Why is alcohol legal ?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The other "mood alterers" are already banned, and have been for ages. I've given my reasons why I believe that to be morally correct and I stand by that. Sometimes being in the middle, gives one a better view of the extremes that may exist both left and right.

And sometimes being in the middle makes you take some contorted stances in order to stay balanced on the fence.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

So let's be clear...are you saying alcohol should be banned? or that other already illegal drugs should be legalised and made available? Or are you questioning that coffee and tea are also drugs? I'm saying I am with the status quo, as is in my country.

For drugs, I gave Portugal as an example, and provided a link. The drugs aren't legalized, but if you're caught abusing them you don't go to jail (unless they made you commit a different crime). Instead they spend that money on rehabilitation and education instead of prisons and police. 

For alcohol, education is again the key. Alcohol destroys so many lives simply because it's use is defended by so many, which leads inevitably to abuse by some. I don't mind you not having a problem with alcohol, but perhaps you could help by voting for better education for future generations. Or are you like so many, and insist there's no harm in young folks kicking up their heels and taking after their parents, drinking as a given because it's the most socially acceptable ("status quo in my country")? 

How would you feel if I suggested a course in school your grandkids could take that would explain the history of alcohol in your country and its effects on the body when abused, in an effort to reduce alcohol-related problems in their future?

[TheVat]

 Laws can drive the basic human desire to relieve boredom or tension or fatigue underground, but it will always find its way out.  And a drug's negatives (from dosing, or inherent distortions it induces) are so much more addressable when the drug is legal and its quality regulated and there is no legal consequence for seeking help.  

Drugs like acid or pot or shrooms probably have less social stigma in societies where power and productivity and a fast pace are less valued.  In America, drugs that led users to more focus on expanded perception and introspection tended to be strongly interdicted, while drugs that stoked the engines of capitalism and power were practically sacraments. It's actually rather amazing that MJ legalization got as much traction as it did here.  Arthritic joints in baby boomers probably helped.  Also the growth of libertarian factions in American politics.    

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

We all sit here pontificating about the detrimental side of alcohol and banning it, then in the next instant, we pontificate about adding even more detrimental drugs to the list.

Adding? I think they have been around for some time - the ones I mentioned, thousands of years. And new ones are being made all the time, sold illegally, unregulated and sometimes, at least until it's too late, undetected. 

 

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Plus why would you need to divert people from alcohol, by making "magic mushrooms and peyote" (Don't even know what peyote is)

Because according to the charts (it's a cactus, American https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tripping-on-peyote-in-navajo-nation/) they're among the least harmful. If something less harmful satisfies the same craving in more people, the overall harm is reduced. Much more to the point, if a less harmful substance, in small quantities, fills a need that alcohol fails to, goading the needy to drink more and more, it would reduce harm considerably.

 

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

How do you know by legalising this stuff, and making it more available like alcohol, that the detrimental effects and death from it will not sky rocket?

I don't. Prohibiting them hasn't done any good: the largely ineffective enforcement measures are obscenely expensive, divisive, disruptive and ruin as many lives and families as addiction itself.  What's out in the open has at a chance of being controlled. What's hidden in the sewers has none.  

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm not at all denying that alcohol has resulted in far more deaths then other illegal drugs. But it is legal, and available to all and sundry and being the "social necessity" that it is, is certainly impossible to ban. Plus I like my weekly six pack of VB!

Question is then why you are in favour banning substances that are clearly less dangerous than alcohol?

 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

If other current illegal drugs were made legal and equally available, who is to say that deaths from those drugs will not sky rocket? That is my reasoning.

Because data shows that it is not happening. Portugal to have high levels of drug related deaths. After decriminalization in 2001 the levels dropped significantly and Portugal has remained way lower than the European average throughout. As a comparison, in Scotland the death rates are 50x that of Portugal. So in other words, legalizing drugs do not increase deaths.

