To me, pot was indeed a gateway to a more dangerous drug - cigarettes. I never smoked cigs until there was a dry spell of no pot available, and I bought cigs because they got me high. A different kind of high, and one that faded away in pretty short order, but by then I was hooked.
I never had any problem going for long periods without pot, but I was hooked on cigs for 20 some years.
I responded to your comment and did not attribute a strawman argument to you.
Perhaps he was discussing second hald smoke or comparing the risk of birth defects.
I caught part of Dr. Drew the other day when he was saying Marijuana was addictive. His claim was the more powerful strains of today are addictive physically and emotionally. He was, as always, very sure of his stance.
I am for the legalization and decriminalization. Prohibition is a failure. It corrupts the cops, the judicial system and the politicians. There is big money at the top of the weed pyramid, but society is not collecting the taxes for it. Instead we spend billions fighting it and clearly losing.
That doesn’t jibe with experience. Whether it was 25 years ago or last week, there’s always been a correlation between potency, method, and amount consumed. Pot doesn’t affect your judgment the same way alcohol does, and it doesn’t leap out and surprise you like heroin.
There’s also a strong correlation between quality and price. Does that mean that a bunch of rich kids with good connections in the 60s, 70s, and 80s were getting physically and emotionally addicted? The claim strikes me as out of touch fear-mongering.
My friend wants you to know.
Isn’t part of the problem with comparing marijuana, on the one hand, to tobacco and alcohol on the other that tobacco and alcohol use are much more tied into our society and culture than marijuana use? So, you could argue that, if tobacco and alcohol were discovered today, they would be made illegal based on just the health risks, but they’re sort of “grandfathered in”, because smoking and drinking are socially acceptable in the way that marijuana isn’t? And, I’d argue with tobacco, that social acceptability is starting to go away. It’s getting more and more expensive to buy cigarettes, and harder and harder to find places where it’s ok to smoke.
Then you haven’t paid attention to other threads about the banning of such products.
First they came after the cigarettes, but I didn’t speak because I don’t smoke.
Then they came for the alcohol, but I didn’t speak because I don’t drink.
Then they came for the firearms…
You know, there being an ATF bureau, all three will happen sooner or later. 
I would say marijuana is plenty part of our society and culture, but it’s an underground culture. It’s all very wink-wink, nudge-nudge. Stoner movies, Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale,” 420, etc. It’s all around us. You can’t say the same for the other illegal drugs.
I wouldn’t say alcohol was grandfathered in. It was made illegal because people saw the dangers. Then they saw the dangers of Prohibition were worse. Strangely, TPTB don’t recognize the parallels to today’s prohibition.
With regards to tobacco, I am reminded of the beginning of Pulp Fiction, where Jules tells Vincent that pot in Amsterdam is legal, but ain’t 100% legal. So I feel it is with cigarettes in America today.
There is a good reason to make marijuna illegal. It’s more fun to smoke it when it is.
I have. Of course “much of a peep” is sufficiently vague that it can mean whatever you think it means - “never make a peep” would be wrong on the face of it - but what I’ve seen on the board is that a lot of people here think smoking is disgusting but don’t like the increasing restrictions on what adults can choose to do. It’s the same with laws relating to things like trans fats.
Alcohol was made illegal after it had been in common use since the beginning of the country, and in the cultures that made up American culture for thousands of years before that. Prohibition failed because alcohol use was so fundamentally a part of people’s experience that banning it was largely futile.
Marijuana isn’t a part of American life to that extent. Its use is winked at by a lot of people because it’s not seen as particularly hazardous, and there’s a culture that developed around it, but there’s an underground subculture that’s developed around a lot of other illegal drugs. There’s a heroin subculture, and a meth subculture, and a cocaine subculture, and a definite crack subculture. None of those are as visible in society as the pot subculture, just because the use of those drugs aren’t as tolerated by the entire society.
That is what Dr. Drew said. The thread was is there anyone who can justify banning weed? Dr. Drew can.
I am for the legalization.
If you want an answer it’s simple. Alcohol and cigarettes DO CAUSE issues and lots and lots of them.
Thus the answer follows, since we already have two LEGAL things that cause harm, why add anymore?
Yes. Impaired is impaired, whether from booze, weed, or texting. The people you kill are just as dead.
I’m sorry, but because you mentioned him board rules dictate that I ascribe his entire position to you, make up some extra straw men arguments, and continue to argue with you about how wrong he is (while conflating his opinion and yours). I also must tell you what you really mean no matter how much you try and explain. You know, board rules and all. Oh, I think elevating it to close-to-the-line insults is expected, but not mandated.
Not that I have any interest in defending chuckleheads who drive impaired, but I think the question was about relative impact on driving ability. That is, if one had no choice but to accept a ride from an impaired someone (say there’s a hypothetical-defining emergency and no one around is sober), the person who smoked a joint is preferable to someone who is drunk, who is preferable to someone on acid. Clearly relative levels of intoxication can come into play (five bong hits v. two beers), but the correct answer is that you want to get home quickly so you hop in the car with the coked-up hedge fund manager.
It is clear from the history of drug and alcohol regulation that what determines the legal status of recreational drugs is some nexus between the harm that these products do and the social history of these products in our culture, with the latter far, far outweighing the former - which explains why cigarettes were never illegal (and the gradual social rejection of smoking is marching hand-in-hand with tightening regulation) and the attempt to outlaw recreational booze failed so miserably.
However … I’m not sure how one gets from that description to a normative argument.
I think those bans are stupid, too. But we’re not pissing away millions and millions of dollars trying to keep Fruit Flavored Marlboros off the streets, or locking up people for decades because they poured a shot of Anchorsteam in their venti mochachino. If we ever start doing either of those things, I’ll complain as loudly about those laws as I do about marijuana laws.
I do this and I haven’t smoked dope in forty years. I think it’s forty years, I can’t remember anything anymore.
I could sign this post.
Reason enough to keep it illegal - legalizing it will please all of those “LEGALIZE IT, MAN” idiots. I seriously can’t stand those people. If you want to get it legalized, put down the bong and put together an actual adult referendum. Nobody’s gonna listen to a burnout wanna-be hippie who probably wasn’t even alive in the 60s.
I wonder if the tobacco companies have a plan to make a marijuana cigarette that will include addictive chemicals? Surely in this day and age, that’s something that would have to be disclosed, and who in their right mind would choose to buy the addictive recipe over the natural recipe? Ooooh I get it. Charge a tenth as much for the addictive version! Get stoned for less money!
Anyway, most of the other actual arguments against it are bullshit. The only gatewaying I ever did was from marijuana to LSD, and I stopped with the former when I discovered the latter. And I have no desire or interest to move on to anything else. And guess what, I can go MONTHS between trips with no ill side effects, and once I put down the weed, I had no withdrawal symptoms at all, because THEY AREN’T ADDICTIVE. Addictiveness and health dangers are the two big factors that should go into making something illegal, and both are minimal (less so with LSD, since it’s a psychedelic where you REALLY need to know what you’re doing to avoid mental implications, but it isn’t gonna directly give you a heart attack)
Honestly, the #1 reason I DO want to see it legalized is because then the schools are going to have a much harder time flat out LYING to the students about the actual dangers vs their scare tactics. We were taught in health classes that potheads die from marijuana overdoses all the time, and quite often newcomers can die from heart failure on their very first joint. And I actually believed that stuff until halfway through college. Sure, it kept me off the grass (that and my severe intolerance for smoke), but that’s no way to be educating us. If I ever ran into my high school’s health teacher, it would take some serious restraint to stop me from punching her in the jaw. Oh yeah, and all the stories about the evil people who use Bart Simpson blotter paper and try to convince kids that their LSD is actually lick on tattoos? That didn’t even make SENSE…