# What is the logic behind being ok with alcohol and tobacco and not with marijuana? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-logic-behind-being-ok-with-alcohol-and-tobacco-and-not-with-marijuana/356243 "2006-05-10T16:55:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-logic-behind-being-ok-with-alcohol-and-tobacco-and-not-with-marijuana/356243/41 "2006-05-18T00:58:23Z")
> [@OneCentStamp](#): > > And just like homegrown weed isn’t usually as good as a bag of good old sticky bud from Mexico, or really potent hydro from Canada…dude, what were we talking about just now? > > 🆒 Well, one would assume that if marajuana was legalized commercially available, you’d see a standardization and increase in quality there, too. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-logic-behind-being-ok-with-alcohol-and-tobacco-and-not-with-marijuana/356243/42 "2006-05-18T01:42:57Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > It’s not a question of math. You said that it was ‘natural’ as if it’s given that any drug must have substantial risks. Caffeine is used regularly by even more people than tobacco, yet it doesn’t cause more deaths than tobacco. No, I never said that it’s “natural” any drug must have substantial risks. I said that many more people are using alcohol and tobacco, so it’s natural that more people’s deaths would be related to them. In fact, my point was that you can’t derive the severity of risk just by looking at the number of fatalities. The number of fatalities is going to be higher if more people use a drug. The risks of caffeine are significantly lower than marijuana, and yet [people have died from caffeine overdoses](http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm/cmi_1514120). Does that mean we should ban caffeine and legalize marijuana? By your logic, it does. > [@](#): > > There are NO documented fatal overdoses, as opposed to the (avg) 317 annual alcohol overdose deaths. See post #16. First of all, post #16 did not say that there were no fatal overdoses from marijuana. Post #16 says “The CDC has characterized a few deaths as cannabis-induced and related.” And if you follow the link, the CDC has characterized deaths as being from “Acute Intoxication,” “Harmful Use,” and “Nondependent Abuse” of cannabis. Second, who cares? There are plenty of reasons to prohibit something besides the number of fatal overdoses. And marijuana is obviously being prohibited for reasons other than the number of fatal overdoses it causes. > [@](#): > > The connotation is used to indicate a strong majority. The number is close to 50%. ‘Most’ is a misplaced emphasis. Now you’re just making things up. “Most” merely implies what it means: “a majority.” I did not use the word inconsistent with its meaning. I did not inject some form of magical connotation that was inconsistent with its plain meaning. If you read something into the sentence that wasn’t there, I suggest you start reading more carefully. > [@](#): > > a)your numbers are from 2002; mine are from 2003 so no actual inconsistency there. Take another look at my quote. The numbers come from different years, but the 1 in 3 number comes from 2004. And while I think the difference between 55% and 67% is probably not that significant, the fact that you’re pestering me over whether 55% qualifies as “most,” the difference between those numbers may be relevant. > [@](#): > > b)your original statement was “most American **drinkers** do not have more than 1 or 2 drinks in a week”. (my emphasis). So the proportion of all adults doesn’t matter. I’ll concede that within the confines of that one sentence, taken out of context, the proportion of all adults doesn’t matter. But my larger point was that most adults don’t drink to get drunk (and that as a result, it’s easier to separate drinking and getting drunk than smoking and getting high). The group that decides whether something is prohibited is “all adults.” So within the larger argument, the proportion of all adults does matter. > [@](#): > > It’s not. You’re arguing that most people don’t drink to get “drunk”, but drunk isn’t the threshold to indicate alteration of consciousness, only that it’s the state where the intoxication becomes unavoidably apparent. First of all, what’s illegal is the level of impairment that comes with being overly intoxicated. Hence the use of the word “drunk.” Second, you may be (very) slightly impaired from 1 or 2 drinks, but I doubt you’ve achieved an alteration of consciousness. Third, the point is that people typically do not drink alcohol with the intent of becoming substantially impaired or altering their consciousness. They do (appear to) typically use marijuana with the intent of becoming substantially impaired. > [@](#): > > Strong pot can get you high in one puff just like 190 proof alcohol (Everclear) can get you drunk really quick. But that’s not the average pot out there. [sigh] Can strong alcohol – even Everclear – get you drunk in one sip? Once again, the point is that it’s easier to separate the casual use of alcohol from the casual use of marijuana. > [@](#): > > You said: “So what’s actually legal is the use of alcohol and **cigs** in amounts moderate enough to not alter your consciousness.”. What did you mean? Exactly what I said. Obviously, I’m not aware of any amount of cigs that can cause a person to become intoxicated. Which is probably why there’s no law prohibiting intoxication by cigarette. > [@](#): > > a)This does not even make sense. The purpose of a psychotropic drug is to alter consciousness. Which is exactly my point. If what’s being outlawed is the altered consciousness, and the purpose of these drugs are to alter consciousness, then it makes sense to outlaw the drugs themselves, rather than merely outlaw their use to excess (because any use is to excess). > [@](#): > > b)what’s the threshold for “altered consciousness”? Alcohol and even caffeine qualify, if any alteration is counted. You want me to tell you how much alcohol, caffiene, or marijuana is too much? I have no idea. It depends on the drug and it depends on the person. However, the state of Texas defines public intoxication as follows: > [@](#): > > A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another. The Texas DWI statute says you’re intoxicated when you have a blood alcohol content over 0.08, or when through the use of an alcoholic beverage, drug, controlled substance, or any combination thereof, you have lost the normal use of either your mental or physical faculties. So I’m going to go with that definition. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2006, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-logic-behind-being-ok-with-alcohol-and-tobacco-and-not-with-marijuana/356243/43 "2006-05-18T04:37:07Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > I said that many more people are using alcohol and tobacco, so it’s natural that more people’s deaths would be related to them. It’s true, but it’s not natural. Alcohol could cause fewer deaths despite higher use. It doesn’t. But this tangent is irrelevant to the larger point, so I’ll drop it. > [@](#): > > The risks of caffeine are significantly lower than marijuana, and yet [people have died from caffeine overdoses](http://www.ediets.com/news/article.cfm/cmi_1514120). Does that mean we should ban caffeine and legalize marijuana? By your logic, it does. The hypocrisy is over putative lower marijuana toxicity compared to alcohol and yet it being illegal. I have never advocated making caffeine (or alcohol) illegal. > [@](#): > > First of all, post #16 did not say that there were no fatal overdoses from marijuana. Post #16 says “The CDC has characterized a few deaths as cannabis-induced and related.” And if you follow the link, the CDC has characterized deaths as being from “Acute Intoxication,” “Harmful Use,” and “Nondependent Abuse” of cannabis. The findings of fact in the DEA case _does say_ that there are no recorded fatal overdoses. And from the ‘investigation’ link in #16: \*The other striking feature about the deaths attributed to marijuana is that none are described as being the result of poisoning or overdose. … After I extracted all the data for the cannabis deaths, I was able to decipher some, but not all of the codes I found. In addition, I discovered that the rules of which particular code was used for the underlying cause were apparently being violated for each of the deaths being blamed on marijuana use. The last entry in Part I is supposed to be entered as the underlying cause of death, and the additional data listed in Part II is specifically not supposed to be used as the underlying cause at all. However, I found that for the deaths blamed on marijuana, these rules were not followed.\*. In any case, here’s an [editorial](http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7416/635) about cannabis and mortality in the British Medical Journal: > [@BMJ](#): > > Firstly, we need to examine published data regarding use of cannabis and mortality. These data come from two large studies. The first study done in a cohort of 45 450 male Swedish conscripts, age 18-20 when interviewed about the use of cannabis, reported no increase in the 15 year mortality associated with the use of cannabis after social factors were taken into account.2 The second study was performed in a cohort of 65 171 men and women age 15-49, who were members of a large health maintenance organisation in California, United States. They completed a questionnaire assessing their use of cannabis, and reported no increase in mortality associated with use of cannabis over an average of 10 years of follow up, except for AIDS related mortality in men.3 A detailed examination showed that the mortality link between cannabis and AIDS was not a causal one. Thus published data do not support the characterisation of cannabis as a risk factor for mortality. > … > Although the use of cannabis is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality. > [@](#): > > “Most” merely implies what it means: “a majority.” Colloquially, ‘most’ implies a decisive majority. From the [thesaurus](http://www.answers.com/topic/most#Thesaurus) : “_Much more than half_” > [@](#): > > Take another look at my quote. The numbers come from different years, but the 1 in 3 number comes from 2004. The CDC cites “(Serdula, 2004)” as the source for the 1 in 3 number. Scroll down to see the title of the cited paper: “_Serdula M, Brewer R, Gillespie C, Denny C, Mokdad A. Trends in alcohol use and binge drinking 1985-1999. Results of a multi-state survey. AM J Prev Med 2004; Apr, 26(4)._” > [@](#): > > But my larger point was that most adults don’t drink to get drunk (and that as a result, it’s easier to separate drinking and getting drunk than smoking and getting high). But this is misleading since consciousness is altered before you reach ‘drunk’. You’re equivocating any ‘high’ to being ‘drunk’, but even cannabis produces levels of mild intoxication, a counterpart to the 2-3 drinks effect. Not all drugs have the ‘crack cocaine’ effect. > [@](#): > > Second, you may be (very) slightly impaired from 1 or 2 drinks, but I doubt you’ve achieved an alteration of consciousness. What’s your definition of altered consciousness? > [@](#): > > They do (appear to) typically use marijuana with the intent of becoming substantially impaired. “Substantially” impaired? Cite? > [@](#): > > Once again, the point is that it’s easier to separate the casual use of alcohol from the casual use of marijuana. By your definition of “casual” and what constitutes altered consciousness. In the dictionary, casual is “Occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals”. Anyway, this point’s moot, see below. > [@](#): > > Which is probably why there’s no law prohibiting intoxication by cigarette. > Which is exactly my point. If what’s being outlawed is the altered consciousness, and the purpose of these drugs are to alter consciousness, then it makes sense to outlaw the drugs themselves, rather than merely outlaw their use to excess (because any use is to excess). But the laws are against intoxication _in public_ because one might potentially endanger others, not the altering of consciousness itself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-logic-behind-being-ok-with-alcohol-and-tobacco-and-not-with-marijuana/356243.md?page=2)