Likewise, cannabis is legal in Canada for a few years and not much has changed in terms of usage and cannabis-related health incidences.

Quote

And again, how far do we go into supposedly banning other stuff like coffee and tea?

I do not follow that argument at all. Why would one consider banning it? They have fairly low toxicity and it is very difficult to overdose on it. On the same note psilocybin has a lower toxicity than caffeine. If we say coffee is fine, why not also certain mushrooms?

Again, this sounds fairly inconsistent to me, and may be based on faulty risk assessment.

[beecee]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And sometimes being in the middle makes you take some contorted stances in order to stay balanced on the fence.

Perhaps with some, not with me.

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

For drugs, I gave Portugal as an example, and provided a link. The drugs aren't legalized, but if you're caught abusing them you don't go to jail (unless they made you commit a different crime). Instead they spend that money on rehabilitation and education instead of prisons and police. 

Decriminalising you are suggesting?  I am not against that actually, and certainly for rehabilitation and education. 

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

For alcohol, education is again the key. Alcohol destroys so many lives simply because it's use is defended by so many, which leads inevitably to abuse by some. I don't mind you not having a problem with alcohol, but perhaps you could help by voting for better education for future generations. Or are you like so many, and insist there's no harm in young folks kicking up their heels and taking after their parents, drinking as a given because it's the most socially acceptable ("status quo in my country")? 

Firstly I don't see how the highlighted bit follows. We have gullible, foolish peoplein any society, as we have wrong doers in any society. And I have already and always supported better education re alcohol. My old man, bless his soul, gave me my first beer, but at the same time, gave me a lecture about those dangers. No, I did not completely adhere to his advice, and on occasions suffered for it. My Son started drinking without my knowledge. When I found out, (his Mother already knew) I had the old Father and Son talk with him. Thankfully, mostly he drinks in moderation.

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How would you feel if I suggested a course in school your grandkids could take that would explain the history of alcohol in your country and its effects on the body when abused, in an effort to reduce alcohol-related problems in their future?

 Great!! Are you reading my posts? I am all for education, and your suggestion, along with others that I have, would be great for the primary school curriculum. +1

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Adding? I think they have been around for some time - the ones I mentioned, thousands of years. And new ones are being made all the time, sold illegally, unregulated and sometimes, at least until it's too late, undetected.  

Not legally though. Which is what I was inferring.

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Because according to the charts (it's a cactus, American https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/tripping-on-peyote-in-navajo-nation/) they're among the least harmful. If something less harmful satisfies the same craving in more people, the overall harm is reduced. Much more to the point, if a less harmful substance, in small quantities, fills a need that alcohol fails to, goading the needy to drink more and more, it would reduce harm considerably.

I'm not sure that comparing that which is widely legal and available, (alcohol) with something that is illegal and not as available, is a valid scenario.(mushrooms, the magic ones and peyote)

20 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't. Prohibiting them hasn't done any good: the largely ineffective enforcement measures are obscenely expensive, divisive, disruptive and ruin as many lives and families as addiction itself.  What's out in the open has at a chance of being controlled. What's hidden in the sewers has none.  

Again, how do you know prohibiting them hasn't contained the detrimental effects from wider usage?

All law enforcement measures are necessary evils. If we could have no morally corrupt people, misfits, wrong doeres and evil arseholes, there would be no need for them.

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Question is then why you are in favour banning substances that are clearly less dangerous than alcohol?

because I don't believe that making other current illegal drugs readily available is morally correct. Why add more problems to be readily obtained?

25 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Because data shows that it is not happening. Portugal to have high levels of drug related deaths. After decriminalization in 2001 the levels dropped significantly and Portugal has remained way lower than the European average throughout. As a comparison, in Scotland the death rates are 50x that of Portugal. So in other words, legalizing drugs do not increase deaths.

But they are not being legalised! They are being decriminalised. We don't jail people for minor traffic infringements, but it is still illegal. Make it legal and what do you think will happen?

30 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do not follow that argument at all. Why would one consider banning it? They have fairly low toxicity and it is very difficult to overdose on it. On the same note psilocybin has a lower toxicity than caffeine. If we say coffee is fine, why not also certain mushrooms?

Again, this sounds fairly inconsistent to me, and may be based on faulty risk assessment.

As I believe I have made clear, I simply do not see making other stuff that maybe detrimental, to the easy obtainable list. 

The coffee and tea mentions, were certainly a case of going from the sublime to the ridiculous, but by the same token, speaking of banning alcohol that has been legal for yonks, and part and parcel of society and a social necessity, is equally crazy as I stated before. Riots without doubt would eventuate.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Not legally though. Which is what I was inferring.

I don't know about all of the substances, but cannabis has been in use - legally, medically, recreationally - in quite large populations for about 10,000 years.   I have not seen any studies from pre-colonial India and China suggesting a higher rate of physical illness, addiction or criminality from cannabis than in post-colonial cultures where it's illegal. I have not seen any clinical comparison between the use of peyote, morning glory seeds, and mushrooms by North American natives and alcohol use in the same population - we only about the devastating effects of the latter. 

The whole banning drugs craze in the west is a 20th century phenomenon - and, guess what? Its history is closely entwined with racism https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal

As for the new street drugs, how does illegality affect their medical risk assessment? By making it, user identification and treatment, more difficult.

 

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm not sure that comparing that which is widely legal and available, (alcohol) with something that is illegal and not as available, is a valid scenario.(mushrooms, the magic ones and peyote)

It's not my chart.

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Again, how do you know prohibiting them hasn't contained the detrimental effects from wider usage?

How do you know it has? We do have some statistics about man-hours, equipment, etc that goes into policing; we do have statistics on the cost, both economic and social, of apprehension, trial and incarceration. We do have statistics that by far the majority of the prison population of the US is there for drug-related offenses. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp We have no US statistics for what hasn't been tried in the US, but the ones we do have attest poorly for criminalizing.  

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Make it legal and what do you think will happen?

Not the same as what you think will happen, evidently. But there really is only one way to find out who's right.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know about all of the substances, but cannabis has been in use - legally, medically, recreationally - in quite large populations for about 10,000 years.   I have not seen any studies from pre-colonial India and China suggesting a higher rate of physical illness, addiction or criminality from cannabis than in post-colonial cultures where it's illegal. I have not seen any clinical comparison between the use of peyote, morning glory seeds, and mushrooms by North American natives and alcohol use in the same population - we only about the devastating effects of the latter. 

Neither have I re highlight. Yes our own indigenous population, having never had experience with alcohol, also suffered devastatingly when plied with it by European settlers.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

The whole banning drugs craze in the west is a 20th century phenomenon - and, guess what? Its history is closely entwined with racism https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal

Your link fails to work in my area. Irrespective, I find that claim hard to believe and more opinonated then anything else, and possibly applicable over an extremely narrow application . 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

As for the new street drugs, how does illegality affect their medical risk assessment? By making it, user identification and treatment, more difficult.

My moral stand on this issue, is not politically motivated. I offer an opinion based on my moral standings alone, and with consideration for those with less strength of will, then I, or with other problematic issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/22/drug-deaths-at-music-festivals-one-overdose-victim-took-up-to-nine-mdma-pills

Drug deaths at music festivals: one overdose victim 'took up to nine MDMA pills'

NSW coroner told different circumstances led to the five deaths, including one victim who was drinking as well as consuming MDMA

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's not my chart.

Charts, like polls can be wrong, insufficient data and bias.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

How do you know it has? We do have some statistics about man-hours, equipment, etc that goes into policing; we do have statistics on the cost, both economic and social, of apprehension, trial and incarceration. We do have statistics that by far the majority of the prison population of the US is there for drug-related offenses. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp We have no US statistics for what hasn't been tried in the US, but the ones we do have attest poorly for criminalizing.  

How do you know it wouldn't? Something that is illegal and hard to get, will imo shy more people away then towards it. Plus I have already mentioned that decriminalisation would be OK in a post to Phi....but decriminalisation is not legalisation.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Not the same as what you think will happen, evidently. But there really is only one way to find out who's right.

Well we disagree (shock, horror) on that score, and I use the freely available and legal status of alcohol, plus the many more deaths and detrimental effect with alcohol shown in charts, to support my stance.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by beecee

[NTuft]

10 hours ago, KickMePlease said:

maybe in Us where the govermnet has more respect for peoples

  The grass is soaked in glyphosate.

We do not have a representative government, I don't think anyone in the West does. Money's influence on political campaigns here runs the show.

As regards the detail from your original post, I don't think the specifics you give are germane to the question. This post quoted here meanders a ways, too.

Edited May 4, 2022 by NTuft

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Your link fails to work in my area. Irrespective, I find that claim hard to believe and more opinonated then anything else, and possibly applicable over an extremely narrow application . 

irrespective of what it contains, it's hard to believe. It's also readily verifiable from any number of historical sources. 

Quote

Despite its medical usefulness, many Americans’ attitudes towards cannabis shifted at the turn of the century. This was at least partly motivated by Mexican immigration to the U.S. around the time of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, according to Eric Schlosser, author of Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market.

Here is another  opinionated article.     https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/four-decades-counting-continued-failure-war-drugs#

1 hour ago, beecee said:

How do you know it wouldn't?

Second circle. I don't. Maybe you're right. Maybe if something didn't work the first fifteen times, the sixteenth attempt will have different results.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I use the freely available and legal status of alcohol, plus the many more deaths and detrimental effect with alcohol shown in charts, to support my stance.

What is your 'stance'? I thought you were in favour of legal alcohol (the most dangerous) and illegal mushrooms (the least dangerous).

[Sensei]

People need to find a fine balance in the dosage of what they are dealing with. Regardless of what it is. I used to hear people complain that they were addicted to their morning coffee. I never understood why. I always preferred Coca-Cola.

I don't see on your list, for example, coffee, sugar, salt and other "unhealthy" things that are unhealthy when their dosage is inappropriate.

You can become addicted to anything... Some people are addicted to sex, while others are addicted to watching stock quotes from 9am to 5pm.

A drunk driver can kill a few, rarely dozens of people. A drunk pilot could kill hundreds of people. A drunk president could "save the world" by not being able to push the "red button"...

The worst are the power addicts, as we see now in Eastern Europe.

People should not go to extremes.

Find a fine balance.

Automatically driven cars will solve problems with people who have had too much to drink or taken something else that has altered their neutral systems and want to drive home.

[Bufofrog]

19 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

You consider LSD a 'lite drug' like pot.  That is crazy talk...

 

18 hours ago, KickMePlease said:

this how looks most of stats whenever you look

That harm analysis is fine but to consider LSD as a "lite drug" on par with marijuana is still crazy talk.  Have you ever taken LSD?  There is a world of difference between the effects of LSD as opposed to smoking pot.

[iNow]

They're both psychotropics, but one is like driving a tricycle while the other is like driving a Bugatti. 

[MigL]

None of those graphs which show the harm to society take into account the widespread use of alcohol as compared to other less used drugs.
We also have an obesity/diabetes problem in North America, not because sugar is harmful, but because it is present in everything we consume.

I do agree with Swansont's suggestion on the previous page that a society with a representative Government is free to choose what it makes legal or illegal, simply by preference and majority rule.

And I found this line interesting ...

On 5/2/2022 at 4:38 PM, Phi for All said:

Just making them illegal hasn't worked, same as with alcohol. Focusing on treating the addictions seems to bring better results.

Would you suggest the same approach with gun violence in the US ?

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

We also have an obesity/diabetes problem in North America, not because sugar is harmful, but because it is present in everything we consume.

A little side note: not just in North America anymore. Fresh from WHO: Europe's 'obesity epidemic' is killing over 1.2 million people a year, a new WHO report says | Euronews

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would you suggest the same approach with gun violence in the US ?

Gun violence in the US is directly tied to poor education in that area. We're not even allowed to spend taxpayer funds on studies of gun violence in the US. Our leadership refuses to turn the light on, so how can we see what's wrong? If we had a healthcare system that supported early mental and physical health standards, and educated kids about the dangers we consider inherent in our society, I think many of our problems would disappear.

[CharonY]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

None of those graphs which show the harm to society take into account the widespread use of alcohol as compared to other less used drugs.

As I mentioned, they do to some degree. And moreover many of those drugs are unlikely to be used in such a large scale, even if legalized (as Canada has shown with cannabis). 

 

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

We also have an obesity/diabetes problem in North America, not because sugar is harmful, but because it is present in everything we consume.

So that is another part of it: availability and concentration. So from a health perspective it is undoubtedly that sugar and alcohol is harmful the way we use it. Conversely, the use of cannabis so far has a lower health burden than assumed (and certainly way lower than either alcohol or sugar).

I think the bigger point is that criminalization has virtually no benefit to in terms of addressing harm of substances. The only question that remains is then really whether legalization increases the harm. For certain substances that could be the case, specifically those with a high potential for addiction. However, here we make an cultural exception because the Western world apparently cannot do without.

But using the same logic, drugs used in in other cultures should also be allowed. There is nothing in alcohol that makes it categorically different from the other drugs, other than our familiarity with it (which in itself might be harm-promoting characteristic). As such it would make sense to at least put those less dangerous drugs (which are less addictive and toxic) with cultural history at least on the same level as alcohol.

[Peterkin]

And there is still the known but largely unaddressed problem of prescription drugs - legally available and harmful to the more prosperous and empowered; illegally available and harmful to the most vulnerable: the poor and the young. 

Another aspect of criminalizing everything in sight: once out of sight, the user still isn't safe, and neither is a previous non-user

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-drug-problem-jail-uk-illicit-substances-reform-a9288616.html

It's not just the UK, obviously:

Quote

Prisons and jails in the United States have been increasingly deadly places in recent years, according to new federal data. But one cause of death has climbed most dramatically: overdoses. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/07/15/inside-the-nation-s-overdose-crisis-in-prisons-and-jails

There was an interesting article, also, on the fact that only 11% of prisoners with drug addiction are getting any treatment. But my internet connection is playing silly buggers today, so I'm giving up on that link.

Criminalization is just not working.

[beecee]

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

irrespective of what it contains, it's hard to believe. It's also readily verifiable from any number of historical sources. 

Irrespective? verifiable? banning alcohol and drugs and racism???🤪 Sorry, I reject that soft science speculation.

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Second circle. I don't. Maybe you're right. 

I am reasonably confident I am, for the reasons stated, and the possible dire consequences makes trying your methodology as beyond reason. eg: I have a mate who can't see the validity and logic in the climate change evidence. He appears fair dinkum, so my reply is simply, if we are possibly going to err, isn't it wise to err on the side of caution?

The rest of your paragraph is fairy tales.

15 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What is your 'stance'? I thought you were in favour of legal alcohol (the most dangerous) and illegal mushrooms (the least dangerous).

I think you know what my stance is, and this playing ignorance is sometimes tiring. But anyway, my stance is that alcohol has been and always will be a social necessity and as much a part of society as is eating. The dangers etc of excess alcohol intake should be part and parcel of the primary education system, and taught to our young. Legalising more potentially dangerous drugs that are at present illegal, for free and easy obtainability and use, is imo couter-productive and dangerous. Is that clear enough?🙄 I'm sure I have made that clear throughout this thread.

 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Criminalization is just not working.

