Oh, boy--ex is going to love me for this one... :cool:

I was thinking over the weekend about the differences between tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. Oddly enough, I was doing so while on my back patio enjoying a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, a chew of Levi Garrett, and listening to Willie Nelson's reggae CD (called "Countryman," if anyone's interested. GREAT CD! )

Anyway, I was considering the health risks of tobacco, and the financial toll it takes. We all know about the cancer risks and whatnot, and we all know how much it costs these days due to government taxation. We've heard all about the lawsuits filed against the tobacco growers, and the anti-tobacco campaigns that are ongoing.

Then there's alcohol. I don't care much for liquor (except rum), but I do love a good wine and good beers. Actually, I'll take cheap beer if that's all there is. You all know the best beer in the world is whatever beer's in your fridge at the moment...
The price on alcohol has gone steadily up, there's been tons of lawsuits against those who sell and serve alcohol, the health risks of consistent overindulgance have been well-documented. Our ER's are packed every weekend with victims of those idiots who feel they can still drive a car even though they can't even walk or speak. Having a second job as a bouncer at a nightclub, I feel that I can fairly safely say that there's a whole bunch of unwanted pregnancies as a result of alcohol consumption, as well. Many times that results in an additional burdening of an already overburdened public assistance system.

Alcohol and tobacco are both legal, even though they've both been totally demonized by American society. Yet the sales and consumption of both are still pretty steady, despite the well-known health risks and high prices.

My question is this: if marijuana were to be legalized, then governed, regulated, and taxed just like alcohol and tobacco, would we really be any worse off? I mean, I know that the companies that make snack foods would see an immediate increase in profits. ;)

But seriously--I hate drugs with everything I've got. I hate the culture that goes with it, I hate the birth defects, I hate the crime--all of it. I would never in a million years advocate the legalization of cocaine, heroin, meth, opium, or any of the hard, addictive stuff.

I'm just wondering if the government is missing out on a potential gold mine here.

Just speculating--NOT advocating anything one way or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

My question is this: if marijuana were to be legalized, then governed, regulated, and taxed just like alcohol and tobacco, would we really be any worse off? I mean, I know that the companies that make snack foods would see an immediate increase in profits. ;) But seriously--I hate drugs with everything I've got.

---

Hello Dennis:

Spoken like a true conservative.

I only have a couple things to say about it. You knew I would.

Worse off? No, better off. 1) The jail population would be reduced by, oh I don't know, let's say 25%. That'll save us a BUNCH – I'm talking billions here. 2) Taxes of course, would increase, and that's good. 3) Hemp fiber makes cheaper paper than trees, and more ethanol than corn per acre. That's actually HUGE. 4) We could actually concentrate on the drugs that ARE doing great harm, instead of linking them to pot. In fact, when the government lies about pot, young people think they're lying about the other drugs too. 5) All the young people who have been denied college loan assistance because of a minor possession charge, would be able to go to college and that's good. 6) My stock in Frito-Lay will soar. 7) Maybe some people who use (are being poisoned by) tobacco might find another way to get buzzed. That wouldn't be bad.

I don't know, there's more, but that's enough for now.

excon

I asked this in "Politics." Any idea how it ended up here?

Hello again, Dennis:

I don't know. These moderators think they run the joint.

excon

DK Been looking for this since you posted it. The mods like things posted in question form.

As to the issue raised . I do not know why one drug is legal and the other isn't . Why not coke ? By the logic of the legalize pot crowd since an addictive substance like tobacco and booze is legal then anything else prohibited becomes a hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Why not coke ?

---

'Cause too much caffeine is bad for you.

Really, though--I think if this is to be debated, we have to realize the inherent dangers in each drug, and by dangers I mean to public safety.

Tobacco: yeah OK, secondhand smoke kind of sucks to us non-smokers. But we've always been able to deal with it before... Other than that, I've never seen a case where someone shoots up a restaurant because they were on tobacco.

Alcohol: FAS and drunk driving--two HUGE ones.

Pot: well, it seems like they get awful hungry, awful contemplative, and kind of dumb. Hell, we've got people out there like that NOW that aren't on ANYTHING.

Coke: I've seen them get pretty violent and uncomfortable to be around.

On and on we go.

I'm just trying to find the logic in both sides of the marijuana debate. Seems kind of flimsy to me on both sides.

By the way, saw a funny T-shirt in the mall the other day:

"God made weed. Man made beer. Which one would YOU choose?"

I have been for the legalization of marijuana for going on 17 years now (that's almost half my life, for those that care).

Like alcohol, there are actually health benefits to using pot in moderation.

