Why is marijuana illegal?

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by BDS

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.

I agree that it is. The arrest numbers are even more disturbing.

I'd like to see statistics on civil forfeitures and other effects of criminalization as well.

Again, my point in bringing up alcohol is to draw a parallel between the reasoning behind allowing recreational substances. Most Americans seem to recognize the trade-offs involved in allowing alcohol, and the effects that its criminalization had.

And overall, I think most Americans recognize that the government should be restrained when interfering with what adults do in the privacy of their homes. The alcohol comparison is maybe just a concise way of trying to get people to divorce their notions about marijuana from the propaganda.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by BDS

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).

Alcohol was recognized as "medicinal" before the FDA was created, matter of fact you could legally obtain alcohol during prohibition by getting your doctor to write a prescription for whiskey. Most drugs were banned after prohibition since prohibitionists couldn't get alcohol. After prohibition alcohol regulation was given to the states (which is why laws vary so much between states and even counties). The feds maintain basic regulations over it and only recently have they overridden some of the state regulations.

As others have said the point is if you claim to ban drug A because it's dangerous but you allow a more dangerous drug B to be sold it seriously brings into question your claims that drug A should stay banned because it's dangerous.


ETA: unrelated to that I think many people don't realize how many people in the government need the war on drugs. The 10-20 billion dollar spent doesn't go to charity but to special law enforcement task forces, their bosses and politicians. It also provides a good platform for re-election. Government agencies have made plenty of claims now known to be false and don't want to admit they were wrong so more money goes to lying about drugs and creating BS propaganda campaigns. In a way the people who fight the war on drugs are more addicted and dangerous than the drug addicts on the street.

[cappuccino]

Originally Posted by BDS

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.

I don't see why historical usage should be a compelling reason for alcohol to be legalized instead of marijuana which apparently has a shorter history. Tobacco doesn't have a history as long as alcohol but yet it's legal. Both tobacco and cannabis have been used for rituals and one can argue that tobacco is much worse than marijuana in terms of health risks but yet here we have the bizarre case of tobacco being perfectly legal and even legally available to people at an earlier age than alcohol.

Also just because we're intimately acquired with the effects of alcohol for millennia doesn't mean that it should be legalized as opposed to marijuana. We already know the effects of marijuana as well as we do for alcohol. It's not required to have been using something for centuries to understand what it does to human bodies. It seems to me that it's only been within the last century when we actually even understood the effects of alcohol on the human body in fine details. So the argument that alcohol's been around for thousands of years isn't a compelling reason by itself to keep booze legal while outlawing marijuana which was already used for a respectful number of centuries.

I agree that drug use is a social problem but as a criminal problem, no it's not and as we all have seen, criminalizing a social problem was an abyssal failure. But then we shouldn't have been surprised considering the federal record for trying to solve problems by simply criminalizing them.

The situation in jails is simply horrific and untenable. As most of you are aware of, last week, some senators were trying to pass a bill to make illegal immigration a felony. How's the federal government going to enforce that law with 10 million immigrants and crowded prisons already overflowing with hundreds of thousands of people jailed for marijuana and other drugs posession? The insanity of the government is just beyond belief, how the hell could people actually think they could do this? Something has to give somewhere.

Sheesh and people say that we should trust the government?

[Dingfod]

Over a million gallons of alcohol a year were dispensed by pharmacists during Prohibition.

[godfry n. glad]

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:

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.

This is a ethnocentric opinion. If by "Western culture" you mean European, then you MAY be correct. However, the use of cannabis in the United States came with two sources: black African slaves and infiltration of cultural mores from the Latin countries from Mexico on south. The later are arguably "Western".

Then, use of cannabis in Euroasia goes back millenia. Since it did not require the discovery of a fermentation process, I think we can assume that it was being used long before any alcoholic beverages. It is spread over the entire land mass and had migrated to Africa before the dawn of history there. It came to the Americas with the slaves and spread quite well here. And, it is still used in central Asia (it's postulated point of origin) for ritual purposes. After passing through the indoor market in the holy city of Bukhara, a beggar woman with a smoking tin can solicited change from my fellow travelers and I. If you paid her anything, she wafted smoke on you as a blessing. The smoke: you guessed it, cannabis. And, a friend of mine lived in Yunnan, in far southwestern China, and informed me that cannabis grows wild along roadsides throughout the province. It's free, it's potent and the government does not care about its citizens smoking it. He says it's much the same all over Southeast Asia and south Asia.

