Interesting, but it looks like they have been a little selective with their data (which is unserstandable, given the site’s specific agenda. I didn’t scrutinise every article there in detail, but some of them seem worthless as science, for example:
A group of TEN? against a control group of TEN? Sheesh. It may be that there is something to the claim, but trying to demonstrate it with such a tiny sample is just plain stupid.
Or maybe the other 200 tests didn’t provide the results wanted, so they were discarded.
Why is this driving business so important? There are all kinds of ways of impairing your ability to drive. Do we prevent new kinds of sleeping pills or cough mixture coming onto the market because they would add to an already present danger?
This is a red herring. The probability of being killed or maimed by an impaired driver would be massively reduced by banning alcohol. All this talk of such a ban being “unfeasible” is irrelevant: we are debating here! Once marijuana had been legalised for w while, it would be unfeasible to ban, surely?
I don’t honestly know why we seem to have latched onto it, perhaps it is just the easiest example of something that could be adversely affected.
To be fair, sleeping pills and cough mixtures aren’t generally used in the same kind of recreational context as dope; people don’t drive to parties where cough syrup is passed around, well, not much in my part of the world.
Yes, it would, but this also is a red herring; we would find it difficult to ban alcohol completely (there is, however, already a ban on driving under the influence). We pretty much have to live with the unpleasant side effects of having alcohol deeply integrated in our cultures. We’re stuck with the problems that alcohol can cause, and these may well be more significant and serious than any that could be caused by marijuana (or they may not), but that isn’t sufficient justification to permit or tolerate whatever additional problems marijuana may bring.
And yet we can be intellectually honest by advocating the legalisation or banning of a given substance, else we surely fall prey to the fallacy of argument ad populum?
I honestly don’t know.
Are we saying that the alcohol thing boils down to:
A is already permitted/tolerated
A is possibly worse than C
C is not yet permitted/tolerated
Therefore either:
?
Yes, if we are to be intellectually honest.
And I would argue that A is not “possibly” but demonstrably worse than C under every relevant and testable criterion.
I suppose; I put ‘possibly’ in there because the actual effects (upon any particular society) of legalising marijuana are unknown until it is actually done, but I’m quite happy to omit the term, so:
A is already permitted/tolerated
A is worse than C
C is not yet permitted/tolerated
Therefore either:
I don’t think this argument necessarily holds water in all possible scenarios; perhaps it would if we were ‘starting fresh’ and deciding which, if any, items to permit/ban in a brand new civilisation, but we aren’t in that position.
Banning alcohol is unfeasable. All one needs to do is look at the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution for the ultimate proof of that.
Continue that quote, AD.
This is a debate. Of all those who say that banning alcohol is unfeasible, I ask:
Is it right?
The very first thing I said in the entire thread addresses the second part of that quote. I think all drugs should be legalized. What else is there to say?
No, because it is unfeasible.
How is that not simple argument ad populum, that something is right or wrong simply because many people believe it?
Stongly agree. Decriminalize it.
Because the existing integration of alcohol in our society is a much deeper and broader phenomenon than one consisting merely of popular opinion. Removing it, or attempting to remove it, would have effects far more reaching than simply upsetting sensibilities.
Well, argue how you will, but I feel that appealing to the status quo just because it is so is rather circular (and, incidentally, used in many sinister or dubious instances - “but we’re used to slavery!”) - far better that we each have the courage of our convictions and advocate our honest opinions on how the status quo should be changed, don’t you think?
Perhaps, but in this case, preventing the influx of new misery (even though that misery may be entirely imaginary) is easier than dealing effectively with established sources of misery. Alcohol has its ‘foot in the door’ (for better or worse), but that shouldn’t automatically compel us to open it wider and let other things in.
I’m quite prepared to be won over on this though.
But the fact is, the new misery is already here. All legalizing does is acknowledge the fact and allow regulation. There would certainly be an increase in MJ users if it was legalized, but I do not think that there would be a vast upswing in the number of problem users. Alcohol use post-prohibition seems to support this belief, as the US was NOT swamped by millions of drunks all of a sudden.
I think that most people familiar with users will agree that someone who uses pot every day is negatively affected by it, and that an excess of pot will affect your reflexes and driving ability. Legalizing, regulation, and REAL education will help with these abuse cases. Current education of “Drugs are bad, mmm-kay?” helps no-one.
We’re stuck with the problems that marijuana brings, too. We should not be stuck with the problems that prohibition of marijuana brings, though. Marijuana may not be as established as alcohol, but it is very much established in our society and I think it would be wrong to claim that it is not.
Regarding the percentage that had ever used marijuana, “Among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rate increased slightly from 53.0 percent in 2001 to 53.8 percent in 2002.”
Mangetout,
Indeed, what “new misery” is being prevented by keeping pot illegal?
Let us look at a few comparisons:
First, there are no countries where pot is legal and regulated; only where it is decriminalized. For example in the Netherlands possesion is illegal, although use is not (?). The Netherlands has half the usage rate as the US. But more than other European countries. So hard to interpret.
How about a comparison to regulated recreational drugs? Tobacco is harder for kids to get a hold of than is pot. Tobacco has its potency regulated. Getting hold of tobacco does not expose kids to an underworld of other drugs.
It seems that having made pot a target of a Drug War has increased the misery (assuming that such is correlated with a drug of greater potency being more widely available to underage users).
Legalization with tight controls (including hefty fines for public use) may actually decrease the misery that is already extant.