So answer your own question, already!

[Leviosaurus]

@wolfman97

Why is marijuana illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal?

I think once I look past all the disagreement about threads and board etiquette, wolfman97 has a pretty good question here, and one I’d like Cecil to address sometime. In college, I heard a lot of stoner philosophy on why cannibis was illegal. Much of it had to do with conspiracy theories surrounding competition with Hearst paper mills, congressional payoffs and other “facts” of dubious origin. I’ve also heard the story that George Washington grew cannibis to use for dealing with the pain caused by his bad teeth, and that Henry Ford grew it for recreational use. Amusing as these stories are, I have yet to hear any authoritative source lend credence to them, so I remain doubtful.

Seems to me the Internet and other sources have become polluted with these same stories, with few (if any) actual peer reviewed research to back them up. Political agenda (both pro and anti cannibis) appears to cloud most if the reports I’ve read. I think it’s a great topic for the Straight Dope to address, and I thank wolfman97 for bringing it up. Interesting questions are supposed to be what this forum is about.

If there is a debate to be had over the netiquette of wolfman97’s posting style, I humbly suggest someone who cares open a GD or Pit thread to address it. If this thread needs to be moved, let the mods figure it out. That’s what they’re supposed to do, anyway.

Hey wolfman97, welcome to the Straight Dope!

[wolfman97]

@Bryan Ekers

Well, you’re misinterpreting. As far as I can tell, there have been two major suggestions as to where such a discussion could go:
[ul][li]General Questions: If you want a discussion on the history of drug regulations in America. This invites factual responses of what law what passed when and by whom.[/li][li]Great Debates: If you want a discussion on the validity, morality, or effectiveness of such laws, and if the laws were passed for invalid political reasons.[/ul][/li]
This doesn’t strike me as particularly confusing. Choose A for the who, what and when; choose B for the why. As it happens, though, threads that start out on A (or B) sometimes drift into B (or A) territory, and get moved as a result.

Uuuuh, yeah, maybe you didn’t notice that the other opinions seem to vary from yours. Like I said before, you guys take a vote on it and decide what you want and then get back to me. OK? I don’t know how to run polls here yet.

@Bryan Ekers

Well, good luck with that, but the advice about writing direct (and polite) e-mails is sound. Take it; don’t take it. That’s up to you.

That became increasingly obvious with each of your posts. Actually, I think we were more than generous in repeatedly inviting you to explain yourself.

Uuuuh, yeah. I caught that “generosity” right off with PriceGuy’s first response. I wasn’t in need of your generosity, anyway – as I already explained.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Offered as another piece of minor advice, you might want to ease back on the “uuuuh, yeah” stuff. It’s akin to the “Earth to Matilda” bit used repeatedly in the movie Zoolander.

In case you haven’t seen Zoolander, the person saying “Earth to Matilda” wasn’t particularly bright. Nowhere near as bright as Matilda, for instance.

@wolfman97

I don’t know how to run polls here yet

Until you learn such basic elements as the fact that polls don’t determine what forum a thread ends up in, you might want to lurk.
In any case, the question of why alcohol and tobacco remain legal is an interesting one, but your approach has been tainted by clumsification of phraseology.

[wolfman97]

@Bryan Ekers

Offered as another piece of minor advice, you might want to ease back on the “uuuuh, yeah” stuff. It’s akin to the “Earth to Matilda” bit used repeatedly in the movie Zoolander.

In case you haven’t seen Zoolander, the person saying “Earth to Matilda” wasn’t particularly bright. Nowhere near as bright as Matilda, for instance.

Thanks for the info. Did you take note that there was some sarcasm directed at me right from the get-go that wasn’t very bright?

@Bryan Ekers

Until you learn such basic elements as the fact that polls don’t determine what forum a thread ends up in, you might want to lurk.

I think we covered this before. I wanted to make a suggestion to Cecil. That was it. Then you guys came along.

And do take the time to read the thread about how this thread got here. As already stated, it wasn’t my doing so you guys should decide that among yourselves and get back to me. But I think I told you that before.

@Bryan Ekers

In any case, the question of why alcohol and tobacco remain legal is an interesting one, but your approach has been tainted by clumsification of phraseology.

I find it interesting that anyone who complains of a “clumsification of phraseology” even uses the word “clumsification.” If you want to know the truth, I would bet that I probably got better grades in English than you did.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@wolfman97

Thanks for the info. Did you take note that there was some sarcasm directed at me right from the get-go that wasn’t very bright?

Actually, right from the get-go (in this thread, anyway) Priceguy seemed to be making an honest attempt to give a simple answer to your question as well as suggesting that another forum would be a better source for more detailed responses. You’re free, of course, to disregard his advice. It’s the wholly uneccessary hostile attitude you threw in for free that amused me.

I think we covered this before. I wanted to make a suggestion to Cecil. That was it. Then you guys came along.

There’s nothing stopping you from making that suggestion in what will probably be a more effective manner, i.e. e-mail. Further, I made a suggestion in the GD (formerly GQ) thread that you write up an article-length essay about American drug policy and post it or submit it as a guest staff article. Up to now, I’ve seen a lot of “you’re completely wrong” responses from you, as well as links to lengthy articles, but no effort to succinctly and directly express your actual opinion in a tidy self-contained article.

And do take the time to read the thread about how this thread got here. As already stated, it wasn’t my doing so you guys should decide that among yourselves and get back to me. But I think I told you that before.

The moderators (of which there are not all that many, and the decision to move the thread was likely made by just one of them) make decisions on if and where threads should be moved, in accordance with some broad policies. I don’t know why you’re repeating this “among yourselves” bit like some kind of mantra, as though we were holding secret votes when you were out of the room or something.

I find it interesting that anyone who complains of a “clumsification of phraseology” even uses the word “clumsification.” If you want to know the truth, I would bet that I probably got better grades in English than you did.

Me fail English? That’s unpossible.
In SDMB parlance, it appears you have been “whooshed”.

[wolfman97]

@Bryan Ekers

Actually, right from the get-go (in this thread, anyway) Priceguy seemed to be making an honest attempt to give a simple answer to your question as well as suggesting that another forum would be a better source for more detailed responses. You’re free, of course, to disregard his advice. It’s the wholly uneccessary hostile attitude you threw in for free that amused me.

Uuuuh, yeah. Like a one-sentence entirely simplistic answer followed by “Next question” is an “honest attempt.” Uh-huh.

@Bryan Ekers

There’s nothing stopping you from making that suggestion in what will probably be a more effective manner, i.e. e-mail.

That’s the fourth suggestion on the list. Like I said, you guys vote on the right answer and get back to me. This thread isn’t in GD because I put it here.

@Bryan Ekers

Further, I made a suggestion in the GD (formerly GQ) thread that you write up an article-length essay about American drug policy and post it or submit it as a guest staff article. Up to now, I’ve seen a lot of “you’re completely wrong” responses from you, as well as links to lengthy articles, but no effort to succinctly and directly express your actual opinion in a tidy self-contained article.

Didn’t we just cover this in the last message? Did you read the part about how I thought Cecil’s answer might be more interesting than mine and I might actually learn something from it? Please review the thread until that point is clear, thanks.

@Bryan Ekers

The moderators (of which there are not all that many, and the decision to move the thread was likely made by just one of them) make decisions on if and where threads should be moved, in accordance with some broad policies. I don’t know why you’re repeating this “among yourselves” bit like some kind of mantra, as though we were holding secret votes when you were out of the room or something.

Look at the thread and count the number of people who have made suggestions as to where this thread ought to be and list their various responses. Then get back to m.

@Bryan Ekers

Me fail English? That’s unpossible.
In SDMB parlance, it appears you have been “whooshed”.

Giving your failure to pick up on points made repeatedly before, I don’t know that I would place much stock in that, whatever “whooshed” may mean.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Cecil does not answer questions posted to the SDMB if they require a long answer (and your question requires a long answer). Rarely he will post if it’s to correct a small mistake in a column. The only way that you can get him to write a column on a subject is to write him a polite letter (by snail mail or E-mail) in which you ask him to write a column on the subject. If you’re lucky, he will write such a column, although it might be months or years before he gets around to it. Cecil writes for money, and he’s not going to waste a long answer on something that will only be posted to the SDMB. The Straight Dope existed long before the SDMB came into existence, and it’s still a money-loser for The Chicago Reader.

[DrDeth]

@Wendell Wagner

Cecil writes for money, and he’s not going to waste a long answer on something that will only be posted to the SDMB. The Straight Dope existed long before the SDMB came into existence, and it’s still a money-loser for The Chicago Reader.

Did you mean to say that the SDMB is a money loser for The Chicago Reader? Or that Cece’s column is? Because I think the column makes a tidy profit.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Sorry, that last sentence was messed up. I meant that the SDMB is still a money-loser for The Chicago Reader.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@wolfman97

Uuuuh, yeah. Like a one-sentence entirely simplistic answer followed by “Next question” is an “honest attempt.” Uh-huh.

Actually, there were two sentences before the “next”, but no matter. To expand on it a little, I’d suggest that banning alcohol or tobacco now would be nigh-impossible, considering the multi-billion-dollar corporations involved in each product that would aggressively seek to protect their interests. How alcohol managed to get banned in the U.S. between 1919-1933 might be due in part to the general worldwide political climate of the time. The Great War and the 1919 influenza pandemic had just ended; surprising technological, scientific and social advances were coming; the raw power of 19th-century aristocrats and churches had largely evaporated and it was a time when western societies were open (or vulnerable, if you prefer) to radical political change. In Europe, this took form in (among other concepts) the rise of fascism and communism, while in the U.S. (and to a lesser degree, Canada) the temperance movement seized the chance to have their views written into law and thus forcing the nation to be moral. Prohibition proved unworkable, obviously, and was repealed. I don’t know offhand of a provincial-, state- or nation-wide tobacco ban ever implemented, even temporarily, in the U.S. or Canada, though there might have been cases of wartime rationing and whatnot.

Further, while tobacco companies have protected their interests with lobbying, as have post-prohibition alcohol companies, marijuana never had major industrial backing. I don’t see this changing even in places where it is nominally legal, i.e. Amsterdam. I can imagine British Columbia (and though far less likely, Alaska) legalizing the product, but it may take at least two generations for the stigma to sufficiently fade before we see advertising campaigns and industrial-level farming. It remains a subject on which a politician can score easy moral points and will likely remain so for quite some time. I suppose what is needed for change is a Presidential candidate who says “Yeah, I lit up and inhaled. It was dumb, but it didn’t hurt me and it was forty years ago. What’s the big deal? Let’s get back to the economy, stupid.”

Anyway, that’s a highly speculative start, and I’m not even claiming to be well-read on the subject. If you want to give me a one-sentence summary, stating that I am completely wrong, at least I won’t be surprised.

Did you read the part about how I thought Cecil’s answer might be more interesting than mine and I might actually learn something from it?

Well, I suggest you try a more polite approach. “So answer your own question, already!” sounds kinda rude to me. No wonder you aren’t being taken as seriously as you seem to want.

Look at the thread and count the number of people who have made suggestions as to where this thread ought to be

I think you misunderstood, though. This thread, as it is (nominally) about one of Cecil’s columns, is right where it should be. The topic, though, is not a Cecil exclusive and can be readily discussed in GQ or GD.

I don’t know that I would place much stock in that, whatever “whooshed” may mean.

I think you’ll be seeing it quite a bit, if you stick around. I suppose simple osmosis will make it clear sooner or later.

[wolfman97]

@Bryan Ekers

Actually, there were two sentences before the “next”, but no matter. To expand on it a little, I’d suggest that banning alcohol or tobacco now would be nigh-impossible, considering the multi-billion-dollar corporations involved in each product that would aggressively seek to protect their interests. How alcohol managed to get banned in the U.S. between 1919-1933 might be due in part to the general worldwide political climate of the time. The Great War and the 1919 influenza pandemic had just ended; surprising technological, scientific and social advances were coming; the raw power of 19th-century aristocrats and churches had largely evaporated and it was a time when western societies were open (or vulnerable, if you prefer) to radical political change. In Europe, this took form in (among other concepts) the rise of fascism and communism, while in the U.S. (and to a lesser degree, Canada) the temperance movement seized the chance to have their views written into law and thus forcing the nation to be moral. Prohibition proved unworkable, obviously, and was repealed. I don’t know offhand of a provincial-, state- or nation-wide tobacco ban ever implemented, even temporarily, in the U.S. or Canada, though there might have been cases of wartime rationing and whatnot.

Further, while tobacco companies have protected their interests with lobbying, as have post-prohibition alcohol companies, marijuana never had major industrial backing. I don’t see this changing even in places where it is nominally legal, i.e. Amsterdam. I can imagine British Columbia (and though far less likely, Alaska) legalizing the product, but it may take at least two generations for the stigma to sufficiently fade before we see advertising campaigns and industrial-level farming. It remains a subject on which a politician can score easy moral points and will likely remain so for quite some time. I suppose what is needed for change is a Presidential candidate who says “Yeah, I lit up and inhaled. It was dumb, but it didn’t hurt me and it was forty years ago. What’s the big deal? Let’s get back to the economy, stupid.”

Anyway, that’s a highly speculative start, and I’m not even claiming to be well-read on the subject. If you want to give me a one-sentence summary, stating that I am completely wrong, at least I won’t be surprised.

Close enough. I disagree about the time frame for changes in the laws but that’s probably because I got my crystal ball from the more expensive place.

Well, I suggest you try a more polite approach. “So answer your own question, already!” sounds kinda rude to me. No wonder you aren’t being taken as seriously as you seem to want.

I thought it pretty well reflected the same kind of tone that Cecil uses on people who ask questions, to somewhat humorous effect.

I think you misunderstood, though. This thread, as it is (nominally) about one of Cecil’s columns, is right where it should be. The topic, though, is not a Cecil exclusive and can be readily discussed in GQ or GD.

What can I tell you? Opinions obviously vary – even among the old timers here. Note the fact that I thought this was the appropriate place, too. That was before numerous other people came along with a handful of different ideas – and one of them forcibly moved the thread based on ideas that I have thought were erroneous from the first suggestion by PriceGuy to move it. But it never did much matter to me so you guys work it out.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@wolfman97

I thought it pretty well reflected the same kind of tone that Cecil uses on people who ask questions, to somewhat humorous effect.

Ah, but true Ceciling takes years of disciplined study and meditation, grasshopper. I haven’t even earned by brown belt, yet.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

I hope we all understand each other and are at peace now. I don’t want to see people fighting in this forum. There is another forum on the board (The BBQ Pit) for that.
The question about the origin of marijuana legislation is being discussed in another thread, so that question can be addressed here:
So why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana is illegal?