Lastly, cannabis has a long history of being a medicinal. A common medicinal. Even, and especially in Western culture. That tradition may go back further than those associated with 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.

So does cannabis. If you pick and choose the cultures you wish to include or exclude, then yes, you can successfully exclude cannabis. But if you wish to be honest, there are many traditions which used cannabis for all sorts of uses, including ritual use. So, the prohibition still prevents freedom of religion.

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

So, cannabis' long tradition is as long, if not longer, than alcohol. Just not in your particularly little social group. Why are they treated differently? The answer has repeatedly been that the cultural group which predominately uses alcohol and does not use cannabis much, if at all, uses the variant tradition of smoking cannabis as a marker to suppress peoples of thos variant traditions. That's why it's racism.

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).

Y'know, BDS, cannabis must be the most studied, researched and tested substance on the face of the earth, yet...our culture continues to ignore the results of the studies. That is because its prohibition has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with prejudice.

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.

Better analogy would be either cocaine or heroin, both of which have been imported into the United States by official government agencies (the CIA the most notable, hence its nickname of the "Cocaine Importation Agency") to be marketed to American citizens to finance their overseas operations. The War on Drugs not only possibly, or even likely, causes more societal harm than it prevents...It assuredly does. If you want to fight drug use, put the money into the provision of adequate mental health care.

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."?

No, it wouldn't. But to say that one substance, which is demonstrably less destructive than two others readily available to adults in our society, should not also be made readily available to adults is hypocritical and stupid.

[BDS]

Personally, slimshady, I favor legalization of marijuana. But as far as whether it is reasonable to regulate alcohol one way, and marijuana another way -- yes, I think it is reasonable. It is reasonable because millenia of legal alcohol use have created a population of drinkers. The battle against alcohol (if indeed such a battle should be waged) is already lost.

Of course it is possible to argue that the battle against marijuana is already lost, too. But the facts supporting that case are less clear. Certainly the quarter million prisoners incarcerated for marijuana crimes would seem to suggest as much, though.

I agree, of course, that all laws "take away liberty". That's the nature of law.

One more thing: alcohol is drug, but it is also a beverage, in common use for millenia. In that regard, it resembles coffee more than it resembles marijuana. One reason it is reasonable to regulate marijuana rather than coffee or alcohol is that marijuana serves no purpose other than its drug purpose (it's more like tobacco in that respect). Wouldn't it be ridiculous to ban turkey, because of its soporific effect? In a sense, banning beer or wine is as much like banning turkey as it is like banning marijuana.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

The War on Drugs not only possibly, or even likely, causes more societal harm than it prevents...It assuredly does. If you want to fight drug use, put the money into the provision of adequate mental health care.

I have always wondered, if we took just the resources used to track down, seize, arrest, prosecute and jail marijuana users how many streets could we make safer? How many murders and deaths could have been prevented?

[Ari]

BDS I'm not sure that tracks, alcohol may be ingested but it isn't the same as a glass of juice or water. Although alcohol can have beneficial health effects people drink it mainly for the effect and it certain doesn't provide the same benefits as other beverages.

Pot can be turned into a beverage too, does that make it equal with alcohol?

[BDS]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

No, it wouldn't. But to say that one substance, which is demonstrably less destructive than two others readily available to adults in our society, should not also be made readily available to adults is hypocritical and stupid.

I'll go along with much of the rest of your post. Doubtless marijuana DOES have a tradition of use in Africa, and the fact that we follow Western traditions and laws instead of African is biased. Tobacco, of course, had a tradition of ritual use among Native Americans (amazingly, it was the only and strongest drug for many North American Natives).

