So why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana is illegal?

[wolfman97]

@wolfman97

Just FYI, I have had a standing offer to post anything on my web site that is anything close to relevant research that expresses any point of view on the subject. I have had it for yours. You know, my personal commitment to openness and learning. That’s how I got all that research that people sent me. I read just about every bit of it before I posted it, too.

And just how much of that research did you read?

That should have been “I have had it for years” – since about 1994, to be exact.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@wolfman97

And just how much of that research did you read?

I don’t have a lot of faith in your interpretation.

[DrDeth]

@wolfman97

uuuh, I do recall that I was directed here because of the knowledgeable people I would find.

See the list of references above – the ones that refer to conspiracy and actions by the FBN. See also my summary of some particular actions by the FBN, Anslinger, and others. “Short quotes” aren’t exactly adequate.

Well, yes, but you deride and confidently state that everyone else but you are wrong, and allude that you know better, and have said you have evidence. So- list it. Come out with it, man. Don’t refer to an earlier post- if it’s there, cut & paste it to a reply. Spell it out. You “talked about how some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”- so lets see some proff of theat. Again- which laws and by who.

Use quotes as long as you need- within the limtitations of copyright laws.

Stop alluding and giving hints, stop being coy. Spell it out. You didn’t come here for answers- you clearly think you already KNOW the answers- so share them. Proof, cites, quotes.

[wolfman97]

@Bryan Ekers

I don’t have a lot of faith in your interpretation.

That wasn’t the question. If you don’t have faith in my interpretation then the logical thing to do is read it yourself and make your own. And you didn’t because . . . .?

[wolfman97]

@DrDeth

Well, yes, but you deride and confidently state that everyone else but you are wrong, and allude that you know better, and have said you have evidence. So- list it. Come out with it, man. Don’t refer to an earlier post- if it’s there, cut & paste it to a reply. Spell it out. You “talked about how some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”- so lets see some proff of theat. Again- which laws and by who.

Use quotes as long as you need- within the limtitations of copyright laws.

Stop alluding and giving hints, stop being coy. Spell it out. You didn’t come here for answers- you clearly think you already KNOW the answers- so share them. Proof, cites, quotes.

I will leave it to the moderators to decide whether it is polite to post many pages of text that is just a click away for anyone who was actually interested, anyway.

Do you have some problem that allows you to repeatedly click on links in this forum, but doesn’t allow you to go to any others?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@wolfman97

That wasn’t the question.

Sorry, nice conjecture, but completely wrong.

(see, it’s annoying when people do it to you, isn’t it?)

In any case, if I may suggest, why not write a 600-word essay on the subject (a typical length for one of Cec’s columns) spelling out the truth on American drug control policy (as you’re trying to encourage Cecil to do)? Make it a tidy little article with tight reasoning. You might even be able to submit it as a guest Staff Report. If you are as knowledgeable on the subject as you imply, this shouldn’t be particularly difficult and the results might be highly interesting.

If I may further advise, please don’t start with the assumption that your audience is stupid. Misinformed, sure (if you’re subtle about it), but the overall level of knowledge and intelligence on this board is pretty high, so think of it as an essay for a college textbook, with a few wisecracks thrown in. Naturally, once published, your essay becomes subject to analysis and criticism, but those should be easy enough to handle if you’re confident in your work.

Just a suggestion, of course. Take 1,000 words if you feel 600 are insufficient.

[DrDeth]

@wolfman97

I will leave it to the moderators to decide whether it is polite to post many pages of text that is just a click away for anyone who was actually interested, anyway.

Do you have some problem that allows you to repeatedly click on links in this forum, but doesn’t allow you to go to any others?

Becuase those links are very very long. And, I want YOU to tell US what YOU think, and back it up with cites, facts, quotes. I have asked twice before for “what laws and who” from your allegation that “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”" and you are still not forthcomng. Where, exactly is that info? Where EXACTLY on which cite? Give us a partial quote so we can find it in context. It no use saying “well, it’s there somewhere in the various huge sites I have directed you to”. Well, really- the main cite you have directed up to is Druglibrary- so exactly where (link and quote please, and directiosn to the chapter) where does it say that?

