Jump to content

Why is alcohol legal ?


KickMePlease
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, beecee said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02530-7

Weighing the dangers of cannabis

extract:

As interest builds in the potential health benefits from the plant, accumulating evidence confirms that taking the drug also carries risks.

Immediate harms

Along with countries including Canada and Uruguay, 33 US states have legalized cannabis for medical use. Eleven also allow recreational use. And evidence is accumulating to support the use of specific cannabis compounds, especially cannabidiol (CBD), for a variety of health conditions, including seizures and inflammation2.

But a look at what happens when the use of cannabis becomes more widespread suggests that the drug can also have downsides, including acute injuries and illnesses. In 2000, Colorado legalized medical marijuana. Further policy changes in 2009 made the substance easier to get hold of, and between 2008 and 2014, licences for medical marijuana in the state increased from less than 5,000 to more than 100,000. In 2012, the state also legalized recreational use, and shops began selling cannabis products in 2014.

As cannabis has lost its stigma in Colorado, Monte’s research shows that the need for health care for cannabis-related reasons has risen3. Between 2012 and 2014, cannabis-related visits to emergency departments at a group of Colorado hospitals increased by around 40%, from 824 per 100,000 visits to 1,146 per 100,000. Many of those visits were related to mental illnesses, which were diagnosed five times more frequently in people who had used cannabis than in those who hadn’t.

Colorado hospitals have also seen a growing number of cases of marijuana use leading to cyclic vomiting syndrome, a condition characterized by vomiting and severe abdominal pain. Occurrences of this condition doubled at two Denver hospitals after the liberalization of medical cannabis2. Burns are another risk. In a 2015 analysis4, Monte’s group found that the University of Colorado burns centre admitted 29 people for marijuana-related burns between 2009 and 2014, compared with no burns cases before the policy changed. Most were incurred during the process of extracting the plant’s main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), for making butane hash oil.

Cannabis is also causing more of other types of accident than it used to. From 2009 to 2015, Children’s Hospital of Colorado in Aurora saw 81 children under 10 years of age who had been accidentally poisoned by cannabis, and the state’s poison-control centre dealt with 163 cases of children in the same age group, with a mean age of about 2. The rate of marijuana-related visits to the children’s hospital nearly doubled from 1.2 per 100,000 people two years before legalization to 2.3 per 100,000 two years after legalization5. The number of cases at the poison-control centre increased by 34% per year during the study period, far outpacing a 19% annual increase in the rest of the country.

Studies with driving simulators suggest that cannabis also raises the risk of car accidents6, although those data are harder to quantify because cannabis lingers in the bloodstream, and drivers in collisions might have more than one drug in their system.

Adverse outcomes do not seem to be abating in the state, even after years of legalization. Between 2012 and 2016 (the latest data available), there were nearly 10,000 cannabis-related visits to the University of Colorado Health Emergency Department7. Reasons included psychiatric, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms. Edible products accounted for about 10% of visits, even though, in 2016, they made up just 0.3% of THC sales in the state.

“There are risks, absolutely,” Monte says. “And we need to be open and transparent about what those risks are with patients.”

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

No I hav't read the whole paper as yet, as I am on the way out for dinner, and yes a few beers....taxi there and back.

ps:Before anyone takes me out of context again, yes I fully concur with the use of cannibi and any other drug for medical reasons, as certified by professional health departments.

 

Nobody is saying that it is harmless, and mention of medical benefits is an irrelevant distraction. It is not a supporting factor for recreational use or a means  to lessen perceived harm. It has harms, but the social, medical and financial burden of recreational cannabis use pales in comparison to alcohol.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

As interest builds in the potential health benefits from the plant, accumulating evidence confirms that taking the drug also carries risks.

The greatest risk with pot is being arrested.  That is a risk that is easily fixed by making it legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Nobody is saying that it is harmless, and mention of medical benefits is an irrelevant distraction. It is not a supporting factor for recreational use or a means  to lessen perceived harm. It has harms, but the social, medical and financial burden of recreational cannabis use pales in comparison to alcohol.

Exactly. Even with increased use, cannabis-related events are nowhere near alcohol-related ones.

Another comparison with a legal drug could be tobacco. Highly addictive, not a lot of acute events, little social burden, but very high long-term health burden. A reason why despite legal status there are efforts to restrict use of tobacco.

Despite consumed similarly tobacco health risks are also much higher than for cannabis. But I remember that we also had a thread discussing the numerous risks associated with cannabis. Perhaps interestingly, many adverse events involving cannabis, often also involve alcohol, further highlighting how prevalent the latter is. Especially among youths, tobacco and alcohol are the most common gateway drugs which are associated with cannabis and other drug consumption later in life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Notice he calls illicit drug users 'abusers'. If they are abusers, so are drinkers. Being legal changes nothing; they are all drugs.

Notice I did not say that.
An abuser is anyone who overindulges, whether an alcoholic or a perma-stoner.
That is who you want to compare.

And that statistic of 40% of violent incidents being caused by alcoholics is also questionable.
Does it include kids who get drunk one night and get in a fight ? Are they alcoholics because they succombed to peer pressure one night ?

As Peterkin already explained, this statistic depends on how far you want to stretch the web of crime connected to usage. And yes, illegality has a lot of impact on the associated crime element, in much the same way it did during alcohol prohibition.

I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned.
All I'm asking for is like for like comparison.

As for the 'harder' drugs, which bear comparison to alcohol yet no-one seems to mention comparative down-sides to health and society, I would love to see life expectancy numbers for an alcoholic compared to a heroin addict, or the negative impacts of either condition on family/society.

Cannabis is legal in Canada, and I don't have a problem with that ( as long as they keep the stoned off the roads ), but saying the war on harder rugs has failed, and we should just legalize them, makes little sense.
Wars on most all crimes are failing, because we still have most crimes; should we legalize all crimes ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, beecee said:

.How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores? any number you can come up with? How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics? How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol? You don't of course, so another invalid comparison.

Here you go! Bolding your own misconstruction doesn't really help clarify it.

- .How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores?

We do not know, because no records are kept. Nobody knows how much of the stolen goods - whether liquor or cigarettes - the thief intends for his own consumption and how much he intends to sell. In contrast, if a heroin addict breaks into a drugstore, it is assumed that he intends all of the stolen drugs for his own consumption and if he breaks into a liquor store, it is assumed that he intends to sell the stolen goods in order to feed his drug habit. Assumed and recorded.

- How do you know that all that hold up liquor stors are alcoholics?

Where was that ridiculous notion stated? Of ten people who hold up liquor stores, one might be a junkie (which is recorded) and one might be homeless (which is recorded, but does not typically enter statistical tables), and the other eight might be two street gang members (recorded) three high-school kids on a lark (juvenile record sealed), two organized criminals (recorded, if known) and a mother desperate to buy medicine for her baby (not recorded, but taken into consideration by the judge). One or more of those people may also be alcoholics, which is not recorded.

- How do you know someone doesn't hold up a liquor store just to resell the alcohol?

It is commonly assumed that people who hold up liquor stores usually just want the money, and people who burgle liquor stores do resell the alcohol.

- You don't of course, so another invalid comparison.

By George, my very message in a nutshell!

 

 

 

Edited by Peterkin
mistakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most liquor stores are not held up by alcoholics looking to steal booze.

Most are held up by people wanting to seal money.
That desease, greed, is a lot more common than alcoholism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Most liquor stores are not held up by alcoholics looking to steal booze.

 

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We do not know, because no records are kept. Nobody knows how much of the stolen goods - whether liquor or cigarettes - the thief intends for his own consumption and how much he intends to sell. In contrast, if a heroin addict breaks into a drugstore, it is assumed that he intends all of the stolen drugs for his own consumption and if he breaks into a liquor store, it is assumed that he intends to sell the stolen goods in order to feed his drug habit. Assumed and recorded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm simply stating the fact of a hoarde of neg reps from others including yourself, which imo  sort of sadly detracts from the validity and discussions on opinions on this site.

 

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Nice to see a wise comment, and what I was trying to say previously before I saw your post. ps: I gave you a positive green you lucky devil you! 😜

 

You complain about my 'sad' use of the point system in the same post you happily (😜) justify your use the point system.

Please don't be a hypocrite, it's beneath you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MigL said:

Notice I did not say that.
An abuser is anyone who overindulges, whether an alcoholic or a perma-stoner.
That is who you want to compare.

And that statistic of 40% of violent incidents being caused by alcoholics is also questionable.
Does it include kids who get drunk one night and get in a fight ? Are they alcoholics because they succombed to peer pressure one night ?

As Peterkin already explained, this statistic depends on how far you want to stretch the web of crime connected to usage. And yes, illegality has a lot of impact on the associated crime element, in much the same way it did during alcohol prohibition.

I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned.
All I'm asking for is like for like comparison.

As for the 'harder' drugs, which bear comparison to alcohol yet no-one seems to mention comparative down-sides to health and society, I would love to see life expectancy numbers for an alcoholic compared to a heroin addict, or the negative impacts of either condition on family/society.

Cannabis is legal in Canada, and I don't have a problem with that ( as long as they keep the stoned off the roads ), but saying the war on harder rugs has failed, and we should just legalize them, makes little sense.
Wars on most all crimes are failing, because we still have most crimes; should we legalize all crimes ?

The statistics relate to all crime where alcohol use was presentnot just by chronic alcoholics per se... people that were heavily under the influence of it at the time of the offence. A typical real-life vignette:

"My head, what happened last night?"

" You threw a bucket of water over Eddie and Amber in bed, and Eddie punched a mirror and the police came. That's why you've got a black eye and he's broke his hand".

That was four of us in a flat forty years ago after a bottle of vodka each in Eddie's flat. I started that, and I loathe confrontation and violence. Acute, excessive alcohol use is very prone to initiating violent confrontations. A wander through a typical city centre on a late weekend evening will supply  more of these episodes.

Quote

I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned.

Tobacco is not a severe intoxicant in any amount and is only comparable to smoking cannabis if the pathological effects on the cardio-vascular system was the point of discussion. It's not like for like, we are looking at social and criminal consequences of substances  that significantly alter the central nervous system; the method of administration is irrelevant.

Cannabis is not good for you, but it is a form of harm reduction, relative to things like alcohol. It's not a binary good vs bad, but one having less adverse consequences to the person and society  than the other. A useful parallel is vaping nicotine as a form of harm reduction that Public Health England has got behind. Adverse cardiovascular events and local air pollution i.e. secondhand smoke, are expected/hoped  to subside at national scale.

 

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That was four of us in a flat forty years ago after a bottle of vodka each in Eddie's flat. I started that, and I loathe confrontation and violence.

You were quite the party animal Stringy 😄 .
It seems a lot of abusers are 're-born', and become the most vocal oppnents.

I remember the first time I got drunk.
On cherries preserved in alcohol, when I was 5 years old !
Growing up, wine and beer were always available to me, if I wanted any, so that when I turned 18 ( in the 70s ) I felt no need to go out and get intoxicated.
Nor did I get any particular thrill out of it; I still treat liquor/beer/wine that way, and never felt the need to drink by myself.

Never having gone through your experiences, I enjoy alcohol beverages like I do good company, or good food ( and a good discussion ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as addictive substances go, tobacco is up there with the worst of them. But because it's so mildly narcotic that it's not linked to overt expressions of criminality: the damage is to the user and to the user's immediate environment.

Cannabis, however, doesn't need to be in cigarette form. That's customary, but water pipe is an option, and ingestion in various forms also serves the mind-altering and soporific functions, without causing the physical damage of smoke inhalation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

You were quite the party animal Stringy 😄 .
It seems a lot of abusers are 're-born', and become the most vocal oppnents.

I remember the first time I got drunk.
On cherries preserved in alcohol, when I was 5 years old !
Growing up, wine and beer were always available to me, if I wanted any, so that when I turned 18 ( in the 70s ) I felt no need to go out and get intoxicated.
Nor did I get any particular thrill out of it; I still treat liquor/beer/wine that way, and never felt the need to drink by myself.

Never having gone through your experiences, I enjoy alcohol beverages like I do good company, or good food ( and a good discussion ).

As with many things in life, one often needs to step on the other side of the tracks to make realistic comparisons. Like touching a hot object. If someone says 'Don't touch it, it's hot' and you have no concept of hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

As with many things in life, one often needs to step on the other side of the tracks to make realistic comparisons.

Ideally, you shouldn't have to 'Johnny Depp your wife' to realize drinking/drugging to excess can ruin your family, social and professional life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Ideally, you shouldn't have to 'Johnny Depp your wife' to realize drinking/drugging to excess can ruin your family, social and professional life.

You only need to drink too much to find out. Same goes with other narcotics.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

The greatest risk with pot is being arrested.  That is a risk that is easily fixed by making it legal.

Thankfully, that will not happen in my society for the reasons stated many times.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

I would think cannabis use should be compared to cigarette use rather than alcohol, but I do think it is rather strange that the new mantra is "Cigarettes are bad; pot is good for you". They both involve breathing byproducts of combustion ( there is a reason fire-fighters wear supplied air ), and smoking 20 joints a day will have equivalent ill effects as smoking a pack of cigarettes; plus, you'll be perma-stoned.
All I'm asking for is like for like comparison.

Hits right at the heart of why I have never put anything "combustible to my mouth and find it absolutely disgusting. RACGP - Update graphic images on cigarette packages to remind of health  risks, experts say

 

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Here you go! Bolding your own misconstruction doesn't really help clarify it.

- .How many alcoholics hold up liquor stores?

We do not know, because no records are kept.

Avoid the relevant parts as much as you like, I will keep repeating them. While no records are kept, logic "should"tell you that just because someone robs a liquor store, does not mean he is an alcoholic, plus taking notice of reputable news items and court room judgments might help.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Where was that ridiculous notion stated?

It's what you inferred erroneously, to support your position. It was and is wrong, period.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

By George, my very message in a nutshell!

By George, what a heap of garbage and effort in trying to get out from under!!

