When it comes to FR's great love/hate relationship and our never ending debate about drugs, the area I'm most comfortable with are the constitutional arguments. When it comes to the truth of claims like you make in the above quote, I generally take a pass and leave it to others to argue out the relative hazards.
rb22982 says: "Since alcohol is legal, its only logical to make marijuana legal as well."
Now there is an argument that I CAN sink my teeth into. Your logic has at least two fundamental flaws in it.
The first flaw is to presume that, when comparing alcohol to marijuana, the appropriate standards for comparison are safety, addictiveness and level of intoxication. You've offered no reason or logic as to why we should accept those standards for comparison (irrespective of their truth), nor have you offered any reason or logic as to why we should reject any other possible standards for comparison.
The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".
--Boot
I agree with your post. If rb's attitude prevails, then there will be a competition to create recreational narcotics that fall below the threshold of "less dangerous than alcohol" (such as ecstasy) that will be pushed as the next legal drug.
Ok, explain the 10th, 18th and 21st then.
The first flaw is to presume that, when comparing alcohol to marijuana, the appropriate standards for comparison are safety, addictiveness and level of intoxication. You've offered no reason or logic as to why we should accept those standards for comparison (irrespective of their truth), nor have you offered any reason or logic as to why we should reject any other possible standards for comparison.
Ok genius, what other standards WOULD you use except safety, addictiveness and intoxication when comparing a drug. Medical benefits maybe? Ok marijuana has more medical benefits than alcohol. Deaths caused? Ok marijuana is impossible to OD. alcohol causes over 100,000 deaths a year (which is far more than ALL illicit drugs combined). Societal costs? Alcohol has more societal costs than all illicit drugs combined. In fact, I dare you to show me in any way why alcohol is ok but marijuana is not by using any same standard.
The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".
It is hypocritical if in EVERY way marijuana is less of a problem than alcohol. "I want my drug but you cannot have yours". Sure at the moment society can decide legally, that does not it any less of a hypocrite and immoral.