So- just don’t say “well it’s there-* somewhere*- in DrugLibrary”. In you post where you cite them 15 times you don’t give a link to that allegation.

Cite? :dubious:

[Sage_Rat]

Whitebread, with inanities removed:

The first testimony came from Commissioner Harry Anslinger, the newly named Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Anslinger gave the Government testimony–working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans.
“Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.” That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner

Since industries were going to be affected the next body of testimony came from the industrial spokesmen who represented these industries.

The first person was the representative of the rope industry. In total:
The growth of hemp to make rope was a principle cash crop in Northern Virginia and Southern Maryland at the time of the Revolutionary War. But, by about 1820 it got cheaper to import the hemp needed to make rope from the Far East and by 1937 hemp was no longer grown to make rope in this country.

The rope people didn’t care. The paint and varnish people said “We can use something else.” And, of the industrial spokesmen, only the birdseed people balked. The representative of the birdseed company was asked, “Couldn’t you use some other seed?”
“No, Congressman, we couldn’t. We have never found another seed that makes a birds coat so lustrous or makes them sing so much.”

So, on the ground that the birdseed industry needed it – continuing into modern day – an exemption from the Marihuana Tax Act exists for denatured seeds to be included in birdseed.

There was only one body of testimony left at these brief hearings and it was medical. There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.

The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, “Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?” The answer of the pharmacologist was, “I wouldn’t know, I am not a dog psychologist.”

In truth, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs is unknown.

The next item of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.”

Which, upon his saying, the congressman repeated, “The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.” A second of the Congressmen said, “Doctor, if you can’t say something good about what we are trying to do, why don’t you go home?”
A third Congressman said, “Doctor, if you haven’t got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you.”

At which point it must be mentioned that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation.

Later, in the House of Representatives they were getting ready to vote on the bill–without any discussion on the floor, nor recording the outcome–when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.

“Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

Undaunted, the representative from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Another representative who was on the committee (a Democrat) rose and said, “Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.” Which (even beyond misremembering the name of the Doctor) was false, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt’s desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.

As said, I am unimpressed. Minus the repeats of every other sentence in the original text with “Did you read that? He said XXXXX, yes he did, isn’t that interesting” there’s little left except a record of a boring afternoon in Washington DC talking over a non-issue narcotics bill.

Kill the grey background, learn how to write, and we will be much more impressed with your homepage.

[wolfman97]

@Bryan Ekers

Sorry, nice conjecture, but completely wrong.

(see, it’s annoying when people do it to you, isn’t it?)

No, not really.

@Bryan Ekers

In any case, if I may suggest, why not write a 600-word essay on the subject (a typical length for one of Cec’s columns) spelling out the truth on American drug control policy (as you’re trying to encourage Cecil to do)? Make it a tidy little article with tight reasoning. You might even be able to submit it as a guest Staff Report. If you are as knowledgeable on the subject as you imply, this shouldn’t be particularly difficult and the results might be highly interesting.

Please re-read the thread – the part about where I said my sole purpose was to perhaps inspire Cecil to do the same. You know, that part about where I thought his answer would be more interesting than mine.

@Bryan Ekers

If I may further advise, please don’t start with the assumption that your audience is stupid. Misinformed, sure (if you’re subtle about it), but the overall level of knowledge and intelligence on this board is pretty high, so think of it as an essay for a college textbook, with a few wisecracks thrown in. Naturally, once published, your essay becomes subject to analysis and criticism, but those should be easy enough to handle if you’re confident in your work.

Please re-read the thread – the part about how I had hoped that, because of the nature of this board, I would find people more intelligent and better educated than average. I didn’t start assuming anyone was “stupid” (to use your word, noting that it is not mine) until I started getting responses that were – shall we say – a bit less than “intellectual”.

