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

[wolfman97]

@Magiver

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.

I certainly would agree that people ought to be sober when they are driving. However, there just isn’t any real evidence that pot has any big negative effect on driving for experienced users. (New users are another matter, but I would guess that, for various reasons, there aren’t a lot of stoned new users on the road at any given time.)

For example, the US Government’s own studies indicate that marijuana is only a very minor part of the overall road problem, if that. Alcohol gets credit for about half of all the deaths, and all the illegal drugs combined don’t come close to that total. Never have and never will – just because of the difference in the effects on people. Most of those drugs – marijuana included – don’t impair physical coordination like alcohol does.

Some research from Australia and the Netherlands indicates that (experienced) stoned drivers may be safer, on average, than straight drivers. They figure this is not because marijuana is not intoxicating (it clearly is), but that the effects related to driving are not severe and the users are able to compensate for them. In fact, it would appear that they overcompensate and tend to drive more carefully as a result. (Not that this is a recommendation for driving while stoned – just that I am indicating the real results of research.)

In 1980, Road and Track did an article titled “Puff the Dangerous Driver” in which they attempted to show the dangerous effects of driving while stoned on pot. They took two groups of drivers. One group got increasing doses of alcohol, while the other got increasing doses of pot. Then they put them through a driving course. The alcohol drinkers’ driving rapidly went to hell. However, the pot smokers got gradually better at the course.

@Magiver

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 don’t think 190 proof is allowed in all jurisdictions. The highest I have ever seen in California is 151 but then I don’t frequent bars and liquor stores very much, being the sober person that I am.

@Magiver

I would like to see pot decriminalized further to that of a parking ticket.

If it is decriminalized to that point, then what would be the point in having any penalty at all – other than to perhaps keep the black market alive?

Just FYI, in the US Government’s own surveys, kids commonly report that it is easier to get illegal drugs than the legal ones. This was the same condition with alcohol during alcohol prohibition. That indicates to me that we do better when we know who the sellers are and can license them and somewhat control their behavior.

@Magiver

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.

See the note above about the relative hazards on the road. While this may be a logical worry, there isn’t any evidence to support the idea that legalizing marijuana would have much effect one way or the other.

Driving while impaired would always be illegal no matter what the laws, anyway – just like with alcohol, which you can get anywhere and is a far bigger problem on the road than any of the illegal drugs.

[Arwin]

@DrDeth

And, in a way- they are right. Pot is a “gateway drug”- to a large extent becuase kids often buy it from the same dudes that sell harder stuff. And the reason why the dealer also sells harder stuff is because it’s all illegal.

You’ve just made the exact argument that made the Netherlands single out Marijuana for semi-legality: to separate it from the stronger, more dangerous stuff.

[DrDeth]

@DrDeth

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:

You still haven’t give us the cites i asked for here. In fact all you have done is said 're-read the entire thread and every link I have posted- the answer is in there somewhere" :rolleyes: We don’t work that way. If you answer is in a previous post- quote it, ot “cut and paste”. If it is in a long link- tell us where and give us a quote to help us find it- if indeed a quote won’t just answer the question.

And- a quote should be enough to answer the question I posed above. You have made an extraordinary claim of illegal activities " “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”"- so you must back them up with a cite.

Arwin- yes, I know- but it works both ways. Currently pot IS a “gateway drgu” and the dudes in America’s heartlands are scared of their kids on durgs.

[wolfman97]

@DrDeth

You still haven’t give us the cites i asked for here. In fact all you have done is said 're-read the entire thread and every link I have posted- the answer is in there somewhere" :rolleyes: We don’t work that way. If you answer is in a previous post- quote it, ot “cut and paste”. If it is in a long link- tell us where and give us a quote to help us find it- if indeed a quote won’t just answer the question.

And- a quote should be enough to answer the question I posed above. You have made an extraordinary claim of illegal activities " “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”"- so you must back them up with a cite.

I see no real point in posting something again if you didn’t read it the first time and/or can’t click on a link. Some of the articles are long, but others are well within your attention span, I am sure.

