“Since both accomplish the same thing, shouldn’t both have the same legal status - both legal or both illegal?
That question has already been answered. Both historically and currently. What I wish to happen as one voter and living in my area with the outlook of people that want a free for all recreational experience without being concerned about their family or their neighbors means nothing. All I can do is protect myself and mine.
I don’t go into certain areas that are filled with drug problems. Like some of the downtown areas of Seattle. I stay home on new year’s eve and let the other people play destruction derby. In other words, I am limited in my freedoms because some moron, or morons as it never seems to be a solo sport, wants to get stupid. And anyone who gets high and crawls into a vehicle is just, plain, stupid. And because so many people thought they were cute in the 1920’s, and pushed the issue, they invited the weak politicians to back off.
Now if everyone was responsible, and didn’t do things to hurt others, it would be a different story. But the use of drugs for recreation has turned too often into trying to one up everyone. And that’s when it hurts others.
So since the politicians decided they couldn’t stop it, they left the choice of who gets hurt up to the abuser. And now Oregon, which will set the standard, has used both alcohol and weed to introduce far worse into the mix. Does that sound responsible? If it does, you and I have no further discussion.
wy69
And your solution is to limit the freedoms of non-harming users of alcohol and marijuana. See a problem there?
And because so many people thought they were cute in the 1920’s, and pushed the issue, they invited the weak politicians to back off.
It wasn't the politicians - Prohibition was ended by an amendment passed by three-quarters of the states through ratifying conventions of citizen delegates.
So since the politicians decided they couldn’t stop it, they left the choice of who gets hurt up to the abuser.
You assume that DUI is lessened by banning the substance - but during Prohibition the opposite was the case:
"The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on police (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent. More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods." - https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf