Why is marijuana illegal?

[viscousmemories]

Not to mention that it's damn cold there in the winter, but I suppose that's a given up north.

[Kevlar]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

You'll need three jobs to pay your rent but it's a pretty town.

growing pot + selling pot + smoking pot = 3 jobs

[Dingfod]

Farmers were still growing hemp in Kansas during WWII. Hemp makes the best ropes and durable canvas material. It doesn't rot easily. It is a strong fiber while still soft and pliable. An 8 inch thick hemp rope (line) used to tie off a ship in harbor can be coiled in a tight coil on deck. A manila rope of the same thickness is almost as stiff as a metal cable. Outlawing marijuana to the extent that it has has ruined legitimate uses of a very wonderful natural product. BTW, the U.S. Constitution is written on hemp paper.

[Dingfod]

To back that up, here's a paper promoting hemp grown for 4-H clubs in 1943.
Hemp For Victory

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

It's not a load of empirical evidence, but the pot laws in my hometown of Ann Arbor, Michigan are famously lenient, and it consistently ranks among the most desireable locations to live in America.

Of course it's also responsible for the Thomas More Law Center, but nobody's perfect.

ETA:

That's it?

A lower than the national average violent crime rate?

C'mon, vm, we all know that cannabis smokers haven't got the ambition to do anything that requires work. Violent crime requires work.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

To back that up, here's a paper promoting hemp grown for 4-H clubs in 1943.
Hemp For Victory

Boy howdy, I bet those 4-Hers had some bodacious harvesting parties!

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

To back that up, here's a paper promoting hemp grown for 4-H clubs in 1943.
Hemp For Victory

Here's the government propaganda movie of the same name. Amusingly enough, the federal government denied the existence of any such movie for decades until a couple of tapes turned up in somebody's home.

[Dingfod]

You removed my image showing a 1912 poster of valuable crops, which included things like hops, etc... and hemp (clearly depicted marijuana plants).

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Here's the government propaganda movie of the same name. Amusingly enough, the federal government denied the existence of any such movie for decades until a couple of tapes turned up in somebody's home.

I fell into your cunningly constructed link trap. You prankster!

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

You removed my image showing a 1912 poster of valuable crops, which included things like hops, etc... and hemp (clearly depicted marijuana plants).

I didn't remove it, actually. I just moved it into my cunningly constructed link trap. IOW, I fugged up.

Hemp for Victory, the movie. For reals this time.

[lisarea]

Legs, you can keep accusing people of having called to ban alcohol, but it looks like everyone's saying that's not true. I know I didn't get that impression at all, and I have no reason not to believe people when they say they didn't.

The reason people are using this as an analogy is that it is a pretty clear and obvious one, and it illustrates the point particularly well. The point being that the reason that marijuana is illegal is strictly political. Alcohol is a far more dangerous, addictive substance than pot, so it's hypocritical and just absurd for someone to argue against making alcohol illegal while at the same time supporting the prohibition on marijuana.

I'm interested in your argument about weakness, too. How far do you take that? From whence this strange, puritanical notion that there's something inherently weak about doing something for pleasure? Do you feel the same way about recreational drinking, recreational sex, recreational movie watching and music listening, roller coaster riding, and all the other unproductive things people do to enjoy and entertain themselves? Are you opposed to all efforts to tweak brain chemistry, or just those that tweak your brain chemistry directly, through ingestion? Or just those that tweak your brain chemistry directly, through ingestion, in smokeable form?

What is your fundamental objection to marijuana, and how do you apply the underlying principles of that objection to other things? Do you have any argument that's more substantive than the illegal=bad=illegal argument?

What is your reasoning? Your arguments are fuzzy, you don't seem to be very well informed on the issue, and you're resorting to what I suspect are intentional misinterpretations of others' arguments.

Do you actually have an argument that stands up to any scrutiny at all? I haven't seen one yet.

Fortunately, I've gotten the impression that ongoing efforts to demonize marijuana are falling flat. After all the time and effort and money that's been put into propaganda--all the studies trying and failing to find something damning about it, all the tax dollars spent on alarmist PSAs, all the DARE programs in the schools--people aren't buying it.

Twice, voters here have voted overwhelmingly in favor of medical marijuana. Possession of an ounce or less is decriminalized, and Denver recently voted (overwhelmingly) to legalize it entirely.

The people--at least here--don't want these laws.

[Ari]

IMO the war on drugs and especially the war on Marijuana is the creationism of the chemistry world. There are so many parallels it's amazing.

[BDS]

I smoke as much pot as the next guy, I'll warrant. But the "alcohol is legal, and it's more dangerous than pot, so pot should be legal too" argument seems a faulty one. Why does the one follow from the other?

It is certainly POSSIBLE that although alcohol is more addictive, dangerous and destructive to society than marijuana, it is reasonable that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. After all, we tried Prohiition (here in the U.S.), and abandonned it when we though it caused more problems than it resolved. Of course it is likely that pot prohibition ALSO causes more problems than it resolves, but that's a different argument.

Would it be fair to say, "Car accidents cause more deaths than garotting, so if we're going to make driving cars legal, we should allow people to garotte each other, too."?

[godfry n. glad]

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Ari

IMO the war on drugs and especially the war on Marijuana is the creationism of the chemistry world. There are so many parallels it's amazing.

You know, that's a darned interesting analogy.

I shall think on that.

[Ari]

I think what godfry is trying to say is, the same arguments used to keep pot illegal are valid with alcohol yet they are ignored.

Yep we tried prohibition and it failed, you would think we could learn from that, but the top supporters of the war on drugs have their fingers soundly jabbed into their ears, singing "lalala" all the way to the bank.

