Replies

Anything can kill taken as an overdose, and children are far more susceptible to many things, such as, for example, alcohol. And as far as the Founders smoking, there's simply no reason why they shouldn't - it wasn't harmful, and it was relaxing, in an age without many of the pharmaceuticals we take for granted. And though they grew it for rope, you only separate the name and female plants to cultivate it for smoking, and Washington recorded doing just that. In addition, these people drank like fish and all smoked tobacco and grew it. So smoking hemp they were already growing, a plant long known - thousands of years - for its effects, is more than likely.

In any event, the point is that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, and that is clearly born out by statistics - here and around the world. Hundreds of millions of people smoke weed, and in comparison to dangerous alcohol effects, weed comes up statistically not just low, but zero. That's just the plain truth.

How you can argue that weed is dangerous for adults because it negatively affects childhood development, while simultaneously protecting, of all things, alcohol, is beyond me. By accepting alcohol as the legally acceptable standard, there should be nothing barring weed to anyone accept children - just like alcohol.

And though they grew it for rope, you only separate the name and female plants to cultivate it for smoking, and Washington recorded doing just that.

And how do you know this is the only reason for separating male and female plants? Just because it is the only MODERN reason, does not mean it was a valid reason back in 1790.

I suspect if any of them had smoked it, we would certainly have heard about it. We know Washington distilled Whiskey, but we have nothing regarding any weed he toked.

In any event, the point is that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana, and that is clearly born out by statistics

And which is completely irrelevant to the topic BECAUSE ONE BAD THING DOES NOT JUSTIFY ANOTHER.

Should we have Bestiality because we allow Homosexuality? Do we have to be fair to the other bad things because we tolerate one of them?

How you can argue that weed is dangerous for adults because it negatively affects childhood development, while simultaneously protecting, of all things, alcohol, is beyond me.

I see that it is. For some reason you seem to believe that if we put up with 85,000 deaths per year from Alcohol, then why should we complain about deaths and disasters caused by marijuana?

Again, it's like saying "Because they are doing something bad, *I* ought to be allowed to do something bad too!"

A fallacious child's argument, but one which Libertarians cannot help themselves from advancing.

No. We have no moral obligation to be "fair" to weed because we tolerate the misery and death caused by alcohol. (and that caused by Tobacco.)