@DrDeth

Arwin- yes, I know- but it works both ways. Currently pot IS a “gateway drgu” and the dudes in America’s heartlands are scared of their kids on durgs.

No, it isn’t. We have a “gateway drug policy.” The idea really has nothing to do with the effects of the drug and it is wrong to describe it as an effect of the drug.

[jimpatro]

Are you kidding? I’m assuming you toke up. You know what impairment is.
What was that recent train wreck attributed to pot? I’ll track down some DUI accident and death stats.

Meanwhile…doesn’t it really just boil down to: “Dewd, I smoke pot, I love it, I need it, I ain’t never gonna stop so I think I’ll come up with rationalizations to make it okay.”

Who on the outside is really going to give credence to the International Cannabinoid Research Society?

wolfman97, since you’re open to new information and fighting ignorance, what would you do if the “research” started skewing the other way? Would you give up smoking pot and encourage others to do the same thing. Or is it just impossible in your mind for that to occur? Did you decide to smoke pot first or was it after stumbling upon all this information you’ve shared?

[DrDeth]

@wolfman97

I see no real point in posting something again if you didn’t read it the first time and/or can’t click on a link.

I didn’t “read it the first time” as you have never posted it.

Again, CITE? for “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”.

[jimpatro]

My last post was in regards to this by II Gyan II
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

[wolfman97]

@DrDeth

I didn’t “read it the first time” as you have never posted it.

Again, CITE? for “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”.

OK, for the “scrolling-up challenged”:
THE NARCOTICS BUREAU AND THE HARRISON ACT: JAILING THE HEALERS AND THE SICK - http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/king1.htm Another excellent historical work for those interested in conspiracies. Let me give you the ten-cent summary. The US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Federal narcotics agents had no business interfering in the medical prescription of narcotics, even if those prescriptions were solely for the purpose of maintaining an addict on their drug of choice.

In response, the FBN sent deliberately wrong fliers to doctors about USSC decisions and indicted thousands of doctors. They never brought any of the doctors to trial because they knew they would lose every case. But the indictments alone were enough to silence dissent among doctors. As for the “conspiracy” – clearly there were multiple people in government acting together to break and abuse the law – to the great detriment of the medical profession and the American public.

It comes from Page 2 of this thread. Are we now agreed that it was posted, that the article is short enough to be within your span of attention, and that you apparently missed it completely before?

Thanks for your agreement.

[jimpatro]

wolfman97

In fact, it would appear that they overcompensate and tend to drive more carefully as a result.

And this used to be the reasoning when it came to cell phone usage while driving.
Of course now the tables have turned and its becoming illegal to do so in some states. Ever been cut off by somebody who was too busy talking to signal?

[wolfman97]

@jimpatro

wolfman97
And this used to be the reasoning when it came to cell phone usage while driving.
Of course now the tables have turned and its becoming illegal to do so in some states. Ever been cut off by somebody who was too busy talking to signal?

Yep. Just reporting the results of the research, my friend, and there are some good reasons to think that it might be true for marijuana but not for cell phones.

Not that I am recommending anyone drive stoned, of course. Just trying to give some sort of analysis of the relative hazards on the road. Bottom line, there is no real evidence that marijuana is much of a hazard on the road.

[DrDeth]

@wolfman97

OK, for the “scrolling-up challenged”:
THE NARCOTICS BUREAU AND THE HARRISON ACT: JAILING THE HEALERS AND THE SICK - http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/king1.htm Another excellent historical work for those interested in conspiracies. Let me give you the ten-cent summary. The US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Federal narcotics agents had no business interfering in the medical prescription of narcotics, even if those prescriptions were solely for the purpose of maintaining an addict on their drug of choice.

In response, the FBN sent deliberately wrong fliers to doctors about USSC decisions and indicted thousands of doctors. They never brought any of the doctors to trial because they knew they would lose every case. But the indictments alone were enough to silence dissent among doctors. As for the “conspiracy” – clearly there were multiple people in government acting together to break and abuse the law – to the great detriment of the medical profession and the American public.

It comes from Page 2 of this thread. Are we now agreed that it was posted, that the article is short enough to be within your span of attention, and that you apparently missed it completely before?

Thanks for your agreement.

Not at all. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with MARIJUANA and “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”. In fact, it has nothing to do with the OP of this thread. :rolleyes: You hijacked your own thread.

But in any case- if Federal Agents made an arrest- and if that arrest had to go all the way to SCOTUS to be finally ruled illegal- then no, it wasn’t " plainly illegal". “Plainly illegal” cases/actions don’t have to go to SCOTUS. it’s only those which have good points on each side. Good god man- is that the best you can do? Some actions by the government were ruled illegal by SCOTUS, so clearly those who commited those actions were engaging in a criminal conspiracy?

And if the indictments were so “clearly illegal”- where are the Civil cases for false arrest arising out of them? :dubious:

[II_Gyan_II]

@jimpatro

What was that recent train wreck attributed to pot? I’ll track down some DUI accident and death stats.

Please do.

Meanwhile…doesn’t it really just boil down to: “Dewd, I smoke pot, I love it, I need it, I ain’t never gonna stop so I think I’ll come up with rationalizations to make it okay.”

Why don’t you disprove these “rationalizations” rather than dismissing them by insinuation.

Who on the outside is really going to give credence to the International Cannabinoid Research Society?

You should read more carefully. The ICRS is not a research institute. It is a society which arranges for symposiums for researchers to meet and collaborate. This new research was conducted by the same researchers who the Drug Czar i.e. ONDCp earlier cited. That should answer your question as to who takes “them” seriously.

[wolfman97]

@DrDeth

Not at all. None of that has anything whatsoever to do with MARIJUANA and “some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials”. In fact, it has nothing to do with the OP of this thread. :rolleyes: You hijacked your own thread.

No, re-read from the start again. “My” thread would have ended with the first post, if it hadn’t been for you guys.

@DrDeth

But in any case- if Federal Agents made an arrest- and if that arrest had to go all the way to SCOTUS to be finally ruled illegal- then no, it wasn’t " plainly illegal". “Plainly illegal” cases/actions don’t have to go to SCOTUS. it’s only those which have good points on each side. Good god man- is that the best you can do? Some actions by the government were ruled illegal by SCOTUS, so clearly those who commited those actions were engaging in a criminal conspiracy?

Did you notice the part about where I said the arrests came AFTER they lost the USSC decision? And that they deliberately misrepresented the decisions? I guess not.

@DrDeth

And if the indictments were so “clearly illegal”- where are the Civil cases for false arrest arising out of them? :dubious:

Well, any individual doctor would find it far less expensive and safer for the career not to try to sue the Feds. After all, the FBN could still arbitrarily pull narcotics licenses which would immediately put any opponents out of business.

[DrDeth]

@wolfman97

No, re-read from the start again. “My” thread would have ended with the first post, if it hadn’t been for you guys.
Did you notice the part about where I said the arrests came AFTER they lost the USSC decision? And that they deliberately misrepresented the decisions? I guess not.
Well, any individual doctor would find it far less expensive and safer for the career not to try to sue the Feds. After all, the FBN could still arbitrarily pull narcotics licenses which would immediately put any opponents out of business.

All threads would have. :rolleyes:

“deliberately”? Prove it. :dubious: And- no doctor could stay in business without a narcotics license? Don’t know much about the practice of medicine do you? :dubious:

Not one Doctor- or the AMA as a group- would decide to fight? Nonsense. :dubious:

In any case- you made a point that "“some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials” in a thread about “So why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana is illegal”. Your postings here seem to indicate that you think that there was an illegal conspiracy to make Pot illegal- depsite the fact that Cecil has proved otherwise, and you have given us no evidene whatsoever as such an illegal conspiracy.

Sorry dude you lose. You keep trying the old 'well, I did prove that already" and “No, re-read from the start again”- when it can be clearly shown that you haven’t. Next you have tried the old coy and disengenious ploy of “well, I know the real answer, but ain’t gonna tell”. :rolleyes: Your cites are 99% from one highly biased and hard to read site. “When come back- bring facts.”