@Bryan Ekers

Just a suggestion, of course. Take 1,000 words if you feel 600 are insufficient.

Just a suggestion - re-read the thread because all of your points were already answered before.

[wolfman97]

@Sage Rat

Whitebread, with inanities removed:
As said, I am unimpressed. Minus the repeats of every other sentence in the original text with “Did you read that? He said XXXXX, yes he did, isn’t that interesting” there’s little left except a record of a boring afternoon in Washington DC talking over a non-issue narcotics bill.

I guess you missed that part up front where it said that it was transcribed from a speech and, therefore, contains things that you might here in common speech that you wouldn’t see in a written essay. In the particular cases of the “inanities”, if you heard the tape you would have heard the judges laughing their asses off and the speaker verbally emphasizing the inanity of the whole story.

@Sage Rat

Kill the grey background,

Well, actually, it is there on the advice of people who seemed to be better educated in those topics than you have demonstrated so far.

@Sage Rat

learn how to write, and we will be much more impressed with your homepage.

I will put my English SAT scores, or academic record, against yours any time. Not that my writing ability has much to do with the actual subject anyway – but thanks for the ad hominem stuff.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Snowboarder Bo

Ummm, I can’t find my copy of Emporer so I’ll do my best to set this down from memory. I will prolly get a few things wrong; please forgive any errors or omissions.

What I remember is that marijuana was legal in this country until sometime last century. Pressure from powerful industry lobbies that competed with hemp sought to outlaw the production, distribution, possession and use of hemp. the over-riding reason for this, and what it made it so hard for hemp producers to fight back, was the fact that hemp can be used in so many different ways. Textile manufacturing, machine lubrication, medical uses, food products can all use hemp in some fashion or other. Marijuana’s use as a drug was also demonized in popular culture (most famously in the film now known as Reefer Madness).

This is why that ‘Emporer’ book is so misleading.

First of all, many of hemps qualities have been overstated, and many of its detriments have been ignored.

Textiles: This is hemp’s strong area. It does make a tough cloth and rope. But they are prone to rot. That’s about it. At the time of its banning, rope was about the only use and that was a drop in the bucket for Duponts’ production of Nylon, which was being used as fast as they could produce it for other things. Of course, the qualities of hemp weren’t needed much by our forefathers/mothers. Go to a textile museum or quilt museum and show me where the hemp quilts are. The reason hemp was ordered grown back in the old days is because it was needed for sailcloth.

Medicine: Iffy. Cannabis’ benefirs are mostly through smoking.

Food: Forced. Possibly some benefits to vegans, but for others it isn’t needed.

Paper: This is where Hearst gets fitted into the conspiracy picture. The idea being that his vast tracts of paper forests would be useless once we started using hemp for paper. Trouble is, hemp makes lousy paper. Old editions of “Pulp and Paper” describe hemp paper as being ‘of the lowest quality’. This situation has not improved.

Now the problems with hemp:

Harvest: A hemp harvest is murder on farm machinery. Harvesting it by hand can stymie the toughest old farmer.

Instrusive: It may grow like a weed, sure, but it intrudes like one too. This does not make it environmentally friendly.

As for the legitmacy of the conspiracy, Cecil covered it:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_131.html

Eventually, Congress passed legislation banning marijuana.

I know I left out a lot of details and anecdotes. Emporer is a thoroughly researched account of this story and does a much better job than my poor paraphrasing. I highly recommend that anyone interested in this issue or in the machinations of our government give this book a look.
Bo

“Emporer” is a pure piece of propaganda disguised as well researched. Among some of the tricks Herer uses is to assume that all cloth-based paper of yesteryear was ‘made with hemp’. He assumed this since he felt the ragman would travel by the docks as much as the farmhouse. But the paper mills of that day would be certain to get hemp out of the regular linen material.

Expanding on this Herer claims that the Declaration was written on Hemp paper. It was not, it was on parchment, and the paper of the early drafts would have been linen based.

[Magiver]

Addressing the original question, why alcohol, tobacco are legal and marijuana is not is part sociology and part regulatory. Alcohol is legal because the populace wants it to be and it is a product that can be regulated. Tobacco, while still legal, is rapidly approaching the day when it will not be. Marijuana is following the same tract as alcohol (legal, not legal, probably legal some day). When it becomes more accepted in society and when it becomes easier to regulate it will someday become legal. It is already in the stage where criminal penalties for personal consumption have been reduced.

I do see a problem with the production and sale of it. Government regulation will certainly require a low THC content, which will make the pot-heads seek out the good stuff. Which will be illegal. Which brings us back to square one. And there will also be the health aspects associated with inhaling smoke. In a political atmosphere of “death to cigarettes”, pot will be attacked for the same reason. It won’t matter if it is less harmful than tobacco. It will be demonized.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@wolfman97

Just a suggestion - re-read the thread because all of your points were already answered before.

Would you consider, as a suggestion, putting all these points in one succinct internally-consistent piece of writing, offered to the readers as though approaching the subject with a clean slate? What Cecil does isn’t exactly superhuman, after all. I’m pretty sure a sufficiently motivated person with access to research materials and a grasp of the English language could do (nearly) as well.

[wolfman97]

@Mr. Miskatonic

Textiles: This is hemp’s strong area. It does make a tough cloth and rope. But they are prone to rot. That’s about it. At the time of its banning, rope was about the only use and that was a drop in the bucket for Duponts’ production of Nylon, which was being used as fast as they could produce it for other things. Of course, the qualities of hemp weren’t needed much by our forefathers/mothers. Go to a textile museum or quilt museum and show me where the hemp quilts are. The reason hemp was ordered grown back in the old days is because it was needed for sailcloth.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, hemp was widely used by our forefathers/mothers. For one thing, the covered wagons that crossed the prairie were covered in it. As for it rotting – it does far better than most other natural fibers in that regard, which is why it was used for sailcloth. Of course, it isn’t nearly as resistant to rot as nylon and I would agree that hemp wouldn’t be a real competitor for most of nylon’s uses.

@Mr. Miskatonic

Medicine: Iffy. Cannabis’ benefirs are mostly through smoking.

You need to do more research on that. They are discovering astounding things about the medicinal properties of marijuana and there is no real question that it has medicinal properties, and quite a few of them at that. The US Government even distributes it as a medicine. Also, the medical benefits are available through other forms of ingestion than smoking.

@Mr. Miskatonic

Food: Forced. Possibly some benefits to vegans, but for others it isn’t needed.

Cannabis seed is quite nutritious and was once a common food. The biggest objection to it is that most people don’t think it tastes very good.

Is any individual food “needed”?

@Mr. Miskatonic

Paper: This is where Hearst gets fitted into the conspiracy picture. The idea being that his vast tracts of paper forests would be useless once we started using hemp for paper. Trouble is, hemp makes lousy paper. Old editions of “Pulp and Paper” describe hemp paper as being ‘of the lowest quality’. This situation has not improved.

Depends on how you define “quality”. If you mean “slick and glossy”, as in magazines, then you would probably be correct. If you mean “durable” then you probably wouldn’t.

@Mr. Miskatonic

Now the problems with hemp:

Harvest: A hemp harvest is murder on farm machinery. Harvesting it by hand can stymie the toughest old farmer.

As with every other crop that is difficult to harvest, there are solutions to the problem.

@Mr. Miskatonic

Instrusive: It may grow like a weed, sure, but it intrudes like one too. This does not make it environmentally friendly.

I don’t think anyone argued that hemp is environmentally friendly because it grows like a weed. More along the lines of it grows fast and can thus take carbon dioxide out of the air, etc.

@Mr. Miskatonic

As for the legitmacy of the conspiracy, Cecil covered it:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_131.html

Agreed. I think Cecil got it right.

[wolfman97]

@Magiver

Addressing the original question, why alcohol, tobacco are legal and marijuana is not is part sociology and part regulatory. Alcohol is legal because the populace wants it to be and it is a product that can be regulated.

Well, it seems to me that there is a whole nother story hiding behind that “populace wants it to be” illegal. That’s not something that just occurred as a natural course of events like the tide coming in.

As for “can be regulated” – why can’t any of these drugs be regulated just as effectively as alcohol?

@Magiver

Tobacco, while still legal, is rapidly approaching the day when it will not be. Marijuana is following the same tract as alcohol (legal, not legal, probably legal some day). When it becomes more accepted in society and when it becomes easier to regulate it will someday become legal. It is already in the stage where criminal penalties for personal consumption have been reduced.

Nobody can predict the future very well, but there are major experts who would agree with your statement.

@Magiver

I do see a problem with the production and sale of it. Government regulation will certainly require a low THC content, which will make the pot-heads seek out the good stuff. Which will be illegal. Which brings us back to square one.

If 190 proof Everclear is legal – and can kill you with just a little misjudgment – then why would high-potency marijuana – which has zero potential for killing someone – be illegal?

@Magiver

And there will also be the health aspects associated with inhaling smoke. In a political atmosphere of “death to cigarettes”, pot will be attacked for the same reason. It won’t matter if it is less harmful than tobacco. It will be demonized.

There are other ways to ingest it other than smoking. Vaporization is one way, and eating is another.

I agree that it will (continue to) be demonized.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Magiver

And there will also be the health aspects associated with inhaling smoke. In a political atmosphere of “death to cigarettes”, pot will be attacked for the same reason. It won’t matter if it is less harmful than tobacco. It will be demonized.

This just in:

Marijuana smoking -“even heavy longterm use”- does not cause cancer of the lung, upper airwaves, or esophagus, Donald Tashkin reported at this year’s meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society.
…
It is Tashkin’s research that the Drug Czar’s office cites in ads linking marijuana to lung cancer. Tashkin himself has long believed in a causal relationship
…
Of five smaller studies on the question, only two -involving a total of about 300 patients- concluded that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer. Tashkin decided to settle the question by conducting a large, prospectively designed, population-based, case-controlled study. “Our major hypothesis,” he told the ICRS, “was that heavy, longterm use of marijuana will increase the risk of lung and upper-airwaves cancers.”
…
The Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance program provided Tashkin’s team with the names of 1,209 L.A. residents aged 59 or younger with cancer (611 lung, 403 oral/pharyngeal, 90 laryngeal, 108 esophageal). Interviewers collected extensive lifetime histories of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and data on diet, occupational exposures, family history of cancer, and various “socio-demographic factors.”
…
Tashkin controlled for tobacco use and calculated the relative risk of marijuana use resulting in lung and upper airwaves cancers. All the odds ratios turned out to be less than one (one being equal to the control group’s chances)! Compared with subjects who had used less than one joint year, the estimated odds ratios for lung cancer were .78; for 1-10 j-yrs, .74; for 10-30 j-yrs, .85 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 0.81 for more than 60 j-yrs. The estimated odds ratios for oral/pharyngeal cancers were 0.92 for 1-10 j-yrs; 0.89 for 10-30 j-yrs; 0.81 for 30-60 j-yrs; and 1.0 for more than 60 j-yrs. “Similar, though less precise results were obtained for the other cancer sites,” Tashkin reported. “We found absolutely no suggestion of a dose response.”
…
“So, in summary” Tashkin concluded, “we failed to observe a positive association of marijuana use and other potential confounders.”

There was time for only one question, said the moderator, and San Francisco oncologist Donald Abrams, M.D., was already at the microphone: “You don’t see any positive correlation, but in at least one category [marijuana-only smokers and lung cancer], it almost looked like there was a negative correlation, i.e., a protective effect. Could you comment on that?”

“Yes,” said Tashkin. “The odds ratios are less than one almost consistently, and in one category that relationship was significant, but I think that it would be difficult to extract from these data the conclusion that marijuana is protective against lung cancer. But that is not an unreasonable hypothesis.”

