why smoking and drinking

[HeavyAaron]

Personally I feel both activities are dumb. So this biases me, but I do have a serious question.

Most people feel that smoking and drinking alcohol should be legal, while the illicit drugs should remain illegal. There are other political viewpoints, but the status quo is definately the dominate view.

However, I see no reasonable basis for this. As far as I can tell the only thing that tobacco and alcohol have in common that distinguishes them from other drugs is history (and as a result, culture). History, in my mind, is a lousy basis for drug catagorization and legalization.

So for consistancy shouldn't we make tobacco and alcohol illegal, or legalize some of the other recreational drugs?

Or am I missing something and there IS some rational reason for this distinction. If so, what is that characteristic?

Aaron

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why not add caffeine to the list? It's addictive, and can harm the user if abused. Why outlaw tobacco and alcohol and not caffeine?

 

[HeavyAaron]

Why not add caffeine to the list? It's addictive, and can harm the user if abused. Why outlaw tobacco and alcohol and not caffeine?

Because it's in trace amounts in virtually all food. Personally, I avoid caffine where possible as well.

Aaron

 

[rustypouch]

I agree with legalizing other recreational drugs.

The States once tired to make alcohol illegal, and look hgow well that turned out. Same thing with the 'War on Drugs.' I don't see why someone should go to jail for having a few grams of pot.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I agree with legalizing other recreational drugs.

The States once tired to make alcohol illegal, and look hgow well that turned out. Same thing with the 'War on Drugs.' I don't see why someone should go to jail for having a few grams of pot.

What about a metric ton?

I think legalizing marajana is certainly consistant with legal tobacco and alcohol. But I don't understand the "few grams" stipulation. What difference does quantity make? As far as I know, owning 10,000 liters of alcohol, or 10,000 cartons of cigarettes is legal (am I wrong?)

Aaron

 

[Seismosaurus]

What about a metric ton?

I think legalizing marajana is certainly consistant with legal tobacco and alcohol. But I don't understand the "few grams" stipulation. What difference does quantity make? As far as I know, owning 10,000 liters of alcohol, or 10,000 cartons of cigarettes is legal (am I wrong?)

Aaron

You are not. The idea that posession is okay whilst dealing the same drug is not is, quite simply, insane.

Personally I'd legalise most recreational drugs. People should be able to smash their brains in however they like. I would, however, have absolutely cast iron laws for performing various activities whilst under the influence - driving, surgery, that kind of thing.

 

[brodski]

I would, however, have absolutely cast iron laws for performing various activities whilst under the influence - driving, surgery, that kind of thing.

We have those laws allready.

 

[Seismosaurus]

We have those laws allready.

I know we do for alcohol; I don't know about other drugs, but I'll happily take your word for it.

 

[tkingdoll]

I don't understand why alcohol and tobacco are treated any differently to any other addictive substance either.

However, clearly there is a difference between alcohol effects and, say, heroin effects. The addiction of the latter is, I believe, worse, faster and more dangerous than the former. But then, the media would have me believe that all heroin addicts don't function as normal members of society. I know that's not true for cocaine addicts, but no idea if it's true of heroin.

Many drugs are demonised precisely because they are illegal, but I'm sure (without going and checking my facts) that the negative effect on society and the individual because of recreational marijuana use, for example, is no worse than the negatives effects due to alcohol use.

I guess the question is, is it physically possible to use the drug without abusing it, or without becoming addicted? If the answer is yes, then it's no different to alcohol or tobacco so should arguably be legal.

But then, what do I know? I've never used any type of drug, including alcohol and tobacco.

 

[Cleon]

I know we do for alcohol; I don't know about other drugs, but I'll happily take your word for it.

Depends on the state. But I believe most of the time, "Driving Under the Influence" is the same whether you're stoned or sloshed. The difference is that if you're stoned, there's a whole mess of other charges you wind up facing.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I don't understand why alcohol and tobacco are treated any differently to any other addictive substance either.

Yay! The concensus seems to be that I'm not nuts.

However, clearly there is a difference between alcohol effects and, say, heroin effects. The addiction of the latter is, I believe, worse, faster and more dangerous than the former. But then, the media would have me believe that all heroin addicts don't function as normal members of society. I know that's not true for cocaine addicts, but no idea if it's true of heroin.

I'm not arguing that all drugs are the same and there should be no catagorization. I just think that if there are going to be legal and illegal drugs, then there needs to be a set of defining, or ideally a single defining, characteristic(s) that distinguish them.

Many drugs are demonised precisely because they are illegal, but I'm sure (without going and checking my facts) that the negative effect on society and the individual because of recreational marijuana use, for example, is no worse than the negatives effects due to alcohol use.

I guess the question is, is it physically possible to use the drug without abusing it, or without becoming addicted? If the answer is yes, then it's no different to alcohol or tobacco so should arguably be legal.

Please define "abuse" in this context. As for addiction, tobacco is highly addictive, and alcohol can be physically addictive. So do you mean has any person ever used the drug without being addicted? That's undoubtably true for all drugs. So I'm not sure what "physically possible to use the drug... without becoming addicted" means either.

But then, what do I know? I've never used any type of drug, including alcohol and tobacco.

Wow, I thought I was a mythical creature .

Aaron

 

[tkingdoll]

By abuse, I guess I mean 'allows to have destructive impact on life' - you know, like Trainspotting. Which is, to be absolutely honest, almost my only frame of reference for any kind of heroin culture, so I can't really offer any kind of knowledgeable input and should probably shut up . From that sort of picture, one gets the impression that to use heroin is to become addicted to it - if that is true then perhaps it should be illegal. But, if it's not true (likely), then I'd struggle to see the difference between that and alcohol.

I have friends who use cocaine at weekends and you'd never know - they have great jobs, relationships, etc. I would say they use the substance, but don't abuse it - they can afford what they use and it doesn't affect any other aspect of their life. That's what I mean by "physically possible to use the drug... without becoming addicted"