So, you think cannabis should not be legalized because it would cause at a lesser degree what it is causing now? 
Posted on 02/11/2003 6:49:57 AM PST by MrLeRoy
WASHINGTON--A friend recently remarked to me, "Alcohol is the original date-rape drug." That's very sadly true. And it's why I found it hypocritical that the national drug czar's new ad equating marijuana use with teen pregnancy should debut during the Super Bowl, in which beer and sex were the dominant advertising themes.
Teen drinking is the bigger problem, both in sheer numbers as well as health risks, yet the federal agency overseeing drug-control policy ignores it. An antiteen drinking commercial would have been a powerful counterpoint during that game; the antipot ad came off as a clumsy attempt to maintain beer's market share.
These ads are emblematic of the government's overall war on marijuana. Since marijuana was first federally outlawed in 1937, prohibition has had the perverse effect of making marijuana more popular, particularly among youth and the counterculture. Our government insists on staying the course even though there is no evidence that criminalizing marijuana has ever reduced its use, let alone its trafficking. Meanwhile, the focus on marijuana diverts attention away from more serious problems.
Historian Barbara Tuchman once defined folly in government as the perverse persistence in bad policy in spite of evidence of its failure and the existence of a reasonable alternative.
Marijuana prohibition is a clear example of this. Reports by governmental commissions in several countries point out its failure and call for drastic changes, from decriminalization (for example, the Shafer Commission in 1972) to legalization (a Canadian Senate committee report in 2002). So many of our political leaders have tried marijuana that it becomes news if a politician ever denies any "youthful indiscretions." And yet, still prohibition persists. Why?
Some argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug so it must be banned. Yet we've decided that the dangers of alcohol and tobacco present an acceptable risk, so let's compare:
Alcohol overdoses kill more than 15,000 people each year in the United States, and alcohol-related deaths push the toll up to more than 100,000 annually; marijuana, according to the scientific evidence, has not racked up a single overdose death in centuries of use.
Alcohol use is involved in 40 percent of the violent crimes committed in the United States annually; marijuana is associated with meditative, peaceful behavior, while violence in the marijuana trade is the result of prohibition, not the drug.
Tobacco use is credited with more than 400,000 deaths annually, according to the Surgeon General; in spite of decades of trying, the federal government has still not found anyone dying from marijuana use.
Clearly, marijuana prohibition is not justified by health concerns.
Prohibitionists say we don't need to legalize yet another drug because the ones we have do too much damage. That argument misses the point in many ways.
First, marijuana is widely used, legal or not. At least 21 million people used it last year, according to the federal Household Survey. (The real number is much higher, possibly 40 million; government surveys of illegal behavior are not noted for their accuracy and are widely believed to underreport the true totals.)
More important, marijuana is not simply another substance, it's a less dangerous--not safe, but less dangerous--alternative to drugs we already make available. And, if regulated as we do with alcohol, there would be guarantees of marijuana purity as well as regulation of potency, something the illegal market does not provide.
Prohibitionists counter: Ending marijuana prohibition "sends the wrong message" that legalizing drugs supposedly connotes societal approval of drug abuse. Oh, really? Then we need to bring back alcohol prohibition because, by that logic, legal alcohol sends the message that alcoholism and alcohol abuse are OK. Obviously, that's not true. And we're not going back to alcohol prohibition. We need to turn in a different direction.
It makes no sense to continue threatening people with arrest over their simple use of marijuana. A regulated system takes control of the marijuana market away from the criminals. This means age limits, just as we have for alcohol--drug dealers never ask for ID.
As for the "gateway" theory? Research shows that alcohol and tobacco are more likely suspects than marijuana. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that early alcohol and tobacco use were strong indicators of later drug use. That study's authors contended that the link between marijuana and other illegal drugs may be due solely to marijuana's illegality, nothing more.
A regulated marijuana market--similar to alcohol but a little more restricted (no Super Bowl marijuana promotions, for example)--is workable. And selling U.S.-grown marijuana through state-run outlets similar to Virginia's ABC stores could bring in millions in tax revenue to states and the federal government.
So why does prohibition persist? As Tuchman put it in her book "The March of Folly": "Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts."
Seventy years ago, we ended the tragic mistake that was alcohol prohibition. The time has now come to end the folly of marijuana prohibition.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
In my reading on drug use,
What did you read?
This link seems to discuss the 60's connection fairly well if you're interested: Marijuana and Ginsberg
No evidence for your claim there.
Who can deny alcohol has been a contributing factor in all kinds of sexual adventures? It's ability to lead you where you couldn't go otherwise—due to morals/inhibitions/complexes/etc.—is legendary.
Little secret about pot, though: If you have a sex drive prepare to have it magnified. Pot magnifies alot of things, especially when you are a chronic user working the happy-happy tip (before Mary J drags you down-down into depression...oh, it magnifies that too!).
So, you think cannabis should not be legalized because it would cause at a lesser degree what it is causing now?
All the better. The more resources they spend chasing after the tobacco folks, the less spent on chasing me.
Provide evidence for your claim.
I can only see legalization leading to the same scenario as above. That means to me that trial lawyers will benefit,
I don't like trial lawyers---or used car salesmen. Shall we ban used car sales so used car salesmen don't benefit?
taxes will affect the poor far more than anyone else,
They have the choice to not buy the taxed item and thus not pay the tax.
and bootlegging will thrive anyways.
Cigarette bootlegging is small potatoes compared to marijuana smuggling; how many innocents have died in shootouts between cigarette bootleggers?
Provide evidence for your claim. Then explain how a woman's enhanced sex drive could lead to her being raped.
That is an excellent point. For the drug war zealots, the government is the nexus of and final arbiter of societal standards and morals. This is where supporters of the drug wars find kinship with socialism, yet they deride the libertarian minded and try to link them with the left on this issue - how ironic.
I know when I watched the news this morning it was full of stories on how the public is rising up and demanding the government remove the yoke of drug laws from their neck; protesters in every street.
The newspaper was just as grim. Article after article on how the public was overwhelming in support of making dope legal and was tired of the Bush administration's lies about drug use.
Well...actually there anything on the TV news other then a meth lab was busted and it's freedom fighters arrested. Damn, three more libertarian voters who won't vote next time around.
I completely agree. The prohibitionists are obsessed.
Even more amusing is you, here, always posting the exact same "who cares" eye-roller to every W.o.D. thread. If you don't care, or if you think the issue's frivolous, why the hell are you always on these threads?
It's not; what's your point? The public is not rising up and demanding the government go to war with Iraq, either---so should we not go?
Ah, that's easy. It's so much fun to remind you folks just how impotent you are in the war on drugs. It drives you folks insane knowing that everyday you post the same thing, and every day a few more of your friends are going to do time and that the public just doesn't listen to you.
I get a kick out of stirring the pot(heads) and watching them go ballistic in reply.
So basically, you're a narcissist. Go whack off elsewhere then, will ya?
And miss the morning doper circle jerk? I don't think so.
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.