-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Aaron, The "Pot smoking, sinner."
- Thread starter Outcast
- Start date
VickyChaiTea
Snake enthusiast
Haha Kathy. XD It's ok that you think I'm wrong. Thank you and oneirogenesis. I have in the past gotten hot headed over this particular debate, and all it does is make a lot of people angry so I decided to just keep my cool. lol
Anyway, the whole "you're either free or you're not" thing seems like a poor argument to me. I mean, if that was true then any law restricting you in any way would qualify as making you not free, right? It's all about the amount of freedom.
Gulf Coast Girl, you said "people who think their morals should be forced on everyone and our personal freedoms should be strictly controlled via legislation, scare the hell out of me." and I think I've already addressed this. There are tons of laws out there that are based purely on people's morals. It just so happens that virtually everyone agrees with these morals.
Anyway, the whole "you're either free or you're not" thing seems like a poor argument to me. I mean, if that was true then any law restricting you in any way would qualify as making you not free, right? It's all about the amount of freedom.
Gulf Coast Girl, you said "people who think their morals should be forced on everyone and our personal freedoms should be strictly controlled via legislation, scare the hell out of me." and I think I've already addressed this. There are tons of laws out there that are based purely on people's morals. It just so happens that virtually everyone agrees with these morals.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
"...There are tons of laws out there that are based purely on people's morals..."
TRUE. And if they ALSO stand the test of stopping one person from hurting another, such as murder, rape, and theft, then almost any reasonable person will agree with them. But if the only "victim" is the person who "commits" the crime, such as gambling (often illegal, but often legal, depending on the whims of various government entities) or prostitution (illegal in MOST, but not ALL of the U.S.), then you are likely to find much less agreement, precisely because of the many reasons already enumerated.
When I was in my teens and early 20s, I had respect for the law. Back then, I truly thought that most laws were made by learned people who really had the public interest at heart. I am sorry to say that age and experience has taught me that this just isn't true, at least much of the time. I no longer have respect for the law just because it is the law. I OBEY the law most of the time, but not because I respect it. I have see too much stupidity, and too many illogical laws to have much respect. No, I obey it for one of two reasons. Either I believe that it is a reasonable law that SHOULD be obeyed, or I obey it because I believe there is a good chance of getting caught and I don't want to face the consequences. I am truly sorry it has come to this. I WISH I could respect the law because of what I thought was true in my youth. And the sad truth is that the more silly, illogical, and unenforceable laws we create, the less people will respect laws in general, and the more they will try to break them without a second thought.
TRUE. And if they ALSO stand the test of stopping one person from hurting another, such as murder, rape, and theft, then almost any reasonable person will agree with them. But if the only "victim" is the person who "commits" the crime, such as gambling (often illegal, but often legal, depending on the whims of various government entities) or prostitution (illegal in MOST, but not ALL of the U.S.), then you are likely to find much less agreement, precisely because of the many reasons already enumerated.
When I was in my teens and early 20s, I had respect for the law. Back then, I truly thought that most laws were made by learned people who really had the public interest at heart. I am sorry to say that age and experience has taught me that this just isn't true, at least much of the time. I no longer have respect for the law just because it is the law. I OBEY the law most of the time, but not because I respect it. I have see too much stupidity, and too many illogical laws to have much respect. No, I obey it for one of two reasons. Either I believe that it is a reasonable law that SHOULD be obeyed, or I obey it because I believe there is a good chance of getting caught and I don't want to face the consequences. I am truly sorry it has come to this. I WISH I could respect the law because of what I thought was true in my youth. And the sad truth is that the more silly, illogical, and unenforceable laws we create, the less people will respect laws in general, and the more they will try to break them without a second thought.
VickyChaiTea
Snake enthusiast
Hm, I have to agree with you a bit there. I will admit that there are some laws out there that just don't need to be around. (like the silly ones someone posted earlier)
ladyq1
Often lurking...
This thread took a while to read through, but it was worth it!
I want to say I really REALLY like how people have stayed so civil. You ALL are awesome for that!
And now for things I thought of or wanted to add as I read - sorry, I have done quite a bit of reading and research, so I'm probably going to ramble on -ALOT :eek1:- you have been warned!
Crazy laws: I just have to share this one, in our neighboring town, there is a law on the books: "Monsters are illegal within the corporate limits of Urbana." Monsters?? Seriously??? :roflmao:
Legalization of Pot: I've never tried it. I've had opportunities to, with people I trusted, in safe situations, who I knew had quality stuff. But they also only had it in smoking form. I have damaged lungs from being very sick as a child, and have a hard enough time breathing without the smoke. Its not the pot itself, but the smoke that keeps me from trying it.
That said, as a non-user I am 100% behind legalization. I've done quite a bit of reading and research, and mostly have come to the conclusion that the ban on pot is pretty much illogical and outdated.
Interesting things I learned - its status as a Category I drug was supposed to be temporary, while the government appointed its own team to study it and determine how it should be classed. That team finally came back and recommended removing the category I listing, and potentially even legalizing it as alcohol and tabacco are, because it found little danger from it. The government decided it didn't like its own team's findings, so ignored it. The 'temporary' listing has stayed.
The main funding for keeping it illegal, for many of the anti-marajuana ads, for the legislation, and for illegalizing it initially comes from big alcohol and some paper/lumbar companies. Both saw the potential for competition (either as a drug or as a effective and highly renewable source for paper), and wanted to keep it out. This is part of the reason why hemp, which negligible THC levels and cannot produce any sort of effect as a drug, is also illegal to grow in the US. While its a super renewable crop with great potential for fabrics, paper, rope, animal bedding, etc etc, and can grow in poor soil and do well, it was packaged with marajuana in the ban.
There have been some medical studies showing that marajuana actually has some benefits on the body, and that there MIGHT actually be a reduction in cancer cases among users, though they caution that they need to do further studies to confirm this. The problems of cancer often associated are from the smoking part, not the drug part. The same problems could be enountered from smoking anything.
Studies have also shown that people under the influence of marajuana actually behave more cautiously. While alcohol causes reckless behavior such as speeding, or some of the awful stories here (near a 'party school' campus) of people climbing the outside of balconies and falling, under marajuana's influence people were found to drive more slowly and be calmer. In talking to police officers, encounters with violent drunks were common, often measured in minutes or hours apart, whereas many officers couldn't come up with any times they had to deal with a violent person who was ONLY under the influence of marajuana (combinations of drugs are another story).
Unlike alcohol, studies have shown it to be mostly impossible to overdose on marajuana. If you have too much you might feel not so good, but interestingly, most subjects stop using it when they reach a certain level (but even if they don't, overdosing isn't a risk).
I also know adults who regularly partake of marajuana. Some of them have run into situations where they couldn't get it for months. It was not a problem - its not physically addicting. They just went without for that time. All are highly successful adults who have held their jobs long term, and do very well. For one of them the marajuana helped with horrible migranes. For a couple others, it was a way of relaxing with friends, maybe once a week at most, the way some people meet for a drink. They all were responsible, meaning they made a point of only partaking when in situations they wouldn't have to drive at all (ie, arrived home for the evening, friday night, not going anywhere), and had relatively small amounts.
Many people have heard it referred to as the 'gateway drug' - with the idea that people who use pot will end up looking for something stronger and move on. Studies (yes, I keep saying this, but most of my thoughts are based on what I've researched, so...) actually indicate its not really a drive for the stronger drugs so much as exposure to them in unregulated situations. People seeking pot often find dealers to get it from. The dealers often have other things to sell - by having to go through these dealers people are exposed to and have a higher opportunity to try other drugs. The lack of regulation also means that some dealers may lace the marajuana with other more addictive substances, causing people to become addicted to something else. Regulation and legalization would keep such things from happening...
There was a sports even (World Cup?) in a city, who decided to essentially legalize marajuana for the event, rather than try to enforce the ban. They told people that as long as they were not causing trouble, officers would look the other way if they had pot. They noticed a SIGNIFICANT drop in the violence and problems usually encountered at such an event (until the bars opened, at which point the number jumped back to normal levels). This and the example of places that have legalized pot have consistently shown that legalization has actually reduced many of the problems, rather than caused them.
Alcohol prohibition was shown to not work, so this is not really a valid option. So why is it that something that has been demonstrated to be less harmful than alcohol (or cigarettes) is illegal?
Managing to get the public to learn and make an informed choice when voting on it is very difficult though. There is almost no funding for ads talking about the good side of pot, while big alcohol companies and the like pour huge amounts into ads demonizing it. We are constantly bombarded with messages about how bad it is, how it makes people useless, how it destroys our brain, etc - and many of these claims have no scientific backing. But if people only hear the one side, that is all they know. So many people 'know' it is bad, because thats all they have ever heard. I think the only real way to get voters to be able to make an informed decision is for them to get the story equally from both sides, and preferably, heavily from a neutral - here are the benefits, here are the drawbacks, the harm and the good, etc - stance. As it is, they only hear one side of the story, or hear it much more than any other side, and most people cannot make an informed and educated decision about marajuana because of this.
Then we can talk about the huge tons of money spent on anti-marajuana work, law enforcement, the 'war on drugs' (that in most of its funding is a war on pot), etc. And this country is looking at a huge debt right now. We are spending large amounts of money. If legalized, it could be taxed, there could be licensing fees for growers, sellers. There could be jobs created for inspectors, and regulators. But the government could actually MAKE money off of the marajuana trade rather than lose money trying to fight it. PLUS it would be taking out a huge market for the drug lords and other criminal activity around marajuana.
At a certain point, people need to be given responsibility for their own care. This means they can choose to smoke, or drink - or use pot. Should their be laws regulating it? Absolutely. It should be taxed, regulated, etc. It should not be open to any age, but rather restricted to adults. At a certain point, when we are considered adults, we need to be held responsible for our own well being. If we choose to eat only mcdonalds for every meal, it will hurt us. If we choose to drink too much it will hurt us. If we choose to jump off a roof, it will hurt us. But when we are 'adults' we are expected to have learned how to make these choices. Its children who need to be guided and protected, sometimes from themselves, because they are still learning how to make these decisions.
If we were to try to ban anything that could be harmful or dangerous...or even just potentially deadly...well. NO driving - car accidents can be dangerous or deadly. No eating fatty foods - obesity is a major cause of disease and death in the US. How about no joining the military - you might be forced to kill someone, or could be killed yourself! We CAN'T ban everything that could harm people, all we can do is keep children protected until they are old enough to make their own choices about their life - whether its to drink, to join the military, to drive a car, or to use pot.
Adult Age: On a related note - I'm for reducing the legal drinking age to 18 - an 18 year old is old enough to fight and die by order of their government, but not old enough to drink a beer or glass of wine? At the very least, off duty military personnel should be allowed to get alcohol, even if they are only 18....
Gay Marriage: And to address the gay marriage idea - in my personal opinion, if 2 (or heck, if more than 2) adults love each other and want to make a commitment to one another, thats a wonderful thing and should be supported, not banned. Why does it matter what their genders happen to be, to me marriage is a consenting commitment between 2 adults to one another. (and an interesting article about "traditional" marriage: http://www.jeffgoode.com/politicalsatire/traditionalmarriage.htm - or a somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but also scary, video parody of the 'traditional marriage' thing (I don't think there is anything 'inappropriate' in here, but it may be offensive to some people in its parodizing of '"traditiona"l marriage laws'): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFRgU ) I see so many 'traditional' (married in a church, by a religious official, one man, one woman, etc etc) marriages that fall apart, how can we really say who should or shouldn't be allowed to be together?
And I can totally see the argument that marriage is a religious thing - ok then, let it ONLY be a religious thing. Being baptized or not doesn't have ANY legal bearing. Well, if the 'marriage is religious' this is used, it should be similar, and have no legal bearing. Then, only a 'civil union' has legal bearing. Any 2 consenting adults can have a civil union, and its up to each church to decide who it will allow to have a 'marriage.' I can work with that - I don't think religions should be forced to do what others say either - separation of church and state.
Ok, this post is officially WAY long now, I think I'll stop. But after reading 21 pages of this thread in one sitting, I had way too much I wanted to say! I know that most people have their own opinions, and my thoughts aren't really going to change them, but still, food for thought and all!
And with that...as its taken me well over an hour to write this I just realized.... :sidestep:
I want to say I really REALLY like how people have stayed so civil. You ALL are awesome for that!
And now for things I thought of or wanted to add as I read - sorry, I have done quite a bit of reading and research, so I'm probably going to ramble on -ALOT :eek1:- you have been warned!
Crazy laws: I just have to share this one, in our neighboring town, there is a law on the books: "Monsters are illegal within the corporate limits of Urbana." Monsters?? Seriously??? :roflmao:
Legalization of Pot: I've never tried it. I've had opportunities to, with people I trusted, in safe situations, who I knew had quality stuff. But they also only had it in smoking form. I have damaged lungs from being very sick as a child, and have a hard enough time breathing without the smoke. Its not the pot itself, but the smoke that keeps me from trying it.
That said, as a non-user I am 100% behind legalization. I've done quite a bit of reading and research, and mostly have come to the conclusion that the ban on pot is pretty much illogical and outdated.
Interesting things I learned - its status as a Category I drug was supposed to be temporary, while the government appointed its own team to study it and determine how it should be classed. That team finally came back and recommended removing the category I listing, and potentially even legalizing it as alcohol and tabacco are, because it found little danger from it. The government decided it didn't like its own team's findings, so ignored it. The 'temporary' listing has stayed.
The main funding for keeping it illegal, for many of the anti-marajuana ads, for the legislation, and for illegalizing it initially comes from big alcohol and some paper/lumbar companies. Both saw the potential for competition (either as a drug or as a effective and highly renewable source for paper), and wanted to keep it out. This is part of the reason why hemp, which negligible THC levels and cannot produce any sort of effect as a drug, is also illegal to grow in the US. While its a super renewable crop with great potential for fabrics, paper, rope, animal bedding, etc etc, and can grow in poor soil and do well, it was packaged with marajuana in the ban.
There have been some medical studies showing that marajuana actually has some benefits on the body, and that there MIGHT actually be a reduction in cancer cases among users, though they caution that they need to do further studies to confirm this. The problems of cancer often associated are from the smoking part, not the drug part. The same problems could be enountered from smoking anything.
Studies have also shown that people under the influence of marajuana actually behave more cautiously. While alcohol causes reckless behavior such as speeding, or some of the awful stories here (near a 'party school' campus) of people climbing the outside of balconies and falling, under marajuana's influence people were found to drive more slowly and be calmer. In talking to police officers, encounters with violent drunks were common, often measured in minutes or hours apart, whereas many officers couldn't come up with any times they had to deal with a violent person who was ONLY under the influence of marajuana (combinations of drugs are another story).
Unlike alcohol, studies have shown it to be mostly impossible to overdose on marajuana. If you have too much you might feel not so good, but interestingly, most subjects stop using it when they reach a certain level (but even if they don't, overdosing isn't a risk).
I also know adults who regularly partake of marajuana. Some of them have run into situations where they couldn't get it for months. It was not a problem - its not physically addicting. They just went without for that time. All are highly successful adults who have held their jobs long term, and do very well. For one of them the marajuana helped with horrible migranes. For a couple others, it was a way of relaxing with friends, maybe once a week at most, the way some people meet for a drink. They all were responsible, meaning they made a point of only partaking when in situations they wouldn't have to drive at all (ie, arrived home for the evening, friday night, not going anywhere), and had relatively small amounts.
Many people have heard it referred to as the 'gateway drug' - with the idea that people who use pot will end up looking for something stronger and move on. Studies (yes, I keep saying this, but most of my thoughts are based on what I've researched, so...) actually indicate its not really a drive for the stronger drugs so much as exposure to them in unregulated situations. People seeking pot often find dealers to get it from. The dealers often have other things to sell - by having to go through these dealers people are exposed to and have a higher opportunity to try other drugs. The lack of regulation also means that some dealers may lace the marajuana with other more addictive substances, causing people to become addicted to something else. Regulation and legalization would keep such things from happening...
There was a sports even (World Cup?) in a city, who decided to essentially legalize marajuana for the event, rather than try to enforce the ban. They told people that as long as they were not causing trouble, officers would look the other way if they had pot. They noticed a SIGNIFICANT drop in the violence and problems usually encountered at such an event (until the bars opened, at which point the number jumped back to normal levels). This and the example of places that have legalized pot have consistently shown that legalization has actually reduced many of the problems, rather than caused them.
Alcohol prohibition was shown to not work, so this is not really a valid option. So why is it that something that has been demonstrated to be less harmful than alcohol (or cigarettes) is illegal?
Managing to get the public to learn and make an informed choice when voting on it is very difficult though. There is almost no funding for ads talking about the good side of pot, while big alcohol companies and the like pour huge amounts into ads demonizing it. We are constantly bombarded with messages about how bad it is, how it makes people useless, how it destroys our brain, etc - and many of these claims have no scientific backing. But if people only hear the one side, that is all they know. So many people 'know' it is bad, because thats all they have ever heard. I think the only real way to get voters to be able to make an informed decision is for them to get the story equally from both sides, and preferably, heavily from a neutral - here are the benefits, here are the drawbacks, the harm and the good, etc - stance. As it is, they only hear one side of the story, or hear it much more than any other side, and most people cannot make an informed and educated decision about marajuana because of this.
Then we can talk about the huge tons of money spent on anti-marajuana work, law enforcement, the 'war on drugs' (that in most of its funding is a war on pot), etc. And this country is looking at a huge debt right now. We are spending large amounts of money. If legalized, it could be taxed, there could be licensing fees for growers, sellers. There could be jobs created for inspectors, and regulators. But the government could actually MAKE money off of the marajuana trade rather than lose money trying to fight it. PLUS it would be taking out a huge market for the drug lords and other criminal activity around marajuana.
At a certain point, people need to be given responsibility for their own care. This means they can choose to smoke, or drink - or use pot. Should their be laws regulating it? Absolutely. It should be taxed, regulated, etc. It should not be open to any age, but rather restricted to adults. At a certain point, when we are considered adults, we need to be held responsible for our own well being. If we choose to eat only mcdonalds for every meal, it will hurt us. If we choose to drink too much it will hurt us. If we choose to jump off a roof, it will hurt us. But when we are 'adults' we are expected to have learned how to make these choices. Its children who need to be guided and protected, sometimes from themselves, because they are still learning how to make these decisions.
If we were to try to ban anything that could be harmful or dangerous...or even just potentially deadly...well. NO driving - car accidents can be dangerous or deadly. No eating fatty foods - obesity is a major cause of disease and death in the US. How about no joining the military - you might be forced to kill someone, or could be killed yourself! We CAN'T ban everything that could harm people, all we can do is keep children protected until they are old enough to make their own choices about their life - whether its to drink, to join the military, to drive a car, or to use pot.
Adult Age: On a related note - I'm for reducing the legal drinking age to 18 - an 18 year old is old enough to fight and die by order of their government, but not old enough to drink a beer or glass of wine? At the very least, off duty military personnel should be allowed to get alcohol, even if they are only 18....
Gay Marriage: And to address the gay marriage idea - in my personal opinion, if 2 (or heck, if more than 2) adults love each other and want to make a commitment to one another, thats a wonderful thing and should be supported, not banned. Why does it matter what their genders happen to be, to me marriage is a consenting commitment between 2 adults to one another. (and an interesting article about "traditional" marriage: http://www.jeffgoode.com/politicalsatire/traditionalmarriage.htm - or a somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but also scary, video parody of the 'traditional marriage' thing (I don't think there is anything 'inappropriate' in here, but it may be offensive to some people in its parodizing of '"traditiona"l marriage laws'): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFRgU ) I see so many 'traditional' (married in a church, by a religious official, one man, one woman, etc etc) marriages that fall apart, how can we really say who should or shouldn't be allowed to be together?
And I can totally see the argument that marriage is a religious thing - ok then, let it ONLY be a religious thing. Being baptized or not doesn't have ANY legal bearing. Well, if the 'marriage is religious' this is used, it should be similar, and have no legal bearing. Then, only a 'civil union' has legal bearing. Any 2 consenting adults can have a civil union, and its up to each church to decide who it will allow to have a 'marriage.' I can work with that - I don't think religions should be forced to do what others say either - separation of church and state.
Ok, this post is officially WAY long now, I think I'll stop. But after reading 21 pages of this thread in one sitting, I had way too much I wanted to say! I know that most people have their own opinions, and my thoughts aren't really going to change them, but still, food for thought and all!
And with that...as its taken me well over an hour to write this I just realized.... :sidestep:
Nanci
Alien Lover
I couldn't agree more! This goes way beyond the issue of marijuana.... people who think their morals should be forced on everyone and our personal freedoms should be strictly controlled via legislation, scare the hell out of me. These are usually the same people who think I shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.
I simply don't understand the thought process of people who think we need the fools running our government to control our lives.
Oooh, that reminds me of an NRA shirt I wanted to get!! You like guns, too?
"If handguns cause crime, mine's defective!"
Gulf Coast Girl
Newbie :)
I believe these laws are based on our rights, not morals. Our forefathers summed it up pretty well in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In my opinion, the crimes you listed are not illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they impede on the rights of the victim to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The crimes you listed trample on all three of those unalienable rights that we as Americans recognize as the foundation of our incredible Country.
Of course this is just my opinion and I don't believe you and I will ever see eye to eye on the issue. That's ok though.... the world would be a really boring place if we all thought exactly the same way
oneirogenesis
become passers-by
Thank you for the informative post, Beth! Not to mention, thank you for pointing out that the method of ingestion (smoking) is potentially harmful, rather than the drug itself. Marijuana can be cooked and eaten in food, made into a drink and, thanks to the wonders of technology, heated in a vaporizer to be inhaled without the harshness of smoke.
Gulf Coast Girl
Newbie :)
Oooh, that reminds me of an NRA shirt I wanted to get!! You like guns, too?
Yes mam! I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and I own several guns. I shoot as often as possible and next year I'm looking to start shooting in IDPA matches. Nothing like the smell of gun powder on a crisp fall morning
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
..
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
To ladyq1: Thanks for a logical, well written, and researched post! I have heard many of the things you wrote about marijuana (competition from alcohol interests, studies suppressed, etc), but only in passing. I never really researched it because it wasn't important enough to me to spend the time and effort to research. But you also mentioned things I wasn't aware of, and would make me even more pro legalization.
It is a lot to ask because you mentioned a lot of different info, studies, etc. But would you have any sources you could cite to support some of your statements? I would love to skim through some of them myself, so that I would have something to cite in the future when discussing the subject. If not, I can eventually do some research myself. But it is not high priority for me, and probably won't be soon, lol!
It is a lot to ask because you mentioned a lot of different info, studies, etc. But would you have any sources you could cite to support some of your statements? I would love to skim through some of them myself, so that I would have something to cite in the future when discussing the subject. If not, I can eventually do some research myself. But it is not high priority for me, and probably won't be soon, lol!
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
Kathy, I spent a few hours researching last night. It seems you can find any info you want about marijuana, if you data mine. I found this link off the Journal of American Medicine website: http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
It seems pretty "pro-lid," but at least cites all the scientific papers/studies that make up the basis for fact or myth. Even the anti websites tend to agree it isn't as bad for you as alcohol or tobacco, but cite cases where some people can have anxiety/panic attacks, etc. I'd guess that has some basis in the person's psychological makeup, but I know people whose very life would be at risk from eating a single peanut or shellfish. I'm fairly sure they don't want Pad Thai Shrimp outlawed. Now I'm getting hungry!:licklips:
Here's an interesting documentary about hemp and marijuana as a drug: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#
It seems pretty "pro-lid," but at least cites all the scientific papers/studies that make up the basis for fact or myth. Even the anti websites tend to agree it isn't as bad for you as alcohol or tobacco, but cite cases where some people can have anxiety/panic attacks, etc. I'd guess that has some basis in the person's psychological makeup, but I know people whose very life would be at risk from eating a single peanut or shellfish. I'm fairly sure they don't want Pad Thai Shrimp outlawed. Now I'm getting hungry!:licklips:
Here's an interesting documentary about hemp and marijuana as a drug: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#
ladyq1
Often lurking...
Ok, spend most of the morning digging through my information to compile some citations. I tried to include what information was gained from what parts - I'm sure I missed some, and I've probably thrown in some others, but there are sources like the USDA, American Medical Association, Universities, etc in here, so hopefully it provides some citations that seem reliable!
Category standing
Control Substances Act was passed in 1970 and established the categories for classifying drugs. The most restrictive is Schedule I, which are said to to possess "no currently accepted medical use", "a high potential for abuse", and "a lack of accepted safety."
It was in 1970 that Congress categorized marijuana as a Schedule I - temporarily while the federal commission studied cannabis. The report this commssion made:
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Use, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding - The Official Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (Washington, D.C., 1972)
Highlights:
-little proven danger of physical or psychological harm (from experimental and intermittent use of naturally prepared cannabis)
-Clearly NOT the same chemical category as heroin (also Schedule I)
-Does not lead to physical dependence
-The incidence of psychiatric hospitalizations is not significantly higher than the non-using population
-The use of drugs other than alcohol is not significantly higher than the non-using population
-The overwhelming majority of users do not progress to other drugs.
-No substantial evidence of a casual connection between the use of marihuana and the commission of violent or aggressive acts
-It was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user.
With this being presented, governor Raymond P. Shafer on Pennsylvania, the commission's chairperson spoke before congress and gave the recommendation that private use and possession should not have the stigma of criminalization, and people who experiment with it should not be criminalized.
Despite this, President Nixon publicly announced his intent to continue to oppose efforts to legalize marijuana.
The National Beer Wholesalers Association contributes millions to candidates ($1.3 mil in 97-98, $1.87 in 99-00, $2.07 in 01-02, and $8 million combined in the 3 cycles between 03 and 08.
The original National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign specifically banned the use of campaign funds to address underage drinking, despite it being shown to be far more harmful. When attempts were made to amend the bill so that anti-alcohol messages could be included, the NBWA strongly opposed the amendment.
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/underagedrinking.ondcp2.htm
The California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed $100,000 in 2008 in the campaign against Prop 5 - the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act that would have reduced the penalty for cannabis possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction (similar to a traffic ticket).
Scott Morgan, "Why Do Prison and Alcohol Lobies Oppose Drug Treatment?" StoptheDrugWar.org, October 22, 2008
World Health Organization: Lethal Dose of cannabis is so high it cannot be achieved by recreational users.
Wayne Hall, A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine, and Opiate Use (University of New South Wales: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 1995).
Most marijuana users are gainfully employed.
"Seven in Ten Drug Users Are Full-Time Workers," Associated Press, September 8, 1999.
Some of the earliest criminalization of alcohol was racially motivated in response to an influx of Mexican Workers - making unsubstantiated claims that marijuana made them crazy.
Richard Bonnie and Charles Whitebread, The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States (New York: The Lindesmith Center, 1999).
June 2004 - Lisbon, Portugal - England playing France in the opening round of the Euro 2004 Soccer Tournament.
Paul Kelso, "It's OK to Smoke Dope, England Fans Told," The Guardian (UK_, June 11, 2004
Marijuana described as "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition (Docket No. 86-22): Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young, Washington, D.C., September 6, 1988
The American Medical Association spoke out against the Marihuana Tax Act fo 1937 - in intent of which was to end recreational use - saying there is no evidence supporting any of the claims behind it. Their own research found no prisoners addicted to marijuana as claimed, no occasion for the Children's Bureau to investigate the alleged heavy use or marijuana by school children, despite claims otherwise, and no record of any marijuana or cannabis addicts by the Public Health Service.
Bonnie and Whitebread, The Marijuana Conviction, 165-66
Marijuana can protect the brain from trauma and ward of some neurological diseases such as Alzheimers
Hampson et al., "Cannabidiol and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol Are Neuroprotective Antioxidants," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96 (1998): 8268-73
The U.S. Department of Health and Humane Services holds patent no. 6630507 on the use of cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. (Despite the government classifying it as Schedule I with no medical use)
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
Cannibis can help prevent the onset of diabetes.
Lu et al., "The cannabinergic System as a Target for Anti-inflammatory Diseases," Journal of Neuroimmunology 166 (2006): 3-18
Cannibis can limit the spread of multidrug resistant infections such as MRSA
Appendino et al., "Antibacterial Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: A Structure-activity Study," Journal of Natural Products 71 (2008): 1427-30
In laboratory settings it selectively killed malignant cancer sells associated with gliomas, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lymphoma.
Sarfaraz et al, "Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress nad Promise," Cancer Research 68 (2008): 339-42
Cannabinoids kill tumor cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts.
Manuel Guzman, "Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents," Nature Reviews Cancer 3 (2003): 745-55
Can temporarily increase heart rate - should not be used by people with high blood pressure and history of heart disease. 49
William J. Cromie, "Marijuana Said to Trigger Heart Attacks," Harvard University Gazette, March 2, 2000.
Categorizing of legal and illegal drugs by researchers from the french state medical research institute INSERM in relation to the threat to public health placed alcohol, heroine, and cocaine in the most dangerous category, tabbacco and hallucinogens in the moderate risk, and cannabis in the least risk category.
Reuters News Wire, "French Report Says Drinking Worse Than Cannabis," June 16, 1998
Multiple Sclerosis patients taking Sativex (an oral spray with natural, whole plant cannabis extracts) for several years required fewer daily doses of the drug to effectively treat their pain over time.
Rog et al., "oromucosal Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for Neuropathic Pain Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: An Uncontrolled, Open-label, 2-year Extension Trial," Clinical Therapeutics 29 (2007): 2068
-79.
Wade et al., "Long-term Use of a Cannabis-based Medicine in the Treatment of Spasticity and Other Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis," Multiple Sclerosis 12 (2006): 639-45
Americans spend $130 billion annually on Alcohol
"Alcohol Industry in U.S. Profits from Underage Drinking: Study," Financial Express, May 3, 2006
Estimated marijuana market of $113 billion annually
"John Gettman, Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana aws, DrugScience.org. 2007.
The diversion of the estimated $113 billion marijuana market from the taxable economy into the illicit one deprives taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually.
Jon Gettman, "Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," DrugScience.org, 2007
In California alone, legalization would potentially raise $1.4 billion in annual tax revenue from excise taxes on production and sales taxes on purchases, according to 2009 estimates by the California State Board of Equalization and Taxation.
Press statement of Betty Yee, Chairwoman, California Board of Equalization, February 23, 2009
Extrapolations from comparisons to California's wine industry indicates a possible expectation of $12 to $18 billion in total economic activity, 60,000 to 110,000 new jobs created, and $2.5 to $3.5 billion in legal wages, which would generate additional income and business taxes for the state.
Dale Gieringer, Legalization Could Yield California Taxpayers Over $1.2 Billion Per Year: Additional Spinoff Benefits Up To $12-$18 Billion, California NORML, February 2009, http://www.canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html
State and federal governments are calculated to spend nearly $8-10 billion a year to arrest, prosecute, and jail marijuana offenders.
Jeffrey Miron, Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Marijuana Policy Project, 2005), http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
Gettman, "Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws"
U.S taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually just to imprision pot offenders.
Paul Armentano, "A Billion Dollars a Year for Pot?" Washington Examiner, October 18, 2006
Focusing on marijuana law enforcement leads to decreased enforcement of more serious problems.
Florida crime statistics when analyzed showed that for every 1% increase in drug arrests there was an 0.18% increase in serious crimes.
Benson et al., "The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources," Journal of Drug Issues 31 (2001): 989-1006
Because drug dealers don't card, teenagers have said it is easier for them to purchase weed than beer or cigarettes.
Janet Kornblum, "Prescription Drugs More accessible to Teens Than Beer," USA Today, August 14, 2008
Marijuana is the biggest source of income for Mexican drug cartels.
Mark Stevenson, "Marijuana Big Earner for Mexico Gangs," Associated Press, February 22, 2008.
In California marijuana use among younger people declined sharply following changes in the state law. 2
State-sanctioned distribution of marijuana has not greatly affected law enforcement activities or led to routine misuse by the public. 3
Most industrialized nations (Canada, Japan, Australia, European Union, etc) regulate commercial production of help for industrial purposes. 2-5
Cannabis was used during the colonial era for production of rope, sails, cloth, and paper. 2-6
During World War 2, a video entitled Hemp For Victory produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture called the plant indispensable in the service of mankind.
Current federal law makes no distinction between hemp and other cannabis species, causing 200 million plants to be destroyed in the US annually, and resulting in US retailers producing hemp based products to import all cannabis fibers from overseas.
And just to include some stuff about potential alcohol benefits as well, so I'm not totally one sided (I do enjoy a glass of wine now and then!)
Drinking red wine may help ward off types of heart disease, cancer, and alzheimers.
Joy Bauer, "Is Wine Good for You?" MSNBC, June 4, 2008
Beer can help ward off osteoporosis
Claire Hughes, "Beer Increases Bone Strength," Student British Medical Journal 10 (2002): 441-84
Light to moderate drinkers more likely to survive a heart attack.
Mukamal et al., "Prior Alcohol Consumption and Mortality Following Acute Myocardial Infarction," Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001): 1965-70
As another note, for people interested in the subject, I would recommend the book "Marijuana is SAFER, So why are we driving people to drink?" by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert. It is a comprehensive look at the marijuana prohibition, the benefits of legalization, comparisons between it and legal alcohol. It doesn't just discuss the good of marijuana, it addresses the drawbacks and potential hazards as well, and doesn't just criminalize alcohol, but discusses studies showing both the good and bad of that. The book has some 15+ pages of citations (well over 100, possibly over 200 sources, I didn't sit and count them all) for all its information as well, which I found really nice, as it wasn't just a "this is our opinion!" but rather a "these are our conclusions based on the evidence presented in all of these things." I found it to be a very interesting read!
Category standing
Control Substances Act was passed in 1970 and established the categories for classifying drugs. The most restrictive is Schedule I, which are said to to possess "no currently accepted medical use", "a high potential for abuse", and "a lack of accepted safety."
It was in 1970 that Congress categorized marijuana as a Schedule I - temporarily while the federal commission studied cannabis. The report this commssion made:
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Use, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding - The Official Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (Washington, D.C., 1972)
Highlights:
-little proven danger of physical or psychological harm (from experimental and intermittent use of naturally prepared cannabis)
-Clearly NOT the same chemical category as heroin (also Schedule I)
-Does not lead to physical dependence
-The incidence of psychiatric hospitalizations is not significantly higher than the non-using population
-The use of drugs other than alcohol is not significantly higher than the non-using population
-The overwhelming majority of users do not progress to other drugs.
-No substantial evidence of a casual connection between the use of marihuana and the commission of violent or aggressive acts
-It was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user.
With this being presented, governor Raymond P. Shafer on Pennsylvania, the commission's chairperson spoke before congress and gave the recommendation that private use and possession should not have the stigma of criminalization, and people who experiment with it should not be criminalized.
Despite this, President Nixon publicly announced his intent to continue to oppose efforts to legalize marijuana.
The National Beer Wholesalers Association contributes millions to candidates ($1.3 mil in 97-98, $1.87 in 99-00, $2.07 in 01-02, and $8 million combined in the 3 cycles between 03 and 08.
The original National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign specifically banned the use of campaign funds to address underage drinking, despite it being shown to be far more harmful. When attempts were made to amend the bill so that anti-alcohol messages could be included, the NBWA strongly opposed the amendment.
http://www.cspinet.org/booze/underagedrinking.ondcp2.htm
The California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed $100,000 in 2008 in the campaign against Prop 5 - the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act that would have reduced the penalty for cannabis possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction (similar to a traffic ticket).
Scott Morgan, "Why Do Prison and Alcohol Lobies Oppose Drug Treatment?" StoptheDrugWar.org, October 22, 2008
World Health Organization: Lethal Dose of cannabis is so high it cannot be achieved by recreational users.
Wayne Hall, A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine, and Opiate Use (University of New South Wales: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 1995).
Most marijuana users are gainfully employed.
"Seven in Ten Drug Users Are Full-Time Workers," Associated Press, September 8, 1999.
Some of the earliest criminalization of alcohol was racially motivated in response to an influx of Mexican Workers - making unsubstantiated claims that marijuana made them crazy.
Richard Bonnie and Charles Whitebread, The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States (New York: The Lindesmith Center, 1999).
June 2004 - Lisbon, Portugal - England playing France in the opening round of the Euro 2004 Soccer Tournament.
Paul Kelso, "It's OK to Smoke Dope, England Fans Told," The Guardian (UK_, June 11, 2004
Marijuana described as "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition (Docket No. 86-22): Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young, Washington, D.C., September 6, 1988
The American Medical Association spoke out against the Marihuana Tax Act fo 1937 - in intent of which was to end recreational use - saying there is no evidence supporting any of the claims behind it. Their own research found no prisoners addicted to marijuana as claimed, no occasion for the Children's Bureau to investigate the alleged heavy use or marijuana by school children, despite claims otherwise, and no record of any marijuana or cannabis addicts by the Public Health Service.
Bonnie and Whitebread, The Marijuana Conviction, 165-66
Marijuana can protect the brain from trauma and ward of some neurological diseases such as Alzheimers
Hampson et al., "Cannabidiol and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol Are Neuroprotective Antioxidants," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 96 (1998): 8268-73
The U.S. Department of Health and Humane Services holds patent no. 6630507 on the use of cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. (Despite the government classifying it as Schedule I with no medical use)
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
Cannibis can help prevent the onset of diabetes.