[wolfman97]

@II Gyan II

This just in:

There are possibly some good reasons why marijuana might have a protective effect against cancer. Various ingredients in marijuana have been shown to reduce tumors.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@wolfman97

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, hemp was widely used by our forefathers/mothers. For one thing, the covered wagons that crossed the prairie were covered in it. As for it rotting – it does far better than most other natural fibers in that regard, which is why it was used for sailcloth. Of course, it isn’t nearly as resistant to rot as nylon and I would agree that hemp wouldn’t be a real competitor for most of nylon’s uses.

Not so certain about it doing better than linen or cotton as far as rot goes. I have yet to see a side-by-sde comparison.

Hemp, however, is a bitch to work with. I have known seamsters and clothiers who have said they would rather sew leather than hemp. Speaks volumes.

You need to do more research on that. They are discovering astounding things about the medicinal properties of marijuana and there is no real question that it has medicinal properties, and quite a few of them at that. The US Government even distributes it as a medicine. Also, the medical benefits are available through other forms of ingestion than smoking.

I might need to do research, true. But this is always offered as a “potential” benefit wihtout much specifics. I know what THC can do, for example, but hemp advocates always mention the low THC levels in Hemp.

Cannabis seed is quite nutritious and was once a common food. The biggest objection to it is that most people don’t think it tastes very good.

Rather large detriment, wouldn’t you say?

Is any individual food “needed”?

No, but to list is as a method of revolutionizing our food industry (which advocates for hemp have done) in light of the problems is not exactly fair.

Depends on how you define “quality”. If you mean “slick and glossy”, as in magazines, then you would probably be correct.

Slick and glossy is due to coatings. Coatings that hemp won’t take…

If you mean “durable” then you probably wouldn’t.

I mean as in: Takes ink very, very, very, very badly compared to pulp paper, or even linen paper.

As for durability, it doesn’t tear easily, but don’t fall for that “No bleach, no acid” bit.

As with every other crop that is difficult to harvest, there are solutions to the problem.

We have been waiting some time for them. Hemp is illegal here, but not elsewhere, and solutions are still not coming.

Solutions never present themselves with many crops. Strawberries, for example, are picked by hand by leaning over and picking the fruit from ground level. This is hard labor and is only covered by the eventual costs of the berries.

I don’t think anyone argued that hemp is environmentally friendly because it grows like a weed. More along the lines of it grows fast and can thus take carbon dioxide out of the air, etc.

But it does intrude, and it is in invasive. It is rarely a good idea to introduce a plant like that on the basis of imagined benefits: Think Kudzu.

[Magiver]

@wolfman97

Well, it seems to me that there is a whole nother story hiding behind that “populace wants it to be” illegal. That’s not something that just occurred as a natural course of events like the tide coming in.

As for “can be regulated” – why can’t any of these drugs be regulated just as effectively as alcohol?

If 190 proof Everclear is legal – and can kill you with just a little misjudgment – then why would high-potency marijuana – which has zero potential for killing someone – be illegal?

There are other ways to ingest it other than smoking. Vaporization is one way, and eating is another.

I agree that it will (continue to) be demonized.

Can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said except that it has the same potential to kill someone as alcohol while driving. Shitface-drunk and shitface-stoned are the opposite sides of the same coin of stupidity. Most people who have matured passed the Spring Break side of alcohol/pot defer to a minimum amount of inebriation.

Also, I didn’t realize Everclear was 190 proof. Pretty stupid level of alcohol for consumption, even if it’s watered down in a drink. But then, most people drink alcohol to get high so it’s probably the shortest distance to achieve that goal.

I would like to see pot decriminalized further to that of a parking ticket. Not sure I want to add more intoxicants to the list of the driving impaired. That’s more of a slippery-slope concept than a justification for pot vs. beer argument. Despite my belief that people are maturing at slower rate I believe the tougher DUI laws are having a positive effect.

[II_Gyan_II]

@Magiver

Can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said except that it has the same potential to kill someone as alcohol while driving.

Cite?