Is there a good explanation why pot isn't legal? Alcohol seems to be much worse!?

HLBellevino

Look for the series HOOKED: Illegals Drugs and How They Got That Way on the History Channel.

coyotecoup

the distillers won the war

sandandsurf - A tolerance is reached for weed just like for alcohol. Just like the 1st time you drink you get really high but after a while it takes more and more beer, a chronic weed smoker doesn't get highly impaired with just a few hits.

Harith Rahman

the law that made marijuana illegal was based on the hype of 'reefer madness" which was made up by politicians to back their anti-drug policies. So, here we are 50 years later putting people in jail based on a law based on a lie. that is the explanation, might not be good, but its the truth.

Kevy

I don't really know why it is illegal, I just know that it is. I don't make the laws, just enforce them.

Golden

pot cannot be controlled (taxed). you can grow this stuff anywhere. the pot you see on the street today was created and developed by users and amateur growers. big business is at a loss as to how to profit from it other than the drug war.

satcomgrunt

um not really unless you count the paper, logging, and jeans makers losing money a good reason. Have you ever wondered why Randolph Hearst was the first person to give lots of money to the war against pot.

You are all, weirdos.

No there is not.

And that's the -beauty- of it!

jade4e83

watch Reefer Madness and Woody Harrelson's documentary. You can find it at Blockbuster. Alcohol kills more people a year than drugs do. It's taxable and pot isn't really that easy to tax bc it's so easy to grow. It has a lot of benefits to cancer, m.s., and arthritic patients. It's ridiculous.

*smile*

Jade is right. It isn't really taxable or it's too difficult for the government to tax. That is the main reason it's illegal.

going_for_baroque

You ask a question that opens a can of philosophical, medical, historical and practical worms. This is one of those litmus-paper things that people believe or don't. (others- the war in Iraq, the Kennedy assassination, pro-choice/pro-life, gun control) Your question has the patina of verisimilitude, but is complicated at best.

DEA remains adamant about not changing its status. OK, at one time it might have been due to ignorance- no one quite understood the physiological effects of cocaine (as in Coca Cola) or heroin (patented by Bayer Pharmaceuticals), so it might have been a good idea to take pot along for the criminal ride.

The 60's saw a lot of people who admitted to using pot. These people are now your grandparents and do not appear to have taken the "gateway" drug to becoming hard-core heroin abusers.

So why won't DEA bend and change? You need to be a PhD in linguistics to understand the vague, burocratic mumbo-jumbo. I think it boils down to "We don't want to. Trust us."

Some of the current problems are medical- without regulation, no one knows what dosage they're getting. At least with alcohol, the government assures you that 100 proof means 50% alcohol, so you'll have an idea of what an ounce will do to your body.

Some of the current problems are historical- the legal system tends to be lethargic and hidebound. Initiatives work on the state level, but I don't know of a federal one ever happening. In California, "medical marijuana" passed the voters scrutiny, but the feds still bust people who have California license.

Some of the practical problems involve the more powerful varieties available today; pot from the 60's wasn't as potent.

And remember, "legal" stems from "law." Lawmakers (people in Congress) are political animals- they do what gets them re-elected and avoid what doesn't get them re-elected. How does this principle affect the law about marijuana? No lawmaker wants to be the tip of the "Make Pot Legal" spear. All that lawmaker can see is the bad press, the election-day repercussion of taking a bold stand.

Look at recent big issues- helmet laws for motorcyclists. How'd these laws get passed? Big interests (insurance) pushed for the law and got it. Where's the deep-pockets group that stands to gain from decriminalization of pot?

So I don't see any changes on the radar. Individuals, even erudite advocates, can write to their congressman and send wonderful letters to the editor. But there's no big groundswell among voters, so I don't see any changes. Good question, though.

kill them sexy hos

I think there is no good reason, why should any substance that has the potential to put other people in harm intentional or unintentionally has no business being legal. How hypocritical to be in a public place that bans smoking when someone drunk counld plow through the crowd. No mind altering substance is 'OK', and if you go to Jamaica to get high and party, thats fine, when you get stoned in Springfield, hop in a car and back into my Ford, I own you.

badmotherrucker

All are good points, here's another one. You can test positive for marijuana for up to a month after you smoke it. Even though your not high for that whole month. If you get pulled over and tested by the cops three weeks after your last hit, you will test positive. You can see how this could be a problem. Even if someone hits you, that person can just claim your stoned, and that it's your fault.
Personally, I think pot should be legal, but at the same time,we need to grow as a society. We need to take responsibility for our faults. Otherwise, pot will be just one more thing to blame our problems on. Then it would never be legal.

capnbilly

during the early 20th century the large logging/milling and paper companies didnt want hemp used instead of wood for paper becuase hemp was too easy to grow (one year versus 20 or 30 years for a tree) and therefore all their forests would become worthless

so they were able to lobby (with the ignorant help of the women pushing for prohibition of alchohol) to have all hemp banned (Reefer Madness was a propaganda movie put out at this time to help push this along).

daoco

Pot used to be legal along with cocaine and heroin. When prohibition ended the enforcement branch of the treasury department was out of work. They criminalized drugs to give the federal cops something to do.

freedom first

Laws against pot originated in the border states at the turn of the century, when immigration from Mexico was first determined to be a problem. Similarly, anti-opium laws started in California when they decided there were too many Chinese immigrants.

Also, I'd second the suggestion for watching "HOOKED: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way" on the History Channel

sandand_surf

Good question since there are so many drunk driving accidents.

But consider this - I can drink a drink and not get drunk and drive my car with no problem. However, if I smoke a whole joint, I will be high as a kite. Just a few hits off a joint is enough to impair someone (as opposed to a few sips of a drink).

You can drink alcohol and not get drunk, but there is no way you can smoke a joint and not get high.

Proud to be an AMERICAN

It's a fire hazard, and people are concerned about second-hand smoke.

Environmentalists are trying to combat global warming as well.

:)

KIB

Alcohol doesn't become part of your brain cell like the THC in pot does. Ex: If it takes you 5 hits of Pot to get high initially, after an undetermined part of time you only need 1 hit and you don't realize it. Pretty soon the THC takes over the brain cell and you become a mushhead. I don't believe there has been a correct study as to how much THC it takes before critical decisions are hampered. Perhaps people at the political conventions could participate in a study like that.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: