Intellectual discussions: American (Continents, not country) War on Drugs

Why pick on tobacco even more?
According to http://www.rjrt.com/legal/taxHypocrisy.asp -
The War on Drugs costs more than it prevents.

-------------

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 08:21

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Now this is something that doesn't impair the mind at all. If much heavier drugs are even allowed to be regulated, I doubt they'll pay themselves off even in the long run.

Well, here we get into the question of what defines how "heavy" a drug is. How much it affects one's health isn't correlated to how much it impairs the mind. Psilocybin mushrooms impair the mind quite severely, far more than, say, crack cocaine, but even frequent users do not seem to suffer the kind of health effects that tobacco smokers do. Nor are they addictive - while tobacco is thought to be nearly as addictive as heroin.

Not that I think psilocybin should be legalized, I'm just pointing out that health costs and mental impairment are totally separate issues. Even among legal drugs this is quite true - tobacco has no signifigant mental impairment, and is less widely used, than alcohol, yet the health costs of tobacco blow alcohol out of the water.

I'd define the "heaviness" of a drug by principally two things - how addictive it is, and how physically dangerous it is. Mental impairment is really only relevant so far as it causes mental illness or automobile accidents.

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 08:33

Originally posted by es_bih

Quite a bit? Some yes, but not quite a bit. It simply has been relegated out of mainstream media. But, it still is a huge problem in most US urban centers.

Yes, quite a bit. It's still a problem, no doubt ... but crack cocaine related hospital admissions are down about 75% since the height of the epidemic in '87. Crack violence also dropped signifigantly in the early 90s, and has stayed at much lower levels than in the late 80s ever since.

On the other hand, its not 100% certain that enforcement is responsible. There are other explanations - cultural changes, the legalization of abortion in '73 resulting in a smaller demographic for the drug by the early 90s, etc

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 16:06

I believe it is true about cigarettes and it's addiction.

But my point is, you legalize drugs, and not only will the people who did it before now continue more often, but alot more people will likely try it as it's something legally new. Even if both of those don't happen, which I'm sure they would out of human nature, thats going to add to the costs of the US. that 193 billion dollars isn't even counting what alcohol costs the US in healthcare and the economic cost of people not going to their jobs which I believe is how they got the number 193 billion for cigarettes.

If cigarettes can't even pay themselves off without a drastic tax increase and hope that the same smokers continue the habit, which the cost would make that unlikely, then how will drugs pay themselves off? Everytime the tax goes up on cigarettes, the number of smokers fall, and this is the same drug that you and I compared to heroin.

And on the case of the Netherlands, they seem to be heading the way of banning the drug. They are putting further restrictions on the drug. At one time you could by 30 grams, then it became 5, now some towns are making it 2 grams to getting rid of the "Coffee Shops" all together. One city has now made it illegal to keep it within school grounds since the legalization has made it too easy for students and those under 18 to get a hold of it. They aren't moving towards more freedom of it, but are starting to move away from it.

It's also interesting to note that it's actually illegal in the Netherlands, they just have blind eye policy that allows it.

No reason to jail a kid with pot the same amount of time as a career criminal.

This is based on how we handle it following the laws established. The whole criminal system has been argued in need to be changed. This is one of the reasons.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 18:21

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I believe it is true about cigarettes and it's addiction. But my point is, you legalize drugs, and not only will the people who did it before now continue more often, but alot more people will likely try it as it's something legally new.

I don't think so. If the drug in question is widely available, people will use it regardless of its legal status or the potential legal consequences. The biggest factor is simple availability, so the law is only able to curtail use to the degree it is able to curtail supply. In the case of a popular drug that can be easily produced locally, the law has little ability to do this.

But you're presuming that all narcotics are like cigarettes in terms of health costs, which simply isn't true, even on an individual level.

Everytime the tax goes up on cigarettes, the number of smokers fall

True, but part of the problem with illegalizing a drug is that you can't tax it anymore. Only if you can reduce supply are you really going to make an impact on consumption levels - in some cases, the illegalization of a popular substance has actually increased consumption, the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana being classic examples.

It's also interesting to note that it's actually illegal in the Netherlands, they just have blind eye policy that allows it.

Both phenomena are not due to the Dutch experience with decriminalization, but because the Netherlands is under pressure from the EU, not to mention UN conventions on narcotics, to harmonize its drug laws with the rest of Europe.

No reason to jail a kid with pot the same amount of time as a career criminal.

This is based on how we handle it following the laws established. The whole criminal system has been argued in need to be changed. This is one of the reasons.

[/QUOTE]

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 18:44

Only if law enforcement is making a meaningful impact on supply. If a drug is already widely available, widely used, and easily produced locally by amateurs, its legal status is going to matter little in terms of consumption levels. Illegalization can actually increase consumption levels, as witnessed with the prohibition of both alcohol and marijuana, because there are such tremendous economic incentives for producers.

You're presuming that all narcotics carry the same health effects as cigarettes, which is simply not the case. Potential taxes are also much higher per unit, because most recreational drug users are not addicts; they aren't purchasing a unit every day or two and can afford to pay a much larger percentage of the cost in taxes. Marijuana, for instance, is no more expensive to produce commercially than tobacco - but users generally pay 40 or 50 times more by weight. That could almost all be tax, and still leave producers with profits far exceeding tobacco. Imagine the tax on cigarrettes rises such that a pack (25 cigarrettes is about 25 grams) rises to a cost of about $200, the entirety of that increase being tax. That's a massive revenue windfall, with the individual end user paying dozens of times more in taxes than a tobacco user does, yet probably incurring far less in health costs - especially considering he is probably doing so already to some degree.

There are also other cost recoveries. Keep in mind that illegalization has costs too, which easily run into the billions - not just the obvious ones, like pay for police officers, court costs, the costs of incarceration and so on, but also the destruction of careers and job losses associated with imprisonment, criminal activity - violence and death - associated with black market trade, and so on.

It's also interesting to note that it's actually illegal in the Netherlands, they just have blind eye policy that allows it.

Yes, but its not because decriminalization has been a problem for the Netherlands. It's because the Netherlands is under pressure from the EU to harmonize its drug laws and enforcement status with the rest of Europe, and because the Netherlands is under pressure to abide by its obligations as a UN member - which puts it under the terms of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 19:27

There's a saying I think that holds true, "Out of sight, out of mind." Granted alot of adults still smoke pot, but many are introduced to it in their teens and usually begin to use because of peer preassure. It's now just considered a part of growing up, and I believe that is true because the act of using it is looked down upon. I think it holds a stigma of immaturity, atleast through examples I've seen of many people who associate with their child hood who have once used it. When it becomes a normality, seen in shops, and on the street, that effects our culture. And when it's ok to have it in moderation, then others will take it as having maybe "just alittle more", and like alcohol become impaired. It is shown that it does slow down your psychomotor skills. Having ease of use, like Tabacco, will only cost the country as a whole, as tabacco does with billions of dollars.

But you're presuming that all narcotics are like cigarettes in terms of health costs, which simply isn't true, even on an individual level.

I'm not saying you are by any means, but it does sound like your one of those who believe that pot doesn't have side effects just as bad of cigarettes towards the lungs. Without a filter like cigarettes I believe it's said the tar in the smoke harms your lungs worse, especially since people who use it are looking for a strong side effect, they hold that bad smoke in longer. Arguements I've heard, but not sure are true if they are worse then cigarettes. But there isn't a reason to doubt that has the ability to cause long term problems on the lungs and only would add another product to offer the consumer that'd cost a country more money and that doesn't pay itself off.

Because the know how and ease for people to grow the plant, I doubt street sales of it will stop, and it will probably be made cheaper on the street when the product can't lower it's price due to the high tax that will probably be stamped on it. If there are strong regulations on it, then those looking for a stronger kick will still go to the streets. I'm sure the majority will use the regulated product, but I doubt it will kill off something that has developed as a street culture.

And with that street culture, we have the gangs, when they aren't offering pot, they will just find something else to profit off of. Gang related violence won't end on our streets, prohibition didn't stop it, it only changed. People do it for ease of profit, and profit often makes competition. They'll fill the void with something new. Legalizing one drug of a broader collection of them sold by the same people won't stop crime.

I don't know much behind the 30 to 5gram case, but the other ones I mentioned weren't national level rulings, but made by local officials in towns and a city.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 20:40

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

There's a saying I think that holds true, "Out of sight, out of mind." Granted alot of adults still smoke pot, but many are introduced to it in their teens and usually begin to use because of peer preassure. It's now just considered a part of growing up, and I believe that is true because the act of using it is looked down upon. I think it holds a stigma of immaturity, atleast through examples I've seen of many people who associate with their child hood who have once used it.

I strongly doubt that legalization would change social attitudes towards the drug. I would expect that the demographics of users would remain, for the most part, unchanged. Adults who have chosen to cease using the drug haven't done so because they are incapable of procuring it or because they are worried about legal consequences. I don't believe they even quit because of any stigma. Adults cease using marijuana willingly because of changes in lifestyle and outlook, not because they are forced to do so by social pressure or legal consequences.

When it becomes a normality, seen in shops, and on the street, that effects our culture. And when it's ok to have it in moderation, then others will take it as having maybe "just alittle more", and like alcohol become impaired.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it already is seen a normality that is ok to have in moderation. At worst, it's viewed as a harmless adolescent pasttime.

Having ease of use, like Tabacco, will only cost the country as a whole, as tabacco does with billions of dollars.

The ease of use already exists. Nor do I agree that it could cost as much as tobacco.

I believe there's probably some truth to that ... however, it overlooks the fact that even the heaviest marijuana user does not smoke 25 to 50 grams of the stuff every day, without pause. It's probably not even possible to do so.

If there are strong regulations on it, then those looking for a stronger kick will still go to the streets. I'm sure the majority will use the regulated product, but I doubt it will kill off something that has developed as a street culture.

And with that street culture, we have the gangs, when they aren't offering pot, they will just find something else to profit off of.

If it's legal, the habitual user looking for a stronger kick will more likely simply grow it themselves. Most people prefer to avoid contact with violent street gangs. People who don't mind associating with thugs will associate with them regardless.

Gang related violence won't end on our streets, prohibition didn't stop it, it only changed.

No, prohibition more or less caused the mass phenomena of gang violence in North America.

Prior to alcohol prohibition, organized crime was very minimal - and certainly was not intertwined with the popular culture. Prohibition brought the law into disrepute and wedded popular culture with criminal elements.

Ending prohibition never stopped that, chiefly because prohibition never really ended; it just changed focus, from alcohol to other substances.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 21:05

Good post edge

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 21:19

Where did you get that idea from? For some reason I and other people I know have noticed that lately foreign media have been reporting that soft drug policy in the Netherlands has been a failure, but that's simply not true. On December 1 hallicunogenic mushrooms have been banned, but in marijuana policy absolutely nothing has changed and neither is there a political discussion about it at the moment.

the 5 gram rule exists since I can remember, at least a decade.

-------------

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 21:32

When I say availability would effect how people view it, I say it because like anything in culture, when viewed often through out society it becomes normalized. We see it with new introductions or when things become widely available even with things that were looked down on at some point.

Also, there is a stigma on it being associated with immaturity as I hear adults who have used it say they stopped because it was time for them to grow up. Our society, or atleast the American one seems to always view the teen as a adolescent that smokes pot, we see this in our media, especially in family shows. It's a common story of the wise parents who went through similar times trying to grapple on how to confront their kid after finding pot in their dresser.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it already is seen a normality that is ok to have in moderation. At worst, it's viewed as a harmless adolescent pasttime.

I don't think I've realy met a person yet that hasn't tried it. But your right, it is seen as adolescent, which means youthful. Like I said, those I've talked to view it as growing up. Alot of business owners won't hire people if they use drugs because it's viewed as a adolescent activity that is considered counter productive. And right now, that is a cultural view point.

The ease of use already exists. Nor do I agree that it could cost as much as tobacco.

Not as much as it would be when a corner store in any neighborhood could bring availability to a whole other level. Then it could be all times of day, anywhere you go. Why wouldn't it cost the country just as much? I think it will cost more seeing it also has the potential to effect the motor skills of someone and thus effecting other lives potentially. When it's criminal, I think people are more likely to try and not to be as active then when sober just out of paranoia.

Admittedly I looked at wikipedia to see what they had on the matter. They said in 2002 a study by the British Lung Foundation showed that 3-4 marajuana cigarettes a day equaled 20 tabacco cigarettes in damage. Though the link to it doesn't work, I'm not sure I could use it as a agruement, but is something that I felt can be brought up.

One thing it seems is that even in the medical world, this topic is contraversial as there doesn't seem to be one answer.

No, prohibition more or less caused the mass phenomena of gang violence in North America.

And they continued after. What stopped them was law enforcement, not laws. It was until the Valentine Masscre that people really said enough is enough. Mafia's still exist today, it's lessons they learned from the past that made them go more underground. But they are bigger then ever, and FBI officials are worried on just how much the mafia groups around the world are starting to join together in a large drug market. Instead of alcohol, they are now bringing unbelievable amounts of drugs to the market. These are American, Italian, Japanese, and even one of the more radical of them, the Russian mafia, all are starting to work together. We just don't see the drive bys we used to because law enforcement changed that. They only adapted, their profiteering still remains, just with a new product.

Ending prohibition never stopped that, chiefly because prohibition never really ended; it just changed focus, from alcohol to other substances.

Many of these substances could never be legalized though anyways. And most of those who sell them still sell pot. I don't see a reason to legalize pot, if anything relax the laws on those found with small amounts. It's still could be a tool to catch the bigger fish in the criminal world anyways.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

Where did you get that idea from? For some reason I and other people I know have noticed that lately foreign media have been reporting that soft drug policy in the Netherlands has been a failure, but that's simply not true. On December 1 hallicunogenic mushrooms have been banned, but in marijuana policy absolutely nothing has changed and neither is there a political discussion about it at the moment.

the 5 gram rule exists since I can remember, at least a decade.

I only brought up on the local governments accept the 30 to 5 grams. Here is a news story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/24/2400900.htm - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/24/2400900.htm

and this one I found out from a local news paper recently, but can't find a article online about it. May have something to due with the December ruling you brought up. This article though is dated 2007:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062202015_pf.html - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062202015_pf.html

Ivo Opstelten, the mayor of http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Rotterdam?tid=informline - Rotterdam , the second-largest Dutch city, announced this month that he will close all marijuana shops within 250 yards of a school -- nearly half of the city's 62 shops.

"We want to discourage the use of drugs among young people," said Opstelten, a member of the Labor Party. "Studies show soft drugs are detrimental to their health and brain development."

I quoted this because it brings up Rotterdam, and I believe thats the city the article may have brought up.

By the way Mixcoatl, I don't speak on behalf of people of the Netherlands as if I lived there my self, nor do I pretend to. So I'm sorry if I may have come off that way, I was responding to es bih and have remembered reading on recent events in the Netherlands on this issue before it was even brought up in the thread.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 22:34

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

When I say availability would effect how people view it, I say it because like anything in culture, when viewed often through out society it becomes normalized.

Too late ... it's already normalized and available to anyone.

Also, there is a stigma on it being associated with immaturity as I hear adults who have used it say they stopped because it was time for them to grow up.

Sure ... but does that mean they wanted to keep smoking it, but couldn't because of what people would think ... or that they'd actually outgrown the drug?

I don't think people quit marijuana because of peer pressure. They actually do outgrow it, and lose interest in using it. There might be a few people who want to keep using it, but stop because they see all their peers abandoning it, but my impression has always been that they're a minority. Most people simply lose interest and desire to use it.

we see this in our media, especially in family shows. It's a common story of the wise parents who went through similar times trying to grapple on how to confront their kid after finding pot in their dresser.

20 years ago on Family Ties, Different Strokes, and the Cosby Show, yes. These are typically regarded as archaic and comically misinformed views on the drug.

Now marijuana in television is more typically featured as a character prop, with little in the way of commentary on its use. The media gives more of a knowing wink than a wagging finger lately ... in fact, there are now primetime sitcoms about suburban marijuana users and dealers:

It probably can't get any more normalized than it already is .... that show has won several Golden Globe (best comedy series, 3 times, and 3 best performance) and numerous Emmy awards (eight, altogether) ... the viewership averaged nearly a million viewers ... obviously, it has moved far, far beyond being merely an element of "street culture" and is very much mainstream today.

Not as much as it would be when a corner store in any neighborhood could bring availability to a whole other level. Then it could be all times of day, anywhere you go.

That all depends on how you choose to regulate it. Here in Ontario, you can't buy alcohol in a corner store ... why would you be able to buy marijuana in one? Regulation can set the conditions for sales any way legislators want it to. It may be that only a government corporation would have the rights to distribute it (like alcohol here, under the LCBO and Brewers Retail). Or you could set conditions to the licenses, no sales before 8pm or lose your license. Whatever. Regulation makes these things possible.

One thing it seems is that even in the medical world, this topic is contraversial as there doesn't seem to be one answer.

Well that's part of the issue right there ... there's not sufficient medical evidence to justify imprisoning people and ruining their lives.

Even if there was, couldn't we say the same about alcohol and tobacco? And to draw the line at alcohol and tobacco is ridiculously arbitrary and discriminatory. Why should a violent alcoholic bum suffer no legal consequences for his habit, while an otherwise productive citizen is carted off to jail because he got caught with a baggie of marijuana? Arbitrary laws bring the entire system of justice into disrepute in the eyes of the citizenry, and foster a culture that does not respect the law. The law becomes meaningless when it is not just, and being arbitrary is not just.

Discrimination, though, has been part of the aim of marijuana prohibition since its inception, not justice or a reputable system of law. Its architect, Harry Anslinger, desired to illegalize marijuana because of "its effect on the degenerate races", because it "makes darkies think they're as good as white men."

It's still could be a tool to catch the bigger fish in the criminal world anyways.

You could justify any unjust law by saying it could be useful to catch people who couldn't be caught for anything else.

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 23:17

Too late ... it's already normalized and available to anyone.

My friend usually gets approached by a dealer for the way he dresses. My other friends had to go through connections. But it always seemed to have to go behind the scenes. So available, maybe, normalized, hardly.

Outgrowing it, whatever you want to call it, your basicly explaining what I said. And I believe thats a cultural thing. I never heard anyone say they've lost desire of using it, I've only heard them say it was time for them to grow up. This is ofcourse personal expierence here. But like I said, it's viewed that way in media too.

New shows are all about pushing the edge just as the fad with reality tv exploding a few years back. Scandel seems to be something new, with only things talked about in the back room. I believe the show Desperate Housewives started that, and since that show revolves around different families, I believe they have even grappled with this issue. Movies like Meet the Parents even bring up the general attitude of it being used by people who refuse to grow up with the future brother in law.

Because you can find one show, that obviously uses it's name as a marketing tool to show a scandelous name doesn't prove anything. I'd say it shows the opposite in that it was chosen because the name would evoke discussion by people who view it as taboo. Also, it's only shown on a certain channel that you need to get a package in order to view. On top of that, the commercials atleast shown in the US make no reference to the drug, infact I never seen the name of the series with a marijuana leaf until your post. And I have heard about the show for sometime now.

Well that's part of the issue right there ... there's not sufficient medical evidence to justify imprisoning people and ruining their lives.

I agree the way we penalize people needs drastic changes. I'm not sure I'm ready to agree with legalizing it when it can cost billions like cigarettes do in health care cost, and because of production lost(193 billion were costs lost to the US with those two combines, split 50-50 pretty much).

Even if there was, couldn't we say the same about alcohol and tobacco? And to draw the line at alcohol and tobacco is ridiculously arbitrary and discriminatory. Why should a violent alcoholic bum suffer no legal consequences for his habit, while an otherwise productive citizen is carted off to jail because he got caught with a baggie of marijuana?

Well why add gasoline to a fire? You'd do so if you wanted to make a problem bigger. There will be costs from adding more products that impair people's mental abilities. Whats the point of adding more? It's said that pot actually impairs even five hours after use of it. This impairment is said to cause not only psychomotor abilities, not good for driving or operating cars/machines, but also may hinder decision making. I don't see a reason to add more products for more irresponcible people to use.

The bums that use alcohol and end up hurting others do get charged, and steeper charges for being under the influence. But it happens after they hurt someone usually, or atleast put them at risk. Why should we add something else that MAY have the same effect in putting other at risk, especially when it's for recreation and for their own pleasure?

You could justify any unjust law by saying it could be useful to catch people who couldn't be caught for anything else.

Unjust is holding someone back because of the color of their skin, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, not because they can't do a recreational activity that gives them pleasure. Especially one that can effect others.

Granted I enjoy alcohol alot, and I'd be upset if it was prohitted again. But I just don't see a reason to get legalize a drug when it doesn't add anything. And if it's so available as you say it is, and it keeps those people that maybe impaired from leaving their home and harming others, then I don't see a problem with it staying that way at all.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 01:46

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

Too late ... it's already normalized and available to anyone.

People aren't seen as deviant, abnormal, or antisocial for indulging in it. This makes it de facto socially normalized, whether it is normalized de jure or not. Alcohol was illicit and obtained exclusively through illicit channels during prohibition ... nonetheless it was socially normalized.

I never heard anyone say they've lost desire of using it

I find that surprising. Are you in your early or mid 20s by any chance? Most people who've gotten past early adolescent and young adulthood cease to enjoy the high, in my experience.

New shows are all about pushing the edge

That's because it reflects a social reality of changing values. Shows like Weeds and Desperate Housewives aren't exactly exotic or anything - the characters and settings are suburban and mundane, intentionally so. Audiences can relate to the characters and situations, which is why they are popular. If the shows depended exclusively on their shock value, they wouldn't last more than a season or two, for obvious reasons - shock has a very limited shelf life, particularly when you meter it out in regular, weekly doses. Not to mention that the audience demographics are, I think, probably too jaded to be shocked by the content in the first place.

Also, it's only shown on a certain channel that you need to get a package in order to view.

Showcase, at least here, is part of the basic cable package. Not even digital. Anyone who has cable gets it.

On top of that, the commercials atleast shown in the US make no reference to the drug, infact I never seen the name of the series with a marijuana leaf until your post. And I have heard about the show for sometime now.

Illegalization also produces billions in lost production, incarceration costs, increased criminal activity, the production of criminals from otherwise law-abiding demographics, the underemployment of educated individuals who acquire criminal records, on and on and on.

Plus there's no evidence that the costs of legalized marijuana would produce the same costs as tobacco and alcohol. The high costs of tobacco and alcohol are predictable, given their far more addictive nature.

Well why add gasoline to a fire? You'd do so if you wanted to make a problem bigger.

If it's a fire that, in principle, demands legal solutions ... then why is any of it legal?

How has marijuana prohibition been any more succesful than alcohol prohibition? And was either sort ever just? Is it the business of the law to be our nanny?

And why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition at all? The degree to which all three substances are proscribed can meet somewhere in the middle. One could impose more stringent regulation of alcohol and tobacco at the same time as relaxing marijuana laws. If the law really can mitigate the social costs of these substances, then there's no reason a balance couldn't be achieved where the social costs remain at the same level.

The bums that use alcohol and end up hurting others do get charged

Do they get charged for using or possessing alcohol? No, they get charged for their actions under the influence and/or things like public intoxication. Whether marijuana is legal or not, the same consequences would apply to its users.

If such laws are adequate and sufficient, then there is no need for marijuana to be illegal.

Unjust is holding someone back because of the color of their skin, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, not because they can't do a recreational activity that gives them pleasure.

The concept of what is unjust is far, far broader than mere ethnic or gender discrimination. In fact, it was around centuries before anyone even considered those things unjust - they are just a recent addition to a much larger concept.

One of the most central issues to the concept of injustice is arbitrariness. Summary justice, such as that practiced by guerrillas, is wrong precisely because it is arbitrary. Likewise, arrests made without charge or indefinite incarceration without trial are also considered unjust because they are arbitrary. Discrimination itself is just one part of the larger concept of arbitrary injustice.

To say that marijuana is illegal while alcohol and tobacco is not, is very much arbitrary. It punishes a large segment of society for having a certain preference. The law must be equal and fair, and if alcohol and tobacco pose the same problems as marijuana, or vice-versa, they must be treated the same.

If I choose to smoke marijuana rather than drink alcohol, you must provide a reason why I should be more penalized for one than the other. If they are equivalent, then ... the punishment must match the crime, if there even is a crime.

And if it's so available as you say it is, and it keeps those people that maybe impaired from leaving their home and harming others, then I don't see a problem with it staying that way at all.

If the goal is to keep marijuana users from being intoxicated in public, it hardly works. I see stoned kids in public all the time. I live in a university town. But it's not the stoned ones that worry me nearly so much as the drunken ones that spill out on the streets when the bars close. I stay off the street at that hour, and for very good reason - there have been numerous beatings and even several killings.

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 02:52

What word should I use then? Unaccepted, looked down upon? People don't see it in a bright light now a days is all I'm getting at. Normalized to me is something in use every day that people are fine seeing, that isn't something that has to be hidden away and is accepted by the majority as fine to be around.

I find that surprising. Are you in your early or mid 20s by any chance? Most people who've gotten past early adolescent and young adulthood cease to enjoy the high, in my experience.

I'm 22, but alot of what I'm saying in my expierence is from those in the trades. People my age tend to do it more, but in the trades everyone I've talked to who has families and such have given it up. Don't get me wrong, there are those who still use drugs, and not to further my arguement at all, believe me when I say this. Those who do still use drugs don't have great work, and I think my boss has a idea on which guys to use when we are working in upper class houses. This is other trades though, I don't think my boss would hire anyone that has used drugs.

I don't know about Weeds, but Desperate Housewives is edgy, I don't think anyone can relate to their characters. Their lives are a mess, the neighborhood is perfect ville. The show is about people keeping a image of everything is fine while in the shadows they want to murder each other. Not very relateable in my expierence lol.

Weeds, I can't comment on, but when there were commercials of it on basic capable, they hid all mentioning of drug related topics.

But I think alot of it has to do with leaving stories on characters wide open and not telling the entire story until late in the season. Lost does this, keeps things vague and it seems to be the writting style for all new shows now that are drama.

Showcase, at least here, is part of the basic cable package. Not even digital. Anyone who has cable gets it.

It's a premium here, usually bundled either with the other Showcase channels, or a movie package with HBO, Cinemax, etc...

They can't show a marijuana leaf in the televised advertisements ... it would be a violation of broadcasting codes. However, the theme is hardly a secret of the show and the imagery is far from obscure. The official homepage goes quite a bit further, note the main graphic on the page: http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/home.do%5b/quote - http://www.sho.com/site/weeds/home.do[/quote ] Not very surprising since it's a website, lets face it, the internet is a very liberal place. But these channels also show sex and nudity, I'm not sure nudity is considered dangerous. Women still can't walk around topless, while other countries allow it. It's just not a social norm here. Though sex is a activity that most people don't mind expierencing. I don't know if this was exactly a fair example to bring up, but it is something that most people expierence and yet it's also only found on the premium channels.

Perhaps a topic should be made on why it seems violence is more excepted then nudity and soft drugs in society.

Maybe true, I don't even know what the costs are of alcohol on the country. But why add more costs? I doubt it'd pay itself off. Laws from the drug wars need to be changed, like crack getting a heavier sentence then cocaine for instance.

If it's a fire that, in principle, demands legal solutions ... then why is any of it legal?

How has marijuana prohibition been any more succesful than alcohol prohibition? And was either sort ever just? Is it the business of the law to be our nanny?

I hate to admit it but your making see your arguement, your evil... lol If the government decided it could work after enough studies on all aspects, I might accept it. But the way it impairs I question how that'll effect a normal day in the US.

I could have a few beers not be effected. How many joints can you have and not be effected? If you get a buzz from alcohol, it can go away within a hour, but from what I understand from a study, you can be impaired for 5 hours with marijuana with a high amount of THC, the amount that is legal in the Netherlands. I believe it was a Dutch study that found that. Maybe I'm just pessimistic when it comes to this stuff.

[quote]If the goal is to keep marijuana users from being intoxicated in public, it hardly works. I see stoned kids in public all the time. I live in a university town. But it's not the stoned ones that worry me nearly so much as the drunken ones that spill out on the streets when the bars close. I stay off the street at that hour, and for very good reason - there have been numerous beatings and even several killings.

Once again, another good point.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 04:47

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

I'm 22, but alot of what I'm saying in my expierence is from those in the trades. People my age tend to do it more, but in the trades everyone I've talked to who has families and such have given it up.

Ah ... that probably explains it. I've kind of noticed that blue collar culture, while it indulges more and apparently derives more enjoyment from inebriants in general, also has much stronger taboos and stigmas attached to them ... kind of ironic.

It's middle class, suburban, white collar ... your experience is different, so that's not surprising.

Women still can't walk around topless, while other countries allow it. It's just not a social norm here.

It's 100% legal here. But you won't see it, unless you happen to be at Parliament Hill on the night of July 1st. That's the only place I've ever seen it. Social norms usually are much more powerful in terms of inhibiting behaviour than the law is - the law can't be everywhere, but social norms are.

Though sex is a activity that most people don't mind expierencing. I don't know if this was exactly a fair example to bring up, but it is something that most people expierence and yet it's also only found on the premium channels.

Right ... sex is of course normalized (we'd be extinct if it wasn't), but it's also considered something that you don't openly display in public and you can't just walk up to a complete stranger on the street and ask for it bluntly. You can't legally buy it or sell it either. Still, its as natural as an act could possibly be.

I could have a few beers not be effected. How many joints can you have and not be effected?

Different sorts of dosages. People just don't consume joint after joint like that. They have one, and wait a few hours. Just like you don't drink hard liquor by the pint, but by the shot. You can have a toke or two from a joint and be unaffected, depending on your tolerance.

If you get a buzz from alcohol, it can go away within a hour, but from what I understand from a study, you can be impaired for 5 hours with marijuana with a high amount of THC

If you consume enough THC, you'll be impaired for a few hours. If you consume enough alcohol, you'll asphyxiate on your own vomit and die.

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 17:32

But aren't people after the effect if their going to bother with it anyways?

Just as a example with beer, I enjoy trying all kinds of varieties, even similar ones and seeing what flavors I could pick out. One of my favorite sites is beeradvocate.com because you could learn about all the tastes of different beers. People who do this are called beer geeks, and the intention of trying all these beers is to respect beer itself and not get the side effect. Weed on the other hand is about just getting a fix.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 17:57

As a side note, the biggest drain on social and health costs is created by people living a long time, something that tobacco and alcohol and other things tend to reduce.

Not an argument for involuntary euthanasia.

-------------

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 18:37

Dammit, I didn't mean to edit that post.

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 18:46

Hello to you all

I wrote about a similar subject some time ago. The problem with drugs, which make them way different than smoking and alcohol, is their affect on the mental health of the user.

Study after study proved the massive brain damage cannabies have and passive and active user alike. While alcohol and smoking do affect health they don't have the same damage on the brain as cannabies or other drugs which are times stronger than alcohol. I remember seeing a documentry on TV and a girl told the presenter she used a manufactured drug and only woke a week later in a different city.

Also legalising drugs will cause huge problems especially in administering it, what should be allowed and what should not be? the allowed dosages, patent problems and sources. In then end the heavily regulated drugs will be expensive and people will resort to low quality street drugs and people will die.

Al-Jassas

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 18:58

Oh, so thats how you want to play edgewaters! lol I think you clipped a good amount of my post. But it's mostly opinion rather then true arguement, so I don't mind.

And gcle, wouldn't old people be profitable towards pharmaceutical companies? They do offer alot to the country in general. Old people make jobs, hospitals staff, senior homes, pharmacist, factory workers, etc... Without that segment of society, there wouldn't be alot of workers needed, and thats a huge loss of consumers. Tobacco not only costs the health care segment, but also hurts the work force that costs the country half of that 193 billion dollars. I think there would be a much larger loss of workers without a huge group made by the senior citizens. No jobs, no consumers, equal horrible economy. Thats shown in current times.

By the way, don't you start editting too Gcle!

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 19:14

Originally posted by Al Jassas

Study after study proved the massive brain damage cannabies have and passive and active user alike. While alcohol and smoking do affect health they don't have the same damage on the brain as cannabies or other drugs which are times stronger than alcohol.

Detoxified alcoholics often have visuospatial and visuoperceptual deficits, characterized by difficulties completing tasks such as putting pieces of a puzzle together or map reading. A new study has found that, even with prolonged sobriety, alcoholics show deficits in visuoperception and frontal executive functioning of the brain.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/brain/a/blacer041115.htm - http://alcoholism.about.com/od/brain/a/blacer041115.htm

Results of autopsy studies show that patients with a history of chronic alcohol consumption have smaller, lighter, more shrunken brains than nonalcoholic adults of the same age and gender (1).

This finding has been repeatedly confirmed in living alcoholics using structural imaging techniques, such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Structural imaging reveals a consistent association between heavy drinking and physical brain damage, even in the absence of medical conditions previously considered to be clinical indicators of severe alcoholism (e.g., chronic liver disease or alcohol-induced dementia).

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa47.htm - http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa47.htm

About 2 million Australians - one in eight adults - are at risk of permanent brain damage because of the amount of alcohol they drink, a new survey says.

Another 200,000 Australians are already suffering from alcohol-related brain damage but do not know they have the problem, the report says.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/06/1997173.htm - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/06/1997173.htm

Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.

The researchers found only a "very small" impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Otherwise, scores on thinking tests were similar to those who don't smoke marijuana, according to a new analysis of 15 previous studies.

In those studies, some 700 regular marijuana users were compared with 484 non-users on various aspects of brain function -- including reaction time, language and motor skills, reasoning ability, memory, and the ability to learn new information.

Surprising Finding

"We were somewhat surprised by our finding, especially since there's been a controversy for some years on whether long-term cannabis use causes brain damage," says lead researcher and psychiatrist Igor Grant, MD.

"I suppose we expected to see some differences in people who were heavy users, but in fact the differences were very minimal."

The marijuana users in those 15 studies -- which lasted between three months to more than 13 years -- had smoked marijuana several times a week or month or daily. Still, researchers say impairments were less than what is typically found from using alcohol or other drugs.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain - http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 19:43

Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy

And gcle, wouldn't old people be profitable towards pharmaceutical companies?

Of course. Cost to the social system = profits to the pharmaceutical companies. Same goes for tobacco and alcohol and of course the (illegal) pharmicists that make heroin and concaine and stuff.

They do offer alot to the country in general. Old people make jobs, hospitals staff, senior homes, pharmacist, factory workers, etc...

So do drug, tobacco and alcohol addicts. Just think of all the law enforcement jobs created bby the heroin and cocaine traffics, let alone all the jobs involved in manufacturing and distributing them.

Again cost to the social system = profits to the pharmaceutical companies plus jobs for the producers, distributors and law enforcers. Those $193 billion that you claim are a 'cost' to the community actually represent income to the community. They go on providing jobs and profits.

Without that segment of society, there wouldn't be alot of workers needed, and thats a huge loss of consumers. Tobacco not only costs the health care segment, but also hurts the work force that costs the country half of that 193 billion dollars.

So what do you think the $193 billion are spent on? They aren't just thrown away and they don't just vanish like investments with Madoff. Think of all the people thrown out of work if everyone stopped smoking....

I think there would be a much larger loss of workers without a huge group made by the senior citizens. No jobs, no consumers, equal horrible economy. Thats shown in current times.

Actually there's no economic argument here either way, just propaganda for one side or the other. Moral and health and longevity issues are irrelevant to economics. If you get rid of drugs (or tobacco or alcohol) you'd have to find some alternative product to prop up the GDP and employment figures, that's all.

By the way, don't you start editting too Gcle!

Did I?

-------------

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2009 at 21:39

Good points gcle. I don't think I could argue on what you said since it's almost what I tired to make my point with.

On you editing my post, it was only ment to tease edgewater alittle since I responded to him and a mistake happened. Was trying to bring in alittle humor, guess I failed!

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Jan-2009 at 20:25

Believe me I'm just as capable as Edgewaters of making that mistake. That's why I half-believed you.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 14:13

Complex topic. First, what do we call drugs? If it is what I think, why don't we include alcohol among drugs? Which is the substance that kill more people around the world, but that is glorified daily by TV advertisements.

Second, why there is not a cordinated effort to shut up the promoters of drugs and "alternative lifesyles" that are mainly artists that dominate the media?

Third, what efforts are been made to track drug routes? It seems our countries don't filter anything that enters. It is amazing in modern societies containers with drugs can enter a country... and nobody notice it. Something is going wrong with security and corruption may be just one of the factors.

Fourth. How come we can't trace all the drug producers in the jungles of the Americas? It seems somethings is not working there.

Fifth. The coca culture of the Andes should be preserved, and only the volume of coca production should be controlled. The only way to stop large scale production is helping those people to turn into other activities. That is the poorest region of South America.

Finally, how come Coca-Cola company is the only one that can extract coca flaworings and medicine from the Andes?

-------------

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 16:54

Oh yeah, I wanted to post this for Edgewaters. Seems like my state might decriminalize it, following Massachusetts. It's a pretty short article, but when we were talking about it I thought it was funny that the local news had a story on it and law makers are now discussing it here.

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/news_wtnh_Hartford_fines_for_pot_200901261115 - http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/news_wtnh_Hartford_fines_for_pot_200901261115

Finally, how come Coca-Cola company is the only one that can extract coca flaworings and medicine from the Andes?

Well Coca-Cola doesn't, a factory owned by the Stepan Company does. The factory is the only one in the country that the Drug Enforcement Adminstration allows importing of coca leaves. They then go in the process of making them spent leaves, or the removing of the cocaine naturally found in them and then it's sold to Coca-Cola. With the wide reach of coca cola, it's not very hard to see why it would be the number one customer of the Stepan company.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 18:47

That company, Stepan, has the same owners than Coca-cola. That makes the coca leaves stuff to look less serious.

First, Coca leaves aren't cocaine. Coca leaves tea is consummed regularly in the upper Andes as a way to combat the "sickness of high altitude", and nobody flies with it.

Second, there are several coca based drinks in the upper Andes (once again) that are consummed by the regular population, whitout allienating anyone.

Third, if Coca cola can use coca leaves flavoring, why not even a coca tea could be imported to the states.

It is so ridiculous that not even the charango that Evo Morales gave to Condolezza Rice could enter the U.S. (because it has a cover of plastified coca leaves)

Third, to produce cocaine you need to concentrate tons of leaves by means of chemical processes, which have insumes that are very well know, like aether -if I am not wrong-. So, obviously that industrial activity can be traced and punished if there were the will to do so.

-------------

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 07-Feb-2009 at 21:15

I didn't know they were under the same owner, wonder if Coca-Cola could be charged for monopolizing. Though maybe it's because it's the only factory that the government will allow.

Even though it takes alot of those leaves, they still have to be processed so that they meet regulation guidelines. Even with them processed, people still criticize that their are still trace amounts that could effect people. Just shows that American culture doesn't accept any idea of drugs. Hell I didn't until Edgewaters showed me the light! Though I'm still not big on the idea.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 08:58

Coca leaves are supposed to be a good way of getting people off cocaine ... or so I've heard.

Maybe the Cocaine Importing Agency has an objection to the leaves being imported ...

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 11:52

Well, if "American" culture don't accept the idea of drugs, next time you guys go to the dentists ask him/her to drill your teeth without drugs to kill pain... That's to be consistent with ideas.

-------------

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 13:41

Hello edge

Here are some studies about cannabies damage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6923642.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6923642.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2923647.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2923647.stm

Al-Jassas

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 14:16

Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello edge

Here are some studies about cannabies damage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6923642.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6923642.stm

From your link:

Dr Keith Prowse, chairman of the foundation said: . . . "It's important to remember, though, that tobacco continues to be more harmful overall because it is typically smoked in much higher quantities than cannabis."

The sensationalist headline is very eye-catching, but you really have to read these things carefully.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2923647.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2923647.stm

From your link:

According to a review carried out by UK drugs information service Drugscope, evidence of long-term mental health effects of cannabis is far from clear-cut. It points to criticism of the Swedish study mentioned by Dr Henry - and says that while cannabis consumption is increasing, the incidence of schizophrenia is not, which would suggest that cannabis may not be to blame.

I can't see how it's even possible that it's could be a causal factor in schizophrenia if (a) it is continuously increasing in potency over time (b) it is being more widely consumed and (c) schizophrenia rates are totally unaffected.

The study that the article is about, the one by Professor John Henry, is really terrible science. I mean awful. One of the most basic tenets of causation is the maxim, "correlation is not causation" which is, in fact, not even a form of deductive reasoning. It's inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning works like this: "A guy with black hair stole a lady's purse. Therefore, people with black hair are thieves." He found a correlation between schizophrenics and marijuana use, but this is hardly surprising: one can find the same correlation between schizophrenics and tobacco or alcohol use, or use of other drugs. This is a well known phenomena in mental health; it's called self-medicating. People with some mental illnesses are driven to consume mood-altering substances (for obvious reasons).

But yes, it probably can damage mental health in unstable people. So does alcohol. Alcohol additionally causes organic brain damage and literally shrinks the brain, such that the brains of alcoholics are actually shrivelled. Plus it can cause cancer in every major organ of the body, including the brain, because of the cellular damage it inflicts. Plus osteoperosis, for the same reason. I could go on and on ... and then I could go and talk about, say, Big Macs. There are lots of things out there that are bad for you if you abuse them.

The question is, do you want the government to be your nanny and keep you safe from all the potential health hazards out there? Even the ones you choose to risk? Maybe you should be legally forced to use public transit in the city, maybe burger joints should be banned, maybe we should give Prohibition another go, maybe parents who don't check the sandbox for kitty poops before letting their kids play there should be thrown in jail ... no. There's a point where the obsession with safety gets to be too absurd.

The only time I support the government acting like everyone's mother and outright illegalizing a thing rather than regulating and managing it is when we're dealing with something that is so physically addictive quitting can kill you (eg heroin - actually alcohol too in some cases, the "shakes" or delirium tremens, but not as commonly) or can cause you to commit crime in order to avoid severe withdrawals of that nature. Or where it's a substance that can cause a person to become homicidal (eg PCP, though I guess, once again, alcohol comes up here too).

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 15:14

He said Tobacco is more harmful because it is the most used. One to one, there is no comparison between a cigar and cannabies.

Plus, if cannabis even remotely damage the brain should't they be banned altogether?

AL-Jassas

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 15:31

Originally posted by Al Jassas

He said Tobacco is more harmful because it is the most used. One to one, there is no comparison between a cigar and cannabies.

No, it doesn't say because it's more widely used, it says because it's "typically smoked in much higher quantities" ie on an individual basis. Someone who smokes tobacco smokes 15, 25, even 50 cigarrettes a day, every day, usually for at least one (usually more) decade. Without pause. 5 cigarrettes won't do much to your health. 25 cigarrettes a day, 365 days a year, for 25 years ... that's what people die from. Even multiplied by 5, most users of marijuana simply don't get anywhere close to that. Therefore, the author of the study said that tobacco remains far more harmful because of the quantities involved.

And the reason people smoke so much tobacco, of course, is because its far more powerfully addictive. It's both more harmful and more addictive.

And I would have to say a cigar is probably about exactly the same as a joint, on a one-for-one basis:

"It is not unusual for some premium cigars to contain the tobacco equivalent of an entire pack of cigarettes . . . the lung cancer risk from moderately inhaling smoke from five cigars a day is comparable to the risk from smoking up to one pack of cigarettes a day."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cigars - http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cigars

Plus, if cannabis even remotely damage the brain should't they be banned altogether?

If you think so, then you have to support alcohol prohibition as well. The damage alcohol causes is far more severe and the studies that show it are far more conclusive.

Plus there are studies that show the Internet can lead to mental health issues ... so ...the fact you would make such a statement on the Internet is quite ironic!

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 15:46

I am in Saudi Arabia, i don't need to support any ban because it is already banned

Al-Jassas

Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 15:48

Originally posted by Al Jassas

I am in Saudi Arabia, i don't need to support any ban because it is already banned

Al-Jassas

But you're still on the Internet, which is known to cause mental health problems.

Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 17:14

Originally posted by pinguin

Well, if "American" culture don't accept the idea of drugs, next time you guys go to the dentists ask him/her to drill your teeth without drugs to kill pain... That's to be consistent with ideas.

Why even say that? You know exactly what kind of drugs I'm talking about. And Edgewaters and I discussed the alcohol and marijuana, which he destroyed my arguement against marijuna with it. Yet most Americans see alcohol as more accepted and view it less dangerously. Why? Because it's apart of our culture, something all Americans know about growing up, and is shown in all areas of our culture. Marijuana for instance is always seen as something working against the law and usually attracts young Americans because of it.

So, please don't even say something like that, either you don't understand culture or your fishing for a soft spot to hit. Maybe it's a joke, but it sounds more like a lack of understanding.

-------------
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey