It actually knocks the props out from under your argument!
From the linked article:
One model for the evolution of alcohol consumption suggests that ethanol only entered the human diet after people began to store extra food, potentially after the advent of agriculture, and that humans subsequently developed ways to intentionally direct the fermentation of food about 9,000 years ago. Therefore, the theory goes, alcoholism as a disease resulted because the human genome has not had enough time to fully adapt to alcohol.
Yes, primates (and other animals) have been occasionally eating rotten fruit for tens of millions of years. But human beings appeared on the scene only about one hundred thousand years ago, and potent sources of alcohol became available (and hence the phenomenon of alcoholism a practical problem) only after the advent of agriculture (according to the article you cited).
And, really, our "national experience" with alcohol can't be longer than the age of our country, now, can it?
On the other hand, you claim that our "national experience" with "illicit drugs" is only 70 years long? Well, that's true insofar as, before that, they weren't illicit! Rather, they were legal!
All I am suggesting is that we should return to the situation before these drugs were illegalized approx. 70 years ago!
Better that our G.N.P. should drop by tens of billions of dollars than that we should continue squandering tens of billions of dollars to limit people's inherent right to intoxication.
Regards,
Sure it does.
On the other hand, you claim that our "national experience" with "illicit drugs" is only 70 years long? Well, that's true insofar as, before that, they weren't illicit! Rather, they were legal!
You are incorrectly quoting me. I did *NOT* say "illicit drugs", I said: Please stop comparing the 10 million year old experience with Alcohol to the ~70 year old national experience with weed.
Weed was added to the list of banned drugs back in the 1930s.
All I am suggesting is that we should return to the situation before these drugs were illegalized approx. 70 years ago!
You mean back when they were using hemp for *Rope* instead of smoking it? The problem is, idiots got to be idiots.
Better that our G.N.P. should drop by tens of billions of dollars than that we should continue squandering tens of billions of dollars to limit people's inherent right to intoxication.
I don't think you grasp the cost of legalizing drugs. It isn't going to be ~20 billion per year savings. It's going to be a 2 trillion per year loss, because we can eventually wave goodbye to 1/2 our GDP if drugs get legalized. It took China 70 years to go from low usage to half it's populace, with the concurrent loss of financial strength.
Did you ever wonder why a nation the size of Japan could invade and conquer a nation the size of China? It's because drugs made China the "Sickman of Asia." Their economic output was crap, their ability to defend themselves was crap, and all because so much of their populace was addicted to opium which the Japanese was selling them by the thousands of tons prior to the invasion.