[BDS]

In the history of drug regulation, we tried a laissez faire approach (unregulated patent medicines ruled) and decided we didn't want that, either. It is, of course, strange that we regulate alcohol and tobacco completely differently from other drugs. But the long history of use for these substances MAY explain that. Marijuana regulations are stange because, unlike many drugs, marijuana is a natural substance that anyone can grow, and that need not be manufactured. It's bizarre that you can be arrested for possessing a plant.

Also, are our prisons filled with marijuana users and dealers? I have no idea if they are or not.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by BDS

I smoke as much pot as the next guy, I'll warrant. But the "alcohol is legal, and it's more dangerous than pot, so pot should be legal too" argument seems a faulty one. Why does the one follow from the other?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my question is how anyone can accept that the benefits of legal alcohol outweigh any potential societal risks, and turn that around in the case of marijuana?

Alcohol is riskier than marijuana. It's more addictive and more dangerous in any number of ways. But we recognize that the majority of people who use alcohol are productive, law-abiding members of society who do not abuse it, and who should have it available to them.

I want to know how anyone can understand that, and not apply the same reasoning to marijuana, a far more benign substance.

IOW, it's not some kind of "no fair!" argument, but an appeal to apply the reasoning people have apparently already applied to a strikingly similar subject.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by BDS

Also, are our prisons filled with marijuana users and dealers? I have no idea if they are or not.

It's not insignificant.

[BDS]

I'll agree that there are similarities between alcohol and marijuana (garottes and cars may lack the same).

However, there are also differences:

1) There's a history of alcohol use that goes back thousands of years in Western culture. The means we MAY understand alcohol use more thoroughly than marijuana use. I'm sure marijuana has been smoked in the past, but it wasn't as widespread as alcohol.

2) Alcohol has a long tradition of ritual use -- heck, Jesus turned water into wine for a wedding because it was unthinkable to get married unless everyone was drunk (a reasonable position). Prohibition prevented freedom of religion.

3) As a result of this long tradition, alcohol is (reasonably) regulated completely differtently from other drugs.

Most drugs are regulated by FDA. Cocaine, barbituates, opiates, etc are all legal -- but only when prescribed by a physician. Marijuana is legal (in some states) under the same conditions. The process by which a new drug is approved for use by FDA is expensive and extensive. I don't know the history, but I assume that alcohol avoided this process either because it is considered a beverage (not a drug), or because everyone was drinking it when the laws came into effect, so it was exempted (maybe the drug regulations came into effect during Prohibition -- it was some time around then).

It is certainly possible (even likely) that the war on drugs causes more societal harm than it prevents. However, the fact that alcohol is more harmful than LSD (for example) doesn't necessarily mean that we should allow hits of acid to be sold at every Seven Eleven.

Nobody denies that alcohol causes a lot of harm -- probably more than any illegal drug. I just don't think it necessarily follows that we should legalize all the illegal drugs. The benefits (and costs) of legalization should be considered on their OWN merits (looking, perhaps, at the lessons we've learned from alcohol regulation), without reference to alcohol or tobacco. After all, there's no guarantee that we are regulating alcohol or tobacco in the best way possible. Would it be reasonable to say, "Because 400,000 people die every year from cigarettes, we should allow use of any other drug, as long as it causes fewer than 400,000 deaths."?

[BDS]

Originally Posted by lisarea

It's not insignificant.

Thanks, lisa. 250,000 prisoners! Most of them imprisoned for possession!

That's a better argument for decriminalization than any comparison with alcohol -- in my opinion.

[slimshady2357]

Originally Posted by BDS

It is certainly POSSIBLE that although alcohol is more addictive, dangerous and destructive to society than marijuana, it is reasonable that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.

Yes, it's POSSIBLE. But one must show why it's necessary to have pot illegal but allow alcohol to be legal.

That's the point of the argument. There isn't one good reason why it should be so.

What is the compelling reason for taking away one liberty and granting the other? Why should the use of this (less dangerous, less addictive) recreational drug land you in jail when the use of another (more dangerous, more addictive) recreational drug be deemed A-OK?

I've not seen one reason that holds up to scrutiny.

[BDS]

That's where I disagree, slimshady.

In order to argue that pot should be illegal, one need only argue that pot should be illegal for reasons A, B, and C. One is neither logically nor morally required to mention alcohol at all. If (for example) we allow cigarettes, does that mean we must allow other addictive poisons?

Also, in my last post I gave several reasons why it is reasonable to make alcohol legal while keeping pot illegal.

[slimshady2357]

Originally Posted by BDS

That's where I disagree, slimshady.

In order to argue that pot should be illegal, one need only argue that pot should be illegal for reasons A, B, and C. One is neither logically nor morally required to mention alcohol at all.

I understand you disagree. I think it's because I think it's morally wrong to discriminate without good reason. Therefore, comparing the two situations is needed.

If (for example) we allow cigarettes, does that mean we must allow other addictive poisons?

Without a compelling reason why the other similar cases are being discriminated against, yes, I think you must produce consistency one way or the other. Take steps to criminalize cigarettes or steps to decriminalize the other similar cases.

Also, in my last post I gave several reasons why it is reasonable to make alcohol legal while keeping pot illegal.

Actually, I see historical reasons why the case is so, but no actual reasons why it should be so. Can you pinpoint what I'm missing as to why this liberty should be taken away?

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by BDS

I'll agree that there are similarities between alcohol and marijuana (garottes and cars may lack the same).

However, there are also differences:

OK. Those are some arguments that try to explain the differences in thinking about these two things. I disagree that any of the distinctions are very compelling, but I recognize that some people might think they are.

I'm mostly interested in clearing up the mischaracterizations of the arguments comparing alcohol and marijuana.