[wolfman97]

[QUOTE=jimpatro]
Are you kidding? I’m assuming you toke up. You know what impairment is.
What was that recent train wreck attributed to pot? I’ll track down some DUI accident and death stats.{/quote]

Good. Let me help you get started. References on Drugs and Driving

@jimpatro

Meanwhile…doesnt it really just boil down to: “Dewd, I smoke pot, I love it, I need it, I ain’t never gonna stop so I think I’ll come up with rationalizations to make it okay.”

Only if you are into really stupid humor that was stale thirty years ago. The Federal Government’s own analysis of prohibition showed that legalization would save at least 37 billion dollars annually. Those are your tax dollars being wasted, whether you smoke pot or not.

@jimpatro

Who on the outside is really going to give credence to the International Cannabinoid Research Society?

Probably anyone who was actually familiar with who is a part of it. It includes some of the leading experts in the world – Tashkin just being one.

@jimpatro

wolfman97, since you’re open to new information and fighting ignorance, what would you do if the “research” started skewing the other way?

Well, actually, I have done quite a bit to find opposing research and, yes, if I find some that disagrees with my point of view, I have no hesitation about posting it for all the world to read (at my expense, I might add.)

Over the last fifteen years I have asked ever US Drug Czar a simple question:

Can you name any significant study of drug policy that supports what we are currently doing?

I got a response from all of them. Not one could name any such study. That is, as opposed to the collection I amassed at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

So, yeah, I would probably change my opinion. But I hope you can understand why I think that, if the US Drug Czars can’t come up with anything, it ain’t very likely.

The question is open to you, too. Do you know of any significant study of drug policy that supports what we are currently doing? If you do, I will be highly interested, because you will be the first.

@jimpatro

Would you give up smoking pot

That’s a stupid assumption for which you have no evidence. Are you for or against alcohol prohibition? Does that make you a beer drinker if you are opposed to alcohol prohibition?

@jimpatro

and encourage others to do the same thing.

I never encourage anyone to use any recreational drug, coffee and tea included. whether they continue to do it is not my decision.

@jimpatro

Or is it just impossible in your mind for that to occur? Did you decide to smoke pot first or was it after stumbling upon all this information you’ve shared?

Your assumption that I have ever smoked pot is not supported by any evidence that has appeared here. See my answer above about the likelihood of the evidence showing that prohibition is a good idea.

Do you have any research of your own to show that drug prohibition is a good idea? No? I didn’t think so, and that would be entirely consistent with the thousands of people I have seen before with the same routine as yours above.

[jimpatro]

Do we really need research to show that murder should be prohibited?
No, I’m not putting both crimes on an even par. My point is that I’ve been around people who get goofy or impaired as a result of pot use. I’d rather someone in that state not be driving a school bus or operating a drawbridge et al. And many parents feel the same way. We don’t need to take a chance that things will be just fine if it is legalized. Maybe they will but again we don’t need to chance it.

Regarding 37 billion dollars annually spent on the “drug war.”
Does that mean we should just give up? It costs too much or its just too hard.
So we change the laws?

Anyway we wouldn’t spend so much if people just respected the law.
This country provides so many freedoms and opportunities, when the government turns around and asks something of us we should say “how high?” and not get high.
Its the honorable thing to do.

[jimpatro]

And wolfman, I’ll withdraw that mistaken assumption. I rally for the rights of homosexuals or minorities even though I don’t fit into all categories.

[wolfman97]

@jimpatro

Do we really need research to show that murder should be prohibited?

No, probably not. That clearly harms people. But did you ever read the research on the drug laws and the harm they cause?

No, I’m not putting both crimes on an even par.

That’s good.

My point is that I’ve been around people who get goofy or impaired as a result of pot use. I’d rather someone in that state not be driving a school bus or operating a drawbridge et al. And many parents feel the same way. We don’t need to take a chance that things will be just fine if it is legalized. Maybe they will but again we don’t need to chance it.

Alcohol is legal. Does that mean it is OK to drive a school bus or operate a drawbridge while drunk? Do we have to make alcohol illegal for everyone to prevent that? Would it even be a good idea to try to make alcohol illegal for everyone to prevent that sort of stuff?

If you will read the research you will find that there isn’t much chance that there will be any disastrous effect on society. You could say that witches should be illegal with better evidence. When there are 750,000 people being arrested every year and billions of your tax dollars being spent, don’t you see some kind of civic duty to get accurate information and make a rational decision?

Regarding 37 billion dollars annually spent on the “drug war.”
Does that mean we should just give up? It costs too much or its just too hard.
So we change the laws?

It means we recognize that there are cheaper ways to approach the problem that have far better results. That’s not “giving up”. It is recognizing that we made a mistake in the first place and correcting it.

Anyway we wouldn’t spend so much if people just respected the law.

Yeah, maybe so. It would also be good if they ate fewer cheeseburgers. But there are millions of people who are not going to take your good advice. Therefore, we have to deal with the situaton as it is.

This country provides so many freedoms and opportunities, when the government turns around and asks something of us we should say “how high?” and not get high.
Its the honorable thing to do.

Yeah, I agree. Let’s drink a toast to that, OK? I will buy you a beer and we can celebrate the good wisdom.

What you wish for is nice, all right. I will agree with you that we would probably be better off if people didn’t take drugs and stuff. (Although that point could be well-argued over a couple of beers.) But the fact is that there has been perhaps only one society in the history of the world that did not use recreational drugs.

Can you guess which one it is?

Given that drugs will probably be with us until the end of time – and that some scientists argue that we have an innate drive to change our consciousness – I think we are going to have to go with the proposition that there are probably going to be millions of pot smokers, beer drinkers, and others for as long as you and your great-grandchildren are going to be alive.

Therefore, we should take the policies that produce the best overall results with the lowest tax expense to the good, pure folk like you and me. Wouldn’t you agree?

[wolfman97]

@jimpatro

And wolfman, I’ll withdraw that mistaken assumption. I rally for the rights of homosexuals or minorities even though I don’t fit into all categories.

Let me give a brief bow to your honor in saying so. Thanks.

[wolfman97]

@DrDeth

All threads would have. :rolleyes:

“deliberately”? Prove it. :dubious:

Read the articles. I am sure your attention span will handle it.

And- no doctor could stay in business without a narcotics license? Don’t know much about the practice of medicine do you? :dubious:

I talk to a number of medical experts in the field on a daily basis, and I wrote the text of a medical malpractice insurance policy, among other things. So I think I know a fair bit about this issue.

Not one Doctor- or the AMA as a group- would decide to fight? Nonsense. :dubious:

So read the research. Civil rights lawsuits were not all that common in the 1920s.

In any case- you made a point that "“some of the articles described deliberate and plainly illegal actions by Federal officials” in a thread about “So why are alcohol and tobacco legal while marijuana is illegal”. Your postings here seem to indicate that you think that there was an illegal conspiracy to make Pot illegal- depsite the fact that Cecil has proved otherwise, and you have given us no evidene whatsoever as such an illegal conspiracy.

No, you apparently missed something. I already agreed with Cecil that there was no Hearst-DuPont conspiracy. That seems clear enough from the evidence. However, the actions of others amounted to what would now be recognized as a criminal conspiracy.

Sorry dude you lose. You keep trying the old 'well, I did prove that already" and “No, re-read from the start again”- when it can be clearly shown that you haven’t. Next you have tried the old coy and disengenious ploy of “well, I know the real answer, but ain’t gonna tell”. :rolleyes: Your cites are 99% from one highly biased and hard to read site. “When come back- bring facts.”

In case you missed it (and I know you weren’t aware) the research is recognized to be the best available on the subject. It includes the full text of numerous historical documents. But I am pretty used to people absolutely refusing to read it because it is “too long” even while they spend more time writing uneducated responses and reading longer stuff in forums like these.

But, like always, if you know of any research that tells the story better, I am always interested to hear about it. Hell, that’s why I came here to drop Cecil a note in the first place.

But you don’t have any research that explains it any better, do you? In fact, I would wager that you don’t have any research at all on the subject, better or worse. Is that a fair bet?