The problem is that we're losing the "War on Drugs" (stupid war to begin with) and granting pot any sort of legal status will be a setback in that war --we'll have lost a battle, so to speak.

Unfortunately, there are so many conservative people out there that believe all of the evils of pot. Personally--I'd rather see someone smoke up than drink. At least they're less likely to drive, less likely to engage in violent behaviour, less likely to be mean, and less likely to hurt someone else. I've never yet met a 'violent smoker' like I have a violent drunk, and back in my college days when I was around it more--it was the drunks pressuring me for casual sex, not the budheads.

I hope to see it legalized in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath. I think it's MORE likely that tobacco and alcohol will be made ILLEGAL than pot made legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

I think it's MORE likely that tobacco and alcohol will be made ILLEGAL than pot made legal.

---

I didn't want to bring that up, but yeah--I can totally see that happening. I've been around a few years longer, and have seen the gradual demonization of both alcohol and tobacco. However, as long as the gov't reaps benefits off those who use such things, it'll never be illegal.

I used Excon's line about hemp (re alternate fuel ) on my wife . She thought it was a riot.

I can only speak testimonial . I have no hard science to back up what I say .

As a former pot head I have to say the dangers inherent are much more subtle ;but real nonetheless. For one thing ;you are never truly sure when you are sober enough to function behind the wheel because the effects last much longer . I would have to say that there are a lot of unreported vehicle incidents related to being under the influence of pot or cases where it's influence was not immediately evident .

For another ;I would have to say it did have a negative impact in the direction my life was headed towards . I probably lost close to 10 years where the pot culture was front and center in my life to the detriment of my for lack of better phrase "growing up " . I found I lost a lot of my ambition and drive to succeed and I now wonder sometimes if I could've done more .

One more thing ; I saw first hand where pot was a " gateway drug " for a few of my friends. ; the first time I went to one of my friends house and smelled the free basing that was going on was the day my girl friend's (now my wife) asking me to quit finally sunk in.

Again ;I'm not using my experiences as an argument for or against . Just saying that it's effect was a little more complex than a case of the munchies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

I didn't want to bring that up, but yeah--I can totally see that happening. I've been around a few years longer, and have seen the gradual demonization of both alcohol and tobacco. However, as long as the gov't reaps benefits off of those who use such things, it'll never be illegal.

---

That's almost exactly what I was going to say. The government won't give up the tax revenues generated by these two industries, despite all the harm being done by them.

I've been a smoker, but not much of a drinker in my life.

I live in MN, where they just passed that stupid ban on smoking in public places.

It ticks me off that the revenue the government gets from me buying cigarettes is used to make places I can't smoke in.

I've been seriously contemplating trying to ban liquor in any place but a bar or your own home--no stadiums, no restaurants, no public fairs--just to see how long it would take for the drinkers to swear that they're not doing any harm to anyone at the place except themselves--except that they eventually have to go home, and I'd rather that the legal limit for drinking was 0.00. NO driving if you've had ANYTHING to drink! I saw a show once where people had a dinner party and drinks afterward, and got up the next morning to go to work, and were tested before they could drive. Only ONE of them passed, 8 hours later, the legal drinking limit for driving. I don't think it's less of a judgement reducer than pot is--seriously, people who drink ALWAYS seem to think they can drive, whether they can.

The other side of that argument--that pot is a gateway drug--WOULD it be, if it were legal?
If you could get it from a licensed vendor, and not a drug dealer, would it lead to more drugs? I mean, come on! The drug dealer is going to pressure you to try his more expensive stuff, isn't he? So if you could get it at, say, a hemp bar--do you really think it would lead to more drugs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kindj

Really, though--I think if this is to be debated, we have to realize the inherent dangers in each drug, and by dangers I mean to public safety.........

---

Hello again, Dennis:

Alrighty then, let's have that debate.

Actually, I'm not going to debate the dangers of each drug. They're ALL dangerous - even pot. Besides, if DANGER is the issue, we'd have to make both tobacco AND alcohol illegal.

I want to talk about prohibition. If there's a danger to public safety, it's from prohibition, not drugs. I wouldn't think I would have to argue that point since we have a history that's pretty clear on the subject. So I won't. To those of you who think drug prohibition is different than alcohol prohibition, I'm not going to change your mind. Clearly, under prohibition, people were killing each other over alcohol, and now they don't. There's a message there.

