Posted on 01/28/2014 4:11:40 AM PST by Kaslin
I understand the arguments for the legalization of marijuana: It can generate tax revenue. It can reduce illegal supply and demand. It can strip power from cartels and lessen crime across and at our borders. And it isn't so dangerous as other illegal drugs or alcohol.
President Barack Obama even claimed one of those arguments when he recently told New Yorker Editor David Remnick, "As has been well-documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life."
Obama explained, "(Smoking marijuana is) not something I encourage, and I've told my daughters I think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy." But then he added, "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."
With the president entering the cannabis conversation ring, debate has intensified around the nation. But what's the truth in the alcohol-vs.-marijuana dispute?
CNN recently reported on some extensive studies and evidence surrounding the topic, especially in comparing use, addiction, withdrawal and the effects on using motorized vehicles. Let me summarize those and cite some others. (Next week, I will discuss in greater detail how alcohol and marijuana compare in their effects on our minds, bodies and relationships.)
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, alcohol remains the leading addictive substance consumed in the U.S. But according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I substance -- in the same classification as heroin, LSD and Ecstasy. The National Institute on Drug Abuse points out that 9 percent of marijuana users will become addicted to it. (By comparison, about 20 percent of cocaine users become addicted.) More than 4 million people abused pot or had an addiction problem with it in 2011, according to Fox News.
Alcoholics can suffer from the following withdrawal symptoms: depression, anxiety, insomnia, headaches, fever, nausea and even seizures. And CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, explained, "There is clear evidence that in some people, marijuana use can lead to withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea." The National Institute on Drug Abuse added that the drug is linked to "school failure" and that high doses "can cause psychosis or panic when you're high," according to Fox News.
Of course, we know the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving. Similarly, a recent study published in the British Medical Journal showed that marijuana users who drove within three hours of smoking nearly doubled their chances of causing a crash compared with sober drivers. And the American Society of Addiction Medicine just released a statement saying the drug "impairs memory, motor function and respiratory health when smoked -- and can be addictive."
To say marijuana isn't so dangerous as alcohol is like saying a plain doughnut isn't so bad for us as a glazed one. The point is what? Wouldn't it simply be better to ditch the doughnuts from our diets and try whole-wheat toast with organic peanut butter and sliced bananas as a more nutritious way to start our days?
It suffices to say here that justifying the use of one drug because it's not so dangerous as another drug is weak reasoning in any book and bad grounds for justifying usage of either of them. And such a statement coming from a sitting president of the United States is simply reckless leadership run amok.
As far as why the president gave his pro-marijuana comments to The New Yorker, I think Donald Moorse, a Portland, Ore., medical marijuana dispensary owner, hit the cannabis nail right on the head: The president's views "will influence people throughout the country. I think that's why he made the comments."
And how does the president justify his pro-marijuana stance? He believes that if marijuana is legalized, fewer young blacks and Latinos will be imprisoned.
Obama said about the legalization of pot in Washington and Colorado: "It's important for it to go forward because it's important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished."
And he explained who those "select few" are when he said: "Middle-class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do. And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties."
Fox News summarized that "the president echoed the argument that pro-legalization advocates often make, stressing the cost to society of locking up minor drug offenders."
So let me get this straight: If pot is legalized, we pay less to incarcerate minor drug offenders by unleashing and increasing major pot smokers and smoking in every stratum of society as if there will be no price to pay -- personal, monetary or otherwise -- in doing so?
No wonder the Drug Free America Foundation said on its website this past week about Obama: "His laissez-faire attitude about legalization has drug policy and prevention experts scratching their heads in confusion as to why the President will not give clear guidance on this important issue."
The foundation went on to say, "President Obama is surrounded by ... myriad ... experts who have voiced serious concerns about the harms of marijuana and rejected legalization, so either he is seriously ill-informed about the issue or is completely ignoring warnings from his highly-esteemed advisers."
Fox News also noted that Obama's own Office of National Drug Control Policy "lists a range of negative health and mental consequences from the drug, including schizophrenia, lower IQ ('as much as an 8 point drop') and higher risk of heart attack."
More double talk and more double standards from the White House. How shocking.
Remember the days when presidents modeled and espoused healthy living, beginning by denouncing drug use rather than justifying it?
Maybe it's time we fight all addictive drugs instead of making excuses for using them. Maybe it's time we teach and model for young people that life can be good enough on its own merit without altering reality by drug use.
I'm not here making a case for or against the medicinal use of marijuana. However, it's very difficult for me to believe that America, average healthy Americans and particularly our younger generations are going to be better off with pot's legalization.
I'm all for freedom, but when liberty turns into licentiousness, it's time to reconsider why we're doing what we're doing. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. And if that's the case, what other illicit passion is going to be next in the lineup of legalization?
The title of the article is "Alcohol vs. Marijuana.
None of which is the business of the government
I didn't say that. Someone else who responded to me said that. My words are in quotes, his aren't.
if you think the harm marijuana does to the user and to society is of no business to the government; then you also hold immoral and liberal viewpoints on other social concerns like porn and abortion.
Improper use of IF-THEN since the IF part is false. Regulation of it is the business of the government since it is harmful. You know nothing about my views on that since you misquoted me and now are making conclusions about me based on the misquote.
Long ago, I was a teacher. I had students come to my class on weed daily. That is the fault of adults who provided it to them. I am NOT in favor of legalizing marijuana for a number of reasons.
You have no right to say what I think about porn and abortion based on falsely quoting me.
Please read more carefully.
I didn’t mention Miranol. That was Nifster.
Please follow your own advice. I didn't quote you. I didn't respond to you. Did you state "None of which is the business of the government"? No? Then why are you whining?
You are right. I was the one who didn't read carefully. I apologize for the error and for going after you.
I think first you need to understand why pot was criminalized in the first place.
What other reasons?
Did you ever hear of anyone drinking beer and moving on to Heroin or Crack? Think about it! They don’t call marijuana the gateway drug for no reason.
One enjoys the taste?
Are you unable to control yourself such that you can't enjoy some wine with dinner without getting drunk?
Some of us can.
After reading the comments so far, I have come to the conclusion that the consensus is: The government should regulate those practices of which I disapprove. Government should not regulate those practices I enjoy.
The whole medicinal pot legalizing is a complete scam. The active ingredient in pot has been medically available in pill form for decades.
It is just the pot heads who are scamming for being public stoners.
Every druggie I ever knew (And I knew quite a few in my biker days) smoked cigarettes and drank beer.
Non alcoholic beverages wouldn’t serve as well?
Sure, I understand that social gatherings do go better with a glass of wine or two; perhaps a cocktail. Dinner conversations are more relaxed - more interesting. The reason is the slight buzz you get, yes even from one glass. You don’t have to get sloppy, falling down drunk every time you have a celebratory beer after catching that gigantic fish or a glass or two of wine with a romantic dinner. By the same token you don’t have to get drooling, glassy eyed stoned every time you settle in for some great jazz or conversation with a pipe or joint. The big difference is that many people get violent when they over indulge in alcohol. Pot puts most people to sleep.
Your argument is hypocritical and so typical of drug warriors: My drug is good - yours is evil. Such an argument is born of ignorance, pure and simple.
non-drinkers don’t go to social gatherings?
Got a wee chip on your little shoulder don’t you?
Clearly you don’t know me at all as I am no drug warrior. Actually I couldn’t give a damn if an aging hippie smokes dope.
You asked a very, VERY stupid question and I gave you a blunt answer which I thought even the asker of such a stupid question could understand.
No, a non alcoholic beverage doesn’t serve as well with many meals and many situations. Is that clear enough?
You are proof that pot is a either a gateway drug or that you simply have no self control.
BTW, does bong water taste as bad as pot smells?
The question then becomes what limits the powers of the state? Is it the state constitution that enumerates and therefore limited the powers of government?
I have no desire to trade a federal tyranny for a state tyranny.
This, like many issues of the day, is best solved by the individual and not some member of the new royalty (by that I mean government, either State or Federal).
Sorry! My mistake.
You don’t need to ping me on a thread that I’m not even on.
The point is that Marinol has nothing but THC the active ingredient in your so called herb. The dosage is known and the usage is also well understood.
“We rarely look ahead to what WE see as unintended consequences.”
And that can’t be done without looking at the unintended, and real, consequences of fighting the ‘war on drugs’ the way we have.
No problem. Just wanted the proper person to get credit.
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.