at it, axe him about cocaine.
Even by the standards of anti-pot propaganda, this is incredibly mindless. It has two completely unproven assertions - that most don’t drink scotch to get hammered and most (or all) who smoke marijuana do so to get falling down stoned. In my very long experience as a drinker, a marijuana smoker and observer of those who do both, these assertions are idiotic. People can and do use alcohol responsibly and people can and do use marijuana responsibly.
It is entirely possible - and constitutes at least 90 percent of my marijuana experience - to blow a bong hit or even two and be able to enjoy a book or engage in conversation, just as it is to kick back a couple of stiff drinks without any particular problems with intoxication or stupidity. It’s quite similar, actually, except that marijuana doesn’t make me groggy or give me headaches. I don’t much like alcohol and very rarely touch the stuff anymore.
The real killer, though, is the utterly nonsensical last sentence. How are marijuana and Colorado in any way germane to happenings in Missouri right now? Quite simply, they aren’t. I defy anybody to logically explain how they can in any way be linked.
Yes, I know, R. Emmitt Tyrell is a fascist from way back. I guess he’s bitter that people used to think he made sense and that’s very definitely not the case anymore.
Really? Your criteria for judging is two fictional characters, one in a period piece of 50 years ago, the other in real time of 40 years ago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