I agree that anything short of drug legalization in its entirety would be unworkable and hypocritical. However, I'm sure that if it's going to happen at all, it's going to happen in half steps.

excon

PS> I've known a lot of drug users in my lifetime. I've never known one who got high and said let's go rob a 7/Eleven. I know you think drugs do that. They don't. The HIGH PRICE of drugs has something to do with it, but that's a function of prohibition, not drugs themselves. If they were legal, they'd be CHEAP.

PPS> Oh, you say. If we legalized drugs, there would be more people doing drugs. I suggest not. Do you know anybody who would do drugs if they were legal who isn't doing them now?? I don't think you do.

Oh, I don't know. I'm a reasonably healthy guy--take care of myself, eat halfway decent, lift heavy crap for fun. But I also enjoy a beer and a chew--both of which are dangerous, yet legal.

I don't smoke pot. If it were legal, I would give it a go.

So there may be something to the illegal=prevention argument. Not 100%, but a little.

I've said this before - if there was a reliable, on-the-spot method for testing for intoxication from pot, I'd be all for its legalization. That way a limit can be set (like a breathalyzer) and anything beyond that limit you cannot operate a vehicle legally. As of right now, there is no such method, so officers would be forced to use their own judgement on if a person is high or not, and well... officer judgement is another thread!

When I've mentioned this before it has been pointed out there is no method for testing for intoxication of pain pills, or other things which people take to get high, but they are legal. To this I say true, but those are substances which must be obtained through a prescription, not just picked up at 7-11. So yes, this means I am A-OK with legalization of pot for medicinal use.

And I agree with kindj; if pot were made legal more people would give it a go. They might not become regular users, but I could see people having it at Friday night parties and sports events, just as alcohol is there. I only drink socially; if pot were legal I might smoke socially (probably not, I don't really like it, but you get my point).

Jillian I agree with your excellent points . Let me add that there is no such an animal as a social pot smoker in the same way as you describe it. The person who smokes pot gets high ,and high in a hurry . I can have a drink and safely drive home. That was never the case when I smoked pot. Every night out was a risk to myself and to others . The reason I did not wreck a car and do injury to myself and others ? Pure luck .

Actually, what I meant as a "social smoker" is one who does it only on nights out, at parties, holidays, celebrations, etc. I'm not trying to make a claim on how intoxicated a person gets by being an "social smoker" or an "avid smoker". In other words, if pot were legal, excon would smoke daily (I'm guessing :)), whereas I might only smoke on July 4th and my birthday. That would make me a "social smoker". Would I get high from it? Probably. Would excon get high off sharing one joint with me? Probably not. But intoxication wasn't my point, frequency of use was.

ENERGY CRISIS: Ford And Diesel Never Intended Cars To Use Gasoline

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.

Click info

Rudolf Diesel, the inventor of the diesel engine, designed it to run on vegetable and seed oils like hemp; he actually ran the thing on peanut oil for the 1900 World's Fair. Henry Ford used hemp to not only construct cars but also fuel them.

As an alternative to methanol, hemp has at least one glowing report: the plant produces up to four times more cellulose per acre than trees. And a hemp crop grows a little more quick than a forest.

As for an alternative to petroleum...

Hemp grows like mad from border to border in America; so shortages are unlikely. And, unlike petrol, unless we run out of soil, hemp is renewable.

Growing and harvesting the stuff has much less environmental impact than procuring oil.

Hemp fuel is biodegradable; so oil spills become fertilizer not eco-catastrophes.

Hemp fuel does not contribute to sulfur dioxide air poisoning.

Other noxious emissions like carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are radically slashed by using "biodiesel.

Hemp fuel is nontoxic and only a mild skin irritant; anybody who's ever cleaned out an old carburetor with gasoline can confirm the same is not true for petrol.

Growing hemp for fuel would be a tremendous boon for American farmers and the agricultural industry, as opposed to people like, say, the Bush family.

Big Oil does not want hemp legalized!

YouTube - Ford Hemp Car

Do you have data on how much energy it takes to convert hemp to fuel ? The ratio required to convert corn to fuel is one of the many reasons I oppose the practice and the rush to convert a food source into a fuel for my car.

Hemp conceivable would satisfy one of my objections but if it takes a lot of energy to convert it then it would not be an efficient use of the plant.

Quote:

---

Growing hemp for fuel would be a tremendous boon for American farmers and the agricultural industry...

---

Perhaps that is true ;but the corn to fuel converion has also been a boon that has left a lot of unintended consequences .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

In other words, if pot were legal, excon would smoke daily (I'm guessing :)),

---

Hello again, jillian:

It IS legal for me, jillian. I have a prescription. I'm smoking right now...

What was the question?

excon

PS> Way to kick butt, mag.

Then I guess my guess was right, huh excon? :)