Lu et al., "The cannabinergic System as a Target for Anti-inflammatory Diseases," Journal of Neuroimmunology 166 (2006): 3-18
Cannibis can limit the spread of multidrug resistant infections such as MRSA
Appendino et al., "Antibacterial Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: A Structure-activity Study," Journal of Natural Products 71 (2008): 1427-30
In laboratory settings it selectively killed malignant cancer sells associated with gliomas, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, skin cancer, pancreatic cancer, and lymphoma.
Sarfaraz et al, "Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress nad Promise," Cancer Research 68 (2008): 339-42
Cannabinoids kill tumor cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts.
Manuel Guzman, "Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents," Nature Reviews Cancer 3 (2003): 745-55
Can temporarily increase heart rate - should not be used by people with high blood pressure and history of heart disease. 49
William J. Cromie, "Marijuana Said to Trigger Heart Attacks," Harvard University Gazette, March 2, 2000.
Categorizing of legal and illegal drugs by researchers from the french state medical research institute INSERM in relation to the threat to public health placed alcohol, heroine, and cocaine in the most dangerous category, tabbacco and hallucinogens in the moderate risk, and cannabis in the least risk category.
Reuters News Wire, "French Report Says Drinking Worse Than Cannabis," June 16, 1998
Multiple Sclerosis patients taking Sativex (an oral spray with natural, whole plant cannabis extracts) for several years required fewer daily doses of the drug to effectively treat their pain over time.
Rog et al., "oromucosal Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for Neuropathic Pain Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: An Uncontrolled, Open-label, 2-year Extension Trial," Clinical Therapeutics 29 (2007): 2068
-79.
Wade et al., "Long-term Use of a Cannabis-based Medicine in the Treatment of Spasticity and Other Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis," Multiple Sclerosis 12 (2006): 639-45
Americans spend $130 billion annually on Alcohol
"Alcohol Industry in U.S. Profits from Underage Drinking: Study," Financial Express, May 3, 2006
Estimated marijuana market of $113 billion annually
"John Gettman, Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana aws, DrugScience.org. 2007.
The diversion of the estimated $113 billion marijuana market from the taxable economy into the illicit one deprives taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually.
Jon Gettman, "Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws," DrugScience.org, 2007
In California alone, legalization would potentially raise $1.4 billion in annual tax revenue from excise taxes on production and sales taxes on purchases, according to 2009 estimates by the California State Board of Equalization and Taxation.
Press statement of Betty Yee, Chairwoman, California Board of Equalization, February 23, 2009
Extrapolations from comparisons to California's wine industry indicates a possible expectation of $12 to $18 billion in total economic activity, 60,000 to 110,000 new jobs created, and $2.5 to $3.5 billion in legal wages, which would generate additional income and business taxes for the state.
Dale Gieringer, Legalization Could Yield California Taxpayers Over $1.2 Billion Per Year: Additional Spinoff Benefits Up To $12-$18 Billion, California NORML, February 2009, http://www.canorml.org/background/CA_legalization2.html
State and federal governments are calculated to spend nearly $8-10 billion a year to arrest, prosecute, and jail marijuana offenders.
Jeffrey Miron, Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Marijuana Policy Project, 2005), http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
Gettman, "Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws"
U.S taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually just to imprision pot offenders.
Paul Armentano, "A Billion Dollars a Year for Pot?" Washington Examiner, October 18, 2006
Focusing on marijuana law enforcement leads to decreased enforcement of more serious problems.
Florida crime statistics when analyzed showed that for every 1% increase in drug arrests there was an 0.18% increase in serious crimes.
Benson et al., "The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources," Journal of Drug Issues 31 (2001): 989-1006
Because drug dealers don't card, teenagers have said it is easier for them to purchase weed than beer or cigarettes.
Janet Kornblum, "Prescription Drugs More accessible to Teens Than Beer," USA Today, August 14, 2008
Marijuana is the biggest source of income for Mexican drug cartels.
Mark Stevenson, "Marijuana Big Earner for Mexico Gangs," Associated Press, February 22, 2008.
In California marijuana use among younger people declined sharply following changes in the state law. 2
State-sanctioned distribution of marijuana has not greatly affected law enforcement activities or led to routine misuse by the public. 3
Most industrialized nations (Canada, Japan, Australia, European Union, etc) regulate commercial production of help for industrial purposes. 2-5
Cannabis was used during the colonial era for production of rope, sails, cloth, and paper. 2-6
During World War 2, a video entitled Hemp For Victory produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture called the plant indispensable in the service of mankind.
Current federal law makes no distinction between hemp and other cannabis species, causing 200 million plants to be destroyed in the US annually, and resulting in US retailers producing hemp based products to import all cannabis fibers from overseas.
And just to include some stuff about potential alcohol benefits as well, so I'm not totally one sided (I do enjoy a glass of wine now and then!)
Drinking red wine may help ward off types of heart disease, cancer, and alzheimers.
Joy Bauer, "Is Wine Good for You?" MSNBC, June 4, 2008
Beer can help ward off osteoporosis
Claire Hughes, "Beer Increases Bone Strength," Student British Medical Journal 10 (2002): 441-84
Light to moderate drinkers more likely to survive a heart attack.
Mukamal et al., "Prior Alcohol Consumption and Mortality Following Acute Myocardial Infarction," Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001): 1965-70
As another note, for people interested in the subject, I would recommend the book "Marijuana is SAFER, So why are we driving people to drink?" by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano, and Mason Tvert. It is a comprehensive look at the marijuana prohibition, the benefits of legalization, comparisons between it and legal alcohol. It doesn't just discuss the good of marijuana, it addresses the drawbacks and potential hazards as well, and doesn't just criminalize alcohol, but discusses studies showing both the good and bad of that. The book has some 15+ pages of citations (well over 100, possibly over 200 sources, I didn't sit and count them all) for all its information as well, which I found really nice, as it wasn't just a "this is our opinion!" but rather a "these are our conclusions based on the evidence presented in all of these things." I found it to be a very interesting read!
VickyChaiTea
Snake enthusiast
ladyq1... WOW! Awesome research and fact finding. I agree with a lot of what you said. Marijuana has benefits that some people refuse to acknowledge. Hemp, painkiller, etc.