I have already agreed that perhaps some less dangerous and habitual drug/s could be decriminalised, not legalised.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And there is still the known but largely unaddressed problem of prescription drugs - legally available and harmful to the more prosperous and empowered; illegally available and harmful to the most vulnerable: the poor and the young. 

I would think that any Doctor prescribing unecessary prescriptions to anyone prosperous or otherwise, would be leaving himself open to conviction.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Conversely, the use of cannabis so far has a lower health burden than assumed (and certainly way lower than either alcohol or sugar).

Would that remain as is if legalised and readily and freely obtained? Just another aspect, regarding drinking and driving, and taking cannibis and driving. One can have a heavy drinking session and be OK to drive and within the 0.05 limitation 24 hours later. Drugs though, particularly marijhuna, can stay in the system above the 50ngs/ml range for 3 or 4 days. These are the figures applicable in NSW.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

The only question that remains is then really whether legalization increases the harm. For certain substances that could be the case, specifically those with a high potential for addiction. 

We err on the side of caution? 

 

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

There is nothing in alcohol that makes it categorically different from the other drugs, other than our familiarity with it (which in itself might be harm-promoting characteristic). As such it would make sense to at least put those less dangerous drugs (which are less addictive and toxic) with cultural history at least on the same level as alcohol.

Here is where I differ. Whether less addicitve and/or toxic, if legalised could mean more experimentation and increased useages, and lessen one's reasonable judgement calls, and be a reson for further experimentation into even harder and more dangerous drugs. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by beecee

[Phi for All]

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

I think you know what my stance is, and this playing ignorance is sometimes tiring. But anyway, my stance is that alcohol has been and always will be a social necessity and as much a part of society as is eating.

There are many societies today that don't consume alcohol. And it's easy to reject statements that claim something will "always be a necessity". But you really think drinking alcohol is as much a part of our societies as eating?! I guess I'm not fit to eat with you.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Irrespective?

that was your word

1 hour ago, beecee said:

verifiable

that was mine: other reliable sources can provide the historical documentation to corroborate the one I cited. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Sorry, I reject that soft science speculation.

You must, of course, please yourself.

[beecee]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There are many societies today that don't consume alcohol. And it's easy to reject statements that claim something will "always be a necessity". But you really think drinking alcohol is as much a part of our societies as eating?! I guess I'm not fit to eat with you.

😉 I eat with the Mrs all the time. Guess what? She doesn't drink alcohol and never has!

I also understand that Muslims don't drink alcohol and the Koran forbids it. Obviously I am speaking of westernised societies.

I also interesting just came across this which did surprise me......

https://www.google.com/search?q=societies+today+that+don't+consume+alcohol&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=societies+today+that+don't+consume+alcohol&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160.1454j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

According to the World Health Organization, US has the lowest rate of alcohol dependence with only 1.93 per cent.

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

that was your word

It was. My apologies for any aspersions on your character.

18 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

that was mine: other reliable sources can provide the historical documentation to corroborate the one I cited. 

That may or may not be the case, but I still reject any logical connection between racism and  banning drugs. Just because  history "maybe" entwined with some racism, does not validate that banning drugs and racism is a fact. And while the link you gave was not working in my area, I did find others that support that hypothesis. Again, I find the connection fragile at best, and probably wrongly formulated by some lazy acadamics trying to be controversial, in the same vane as that Peterson character..

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

45 minutes ago, beecee said:

That may or may not be the case, but I still reject any logical connection between racism and  banning drugs.

OK. Your rejection is duly and solemnly noted.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

OK. Your rejection is duly and solemnly noted.

 

48 minutes ago, beecee said:

That may or may not be the case, but I still reject any logical connection between racism and  banning drugs. Just because  history "maybe" entwined with some racism, does not validate that banning drugs and racism is a fact. And while the link you gave was not working in my area, I did find others that support that hypothesis. Again, I find the connection fragile at best, and probably wrongly formulated by some lazy acadamics trying to be controversial, in the same vane as that Peterson character..

 

[Peterkin]

And renoted, should you deem it necessary.