IN addition, I DON'T say that marijuana should be illegal -- I think it should be legal. However, I disagree that on opposite position is NECESSARILY hyopocritical and stupid simply because marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Our laws must be based on practical reality. IF (as I have not and will not argue, but as is certainly possible) marijuana is harmful to society, and IF the negative impact of outlawing it is FAR LESS than the negative impact of outlawing alcohol or tobacco, then it would be a reasonable position to support laws that make marijuana illegal, while supporting laws making tobacco and alcohol legal, even though alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than bud. It's a "greatest good for the greatest number" argument.


By the way, anti-marijuana bias certainly might be racist in origin, just as legal bias against Crack Cocaine (as opposed to regular blow) is probably racist.

[BDS]

Originally Posted by Ari

BDS I'm not sure that tracks, alcohol may be ingested but it isn't the same as a glass of juice or water. Although alcohol can have beneficial health effects people drink it mainly for the effect and it certain doesn't provide the same benefits as other beverages.

Pot can be turned into a beverage too, does that make it equal with alcohol?

Alcohol is primarily a beverage. In fact, it's traditional usage was partly based around it's HEALTHFULNESS. By killing germs, it allowed people to drink without getting sick. In addition, it allowed people to preserve calorie-rich grains for times of famine. (Sadly, it's use mainly by men also allowed men to survive famines, while women and children perished.)

I read an interesting article that claimed the enlightenment was partly caused by coffee and hot chocolate, from the New World. Because these beverages were boiled, they were far safer than milk or water. The author's argument was not that the caffeine in coffee and chocolate stimulated thought -- but that the beer and wine everyone drank for breakfast before coffee's introduction dampened it.

IN these days of good water purification and refrigeration, of course, alcohol is no longer a beverage necessary for good health -- but that's its history.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by BDS

One more thing: alcohol is drug, but it is also a beverage, in common use for millenia. In that regard, it resembles coffee more than it resembles marijuana. One reason it is reasonable to regulate marijuana rather than coffee or alcohol is that marijuana serves no purpose other than its drug purpose (it's more like tobacco in that respect). Wouldn't it be ridiculous to ban turkey, because of its soporific effect? In a sense, banning beer or wine is as much like banning turkey as it is like banning marijuana.

Again, you are wrong. Prior to the passage of the drug control laws in the US, cannabis was widely used as an OTC medication (but then, so were cocaine and opiates). Indeed, it was so widespread as an ingredient in so many pharmacy items that during the debate over the Harrison Act (the drug substance control) the pharmaceutical companies urged that it not be included, as it would require pharmacists to withhold and warn on so many ordinary items (like sticking plasters) that it would be an imposition upon them.

It now serves several bonified medicinal uses: cancer patients for emesis control, for the prevention and reduction of discomfort due to glaucoma (I seem to remember that it could be used as a glaucoma preventive), and for the relief of migraines. If it were decriminalized, who knows...maybe we could determine some other beneficial uses?

[BDS]

You obviously know more than I about the history of marijuana, Godfry (I should have read more and smoked less).

However, your post doesn't show that I was "wrong". On the contrary, you cite examples of marijuana being commonly used AS A (OTC) DRUG, while I was arguing that alcohol was commonly used AS A BEVERAGE. (Of course I'm aware that alcohol was ALSO used as a drug before drug regulations were enacted.)

My point was that if marijuana is a drug, it is reasonable to regulate it as a drug (as an "unapproved drug" as it turns out). Alcohol has always been used both as a drug, and as a beverage. So (my only point was) it's debatable whether to regulate it under drug laws, or beverage laws.

[Ari]

I remember an article in SciAm awhile ago that talked about the cannabinoid receptors in mice being extremely important to unlearn behavior and suggested the potential use of cannabis along with therapy to unlearn phobias.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by BDS

You obviously know more than I about the history of marijuana, Godfry (I should have read more and smoked less).

However, your post doesn't show that I was "wrong". On the contrary, you cite examples of marijuana being commonly used AS A (OTC) DRUG, while I was arguing that alcohol was commonly used AS A BEVERAGE. (Of course I'm aware that alcohol was ALSO used as a drug before drug regulations were enacted.)

My point was that if marijuana is a drug, it is reasonable to regulate it as a drug (as an "unapproved drug" as it turns out). Alcohol has always been used both as a drug, and as a beverage. So (my only point was) it's debatable whether to regulate it under drug laws, or beverage laws.