But I do have to disagree with this "Alcohol prohibition was shown to not work, so this is not really a valid option." Alcohol prohibition was done in the WORST way possible. Cold turkey and blatantly calling it out as "evil". The alcohol prohibition I am proposing is slow, provides support, and could quite possibly work. I am not suggesting at all that we try what we have in the past.
And about banning fast foods and cars... Cars are a HUGE necessity to almost everyone. So even though they are very dangerous, there is no getting around them. *shrugs* Fast food is a little trickier... with pot, if you smoke a few times a week you are at a higher risk for lung cancer. If you eat fast food a few times a week, you COULD be at a higher risk of becoming overweight/unhealthy if you DON'T exercise. You can't just run off the carcinogens in your lungs. But you can run off the calories from your Big Mac. See?
But I do have to disagree with this "Alcohol prohibition was shown to not work, so this is not really a valid option." Alcohol prohibition was done in the WORST way possible. Cold turkey and blatantly calling it out as "evil". The alcohol prohibition I am proposing is slow, provides support, and could quite possibly work. I am not suggesting at all that we try what we have in the past.
And about banning fast foods and cars... Cars are a HUGE necessity to almost everyone. So even though they are very dangerous, there is no getting around them. *shrugs* Fast food is a little trickier... with pot, if you smoke a few times a week you are at a higher risk for lung cancer. If you eat fast food a few times a week, you COULD be at a higher risk of becoming overweight/unhealthy if you DON'T exercise. You can't just run off the carcinogens in your lungs. But you can run off the calories from your Big Mac. See?
snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
Alcohol prohibition didn't work because it played the honest decent citizen into the hands of organized crime.. Making powerful and rich crime bosses..
Just like what is happening with your drug barons..
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
"See?" No I don't. I still think you are arbitrarily wanting legislation imposed on things that do not concern you. The funny thing is, most of what we discuss doesn't personally concern me either. My life will not change one iota if marijuana is decriminalized. Or if gays are allowed to marry. Or if exotic venomous snakes are banned. But I support others right to do them all if that is their pursuit of happiness. Your right to swing your fist stops at your neighbors nose.
I would like to hear your new prohibition plan laid out, though.
I would like to hear your new prohibition plan laid out, though.
ZoologyGirl
Under Tank Heather
I respect your opinion but I honestly think that even done this way I don't think it would work. Like I said, I would not support it and I'm not even that much of a drinker. I can only imagine how it would go over with people who are bar goers, or own bars, or are wine connoisseurs, or have anything to do with the production, transport, and sales of any type of alcohol. That is a LOT of jobs lost.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
Thanks, Chip. I clicked on your link, but haven't read it yet. But I will!
Huge thanks to ladyq1 - great research! I am going to have to bookmark this thread for reference, lol! I'd like to read that book - sounds like a great reference. Hard to see how anyone can be against legalizing pot with all of that info! But money talks - and Congress Critters listen! And the alcohol industry obviously has a lot riding on this!
"You can't just run off the carcinogens in your lungs. But you can run off the calories from your Big Mac"
I HATE exercise - even though I know I should do it. So are you going to just ban ME from McD's, or will you ban EVERYONE because I don't exercise (and neither do lots of others, as well!)?
Huge thanks to ladyq1 - great research! I am going to have to bookmark this thread for reference, lol! I'd like to read that book - sounds like a great reference. Hard to see how anyone can be against legalizing pot with all of that info! But money talks - and Congress Critters listen! And the alcohol industry obviously has a lot riding on this!
"You can't just run off the carcinogens in your lungs. But you can run off the calories from your Big Mac"
I HATE exercise - even though I know I should do it. So are you going to just ban ME from McD's, or will you ban EVERYONE because I don't exercise (and neither do lots of others, as well!)?
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
"I can only imagine how it would go over with people who are bar goers, or own bars, or are wine connoisseurs, or have anything to do with the production, transport, and sales of any type of alcohol. That is a LOT of jobs lost."
Not ONLY a lot of jobs lost (not to mention tax revenue) - just what we need in a down economy! More people on unemployment! But in addition, most people who REALLY want to drink will just do whatever it takes to keep doing it. Being illegal hasn't stopped pot smokers. So why would you think it would stop alcohol drinkers. It might stop me - I rarely drink and don't care too much if I ever drink. But then I am not likely to ever suffer damage or cause damage from alcohol. Heavy drinkers who should consider stopping won't find it any more difficult to get black market alcohol than they would find it to get pot right now. The only people stopped by making it illegal are the marginal users who are not a problem anyway.
But what making alcohol illegal WOULD accomplish is: lost jobs, lost tax revenue, need for more jails, courts, and people to staff them, increased law enforcement personnel, more productive job time lost because of jail time, AND lots of new job opportunities for those willing to supply a new class of criminals - alcohol drinkers. These suppliers are not likely to charge sales tax or pay income tax, either.
Doesn't sound very rosy to me.
Not ONLY a lot of jobs lost (not to mention tax revenue) - just what we need in a down economy! More people on unemployment! But in addition, most people who REALLY want to drink will just do whatever it takes to keep doing it. Being illegal hasn't stopped pot smokers. So why would you think it would stop alcohol drinkers. It might stop me - I rarely drink and don't care too much if I ever drink. But then I am not likely to ever suffer damage or cause damage from alcohol. Heavy drinkers who should consider stopping won't find it any more difficult to get black market alcohol than they would find it to get pot right now. The only people stopped by making it illegal are the marginal users who are not a problem anyway.
But what making alcohol illegal WOULD accomplish is: lost jobs, lost tax revenue, need for more jails, courts, and people to staff them, increased law enforcement personnel, more productive job time lost because of jail time, AND lots of new job opportunities for those willing to supply a new class of criminals - alcohol drinkers. These suppliers are not likely to charge sales tax or pay income tax, either.
Doesn't sound very rosy to me.
Gulf Coast Girl
Newbie :)
Why should it be tried at all? Because YOU think others shouldn't drink?
Oh and the hundreds of thousands of people that work in the alcohol industry..... what do you propose they do for work? Oh yeah that's right.... jobs are so abundant they are just falling from the sky.
If you don't want to drink then fine, don't.... if you want to stop me from drinking then you'll have to come take it away from me..... I triple dog dare you to try :angry01:
I know that comes off pretty harsh, but I really can't stand it when people try to push their morals off on others.... it is INCREDIBLY condescending and arrogant!
VickyChaiTea
Snake enthusiast
No, because the possibility of working off what you ate is there, but you cannot work off smoke. So there's the difference.