wstphal
working in the Gulag
Good points.
But the questions are "How much health risk?" and "Should we legislate that people cannot use these substances as a result?"
Personally, I think alcohol and tobacco are VERY different. Most people cannot be "social smokers" and indulge only occasionally. Nicotine is very addictive. Most people who like the effect WILL get hooked & smoke daily & be at risk for health problems. Alcohol is not like that. SOME people will become addicted. MOST will not. If we were going to talk about banning a currently legal substance, which I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF, it should be tobacco.
Most people can and do drink responsibly, they do not commit crimes, engage in violence or drive while under the influence. I just can't see it's necessary to ban alcohol.
Nicotine users MOSTLY harm themselves. These days it seems like a lot of them are willing to go outside so they don't pollute other people's lungs, and as long as they are adults I can't see I have the right to prevent them from using tobacco. I do think we can legislate that tobacco users should not pollute OTHER PEOPLE'S lungs, ie, no smoking in businesses or other public places, so nonsmokers don't have to breathe secondhand smoke.
Most people seem to use MJ, the original topic of this thread, only occasionally, like social drinkers use alcohol. They are even less inclined to drive while impaired, get into fights or harm others while under the influence. I talked to a couple of trauma surgeons around 1996 -- they had NEVER seen patients who got into an MVA while under the influence of ONLY MJ, and they had NEVER seen victims who had been in "the other car" where the impaired driver who caused the MVA was only under the influence of MJ. NEVER. These were guys with 30+ years of experience as trauma surgeons between the two of them. NEVER. The literature supports this. Individuals who end up being tested for drugs and alcohol after a car accident they caused do not turn out to have been impaired by MJ alone. My suspicion is that someone who is enjoying the effect tends to stay put, eat, socialize and NOT DRIVE as a result of the THC effects, so they don't put others at risk. Seems to me, given that most MJ users are responsible and don't cause accidents or violence, that MJ is less harmful to innocent third parties than alcohol.
Anyway, I'm with the freedom is more important that safety side of this philosophically. I think it is very very important to protect children from harm, but that adults should be allowed to make choices, even when those choices are not wise, as long as those choices don't physically injure anyone but themselves. I realize that if someone harms their health through use of a substance, that has emotional impacts on their family, but I can't bring myself to see that as enough of a reason to take away their freedom.
Let's take another example -- if we can ban alcohol, or tobacco because of health risks, or because harming your own health causes emotional pain to those that love you, shouldn't we overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortions because the procedure MIGHT cause a health risk and MIGHT upset the woman's family?
Or another one -- having sex is DANGEROUS. After all, your partner might go nuts and hurt you. If you are a woman, you might get pregnant, and pregnancy is DANGEROUS. And what if your partner has an STD and gives it to you? Should we require that everyone get "sex licenses" and only have sex with condoms and get pregnant only through artificial insemination so we can make sure that no one catches a disease? Oh, wait! Pregnancy itself is dangerous, so we can't allow pregnancies at all!
How far are we willing to let the government into our homes and our bodies?!