Cannabis tea was quite common prior to the 20th century, even in "Western" cultures.

I happen to have a fairly good and recent history, cited earlier in this thread.

[Ari]

BDS: You've hit on an entirely different debate between low alcohol "Malt beverages" and high alcohol "hard liquor." As a beverage hard liquors are a poor choice, alcohol is a diuretic and causes the body to lose more water than is in the drink, thus even if you could take a very high BAC before death you would kill yourself through dehydration by drinking alcohol.

[BDS]

I actually know somthing about the regulation of herbs -- both "medicinal herbs" and cooking herbs. If it weren't for anti-marijuana laws already on the books, common use as a tea would probably have been sufficient to put marijuana on the "Generally Recognized as Safe" herb list, which would have made importing, growing and selling it legal. Many "medicinal herbs" are on the list -- although if they are marketed with labelling or collateral material that claims that they "cure, mitigate, treat or prevent a disease", then they are being marketed as "unauthorized drugs".

[BDS]

Originally Posted by Ari

BDS: You've hit on an entirely different debate between low alcohol "Malt beverages" and high alcohol "hard liquor." As a beverage hard liquors are a poor choice, alcohol is a diuretic and causes the body to lose more water than is in the drink, thus even if you could take a very high BAC before death you would kill yourself through dehydration by drinking alcohol.

True -- although mixed drinks could utilize the germ-killing properties of the alcohol while still allowing a man to quench his thirst. I remember that Spartan warriors despised soldiers from other City States who "watered their wine" before battles. So apparently drinking watered wine was common in ancient Greece -- probably specifically to allow soldiers to quench their thirst without getting dysentary.

[Beth]

I do not smoke pot, but I think it makes a bloody good tasting pot of tea. I say legalize it an start saving funds for catching the real criminals! Hey, if we spend less resources on pot arrests and convictions, maybe we can afford longer incarcerations for child molesters and child rapists?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ari

BDS: You've hit on an entirely different debate between low alcohol "Malt beverages" and high alcohol "hard liquor." As a beverage hard liquors are a poor choice, alcohol is a diuretic and causes the body to lose more water than is in the drink, thus even if you could take a very high BAC before death you would kill yourself through dehydration by drinking alcohol.

I call bullshit on that. It is possible to drink a toxic amount of alcohol long before succumbing to the diuretic effect, people die that way all the time.

But, the real question is, is it possible to ingest enough marijuana to kill you?

[viscousmemories]

I'd have to say no to that, but Lord knows I've tried.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

I call bullshit on that. It is possible to drink a toxic amount of alcohol long before succumbing to the diuretic effect, people die that way all the time.

But, the real question is, is it possible to ingest enough marijuana to kill you?

And you should call bullshit on that, maybe I should have been more clear about a "a very high BAC" what I meant by very high was say 100% alcohol (obviously not possible, but the point was high alcohol is not a replacement for standard beverages).

I would also say no, the LD50 (at least in animals) is quite high and for a human could only be reached through something like injecting THC.

[But]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

But, the real question is, is it possible to ingest enough marijuana to kill you?

You could do it by force feeding an oily extract or something, but with normal buds, I guess it's pretty much impossible. You would need to eat kilos. You would be lying on the floor with your head traveling on its own through strange dimensions long before that. It's an order of magnitude easier to kill yourself with salt.

[But]

Originally Posted by Beth

Hey, if we spend less resources on pot arrests and convictions, maybe we can afford longer incarcerations for child molesters and child rapists?

Replace incarceration with death penalty, and Legs will be running to the nearest headshop to buy a bong.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

But, the real question is, is it possible to ingest enough marijuana to kill you?

IIRC, there is NO known case of a fatal marijuana "overdose".

[Ari]

But there are visitors to the emergency room who think they have overdosed on marijuana. Because they mention pot emergency rooms write it down under a "mention" for reason of visit (a mention is as it sounds, when someone says they took a drug but the hospital couldn't find any evidence that drug caused them any medical problems). Some anti-drug groups have distorted this statistic claiming Marijuana is the reason for x number of emergency room visits each year and is thus dangerous.