Your message is loud and clear, and will never eventuate in my society for the reasons I have given. Alcohol is legal and has been for younks...so much so, that it is now a social necessity and any attempts to ban it would be met with riots, in any westernised democratic society. While its harmful effects are recognised and accepting that education for our young people should be paramount, it is scientifically illogical and morally wrong to even attempt to legalise any current illegal crap and make it easier to obtain in general, and adding to the harmful legal list which is alcohol.  In essence, one "harmful" drug, (as socially acceptable and necessary as it is) is enough.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

You complain about my 'sad' use of the point system in the same post you happily (😜) justify your use the point system.

Please don't be a hypocrite, it's beneath you.

Please try to comprehend correctly what I did say, and not fall vicitm to your prejudices and bias. I said I avoid and dislike neg reps. I said nothing about positive reps. I will often use positive reps to express my agreement with logically, scientifically correct posts by others, as a token of my appreciation.

I generally don't see the need to point out politically or philsophically biased, or inncorrect posts with a neg rep. generally, they speak for them selves.

To sum up (again) my stance here, In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, beecee said:

Thankfully, that will not happen in my society for the reasons stated many times.

Hits right at the heart of why I have never put anything "combustible to my mouth and find it absolutely disgusting. RACGP - Update graphic images on cigarette packages to remind of health  risks, experts say

 

Avoid the relevant parts as much as you like, I will keep repeating them. While no records are kept, logic "should"tell you that just because someone robs a liquor store, does not mean he is an alcoholic, plus taking notice of reputable news items and court room judgments might help.

It's what you inferred erroneously, to support your position. It was and is wrong, period.

By George, what a heap of garbage and effort in trying to get out from under!!

Your message is loud and clear, and will never eventuate in my society for the reasons I have given. Alcohol is legal and has been for younks...so much so, that it is now a social necessity and any attempts to ban it would be met with riots, in any westernised democratic society. While its harmful effects are recognised and accepting that education for our young people should be paramount, it is scientifically illogical and morally wrong to even attempt to legalise any current illegal crap and make it easier to obtain in general, and adding to the harmful legal list which is alcohol.  In essence, one "harmful" drug, (as socially acceptable and necessary as it is) is enough.

Please try to comprehend correctly what I did say, and not fall vicitm to your prejudices and bias. I said I avoid and dislike neg reps. I said nothing about positive reps. I will often use positive reps to express my agreement with logically, scientifically correct posts by others, as a token of my appreciation.

I generally don't see the need to point out politically or philsophically biased, or inncorrect posts with a neg rep. generally, they speak for them selves.

To sum up (again) my stance here, In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism. 

Repetition is not more evidence. You've got nothing more to add. You are a man of your time and the world has moved on. You remind me of my grandad, who would be 103, if he was still alive.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Repetition is not more evidence. You've got nothing more to add.

By the same token, all the so called reasons for either legislation of cannibis or the banning of alcohol, are continued repeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, beecee said:

By the same token, all the so called reasons for either legislation of cannibis or the banning of alcohol, are continued repeats.

You don't need to ban alcohol, the consuming public increasingly buys something else, so its use diminishes, just as smoking is diminishing and vaping is rising in the UK. Prohibition doesn't work.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You don't need to ban alcohol, the consuming public increasingly buys something else, so its use diminishes, just as smoking is diminishing and vaping is rising in the UK. Prohibition doesn't work.

If it isn't working as it should, increase penalties. I'm yet to be convinced though, that legalising such crap, helps anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

If it isn't working as it should, increase penalties. I'm yet to be convinced though, that legalising such crap, helps anyone.

It helps the people who are forced into slavery by the criminal's created by the prohibition.

It helps the police because:

1/ They can focus on real crime.

2/ They spend less, time and money, chasing a stoner that's just happy to be alone, or not, whatever...

3/ There's less crminals to chase.

It helps me, because the money they raise on the tax, a stoner is more than willing to pay; and the money our society would save, raises my standard of living.

It's such an obvious win win, one has to wonder, who's dragging their feet? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

1/ They can focus on real crime.

All illegalities are wrong, some like traffic offences are less in degrees of affects on the population in general then murder for example. Plus I have already agreed that decriminlisation for cannibis, the  less harmful of the illegal drugs, may be benificial. Decriminalisation is not legalisation though. I also recognise Hitler was a war criminal.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

2/ They spend less, time and money, chasing a stoner that's just happy to be alone, or not, whatever...

Happy to be stoned or possibly happy to drive into a bunch of kids on a footpath,  while stoned, killing them. Plus of course while one is able to drive after a night out on alcohol, probably later the next day and be under the legal limit, while with any of the current illegal drugs, will stay in your system for 2 or 3 or more days.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

3/ There's less crminals to chase.

See previous answer....or we can legalise unlicensed driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, being drunk and disorderly, break and enter and we'll have even less to chase! 🤣 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It helps me, because the money they raise on the tax, a stoner is more than willing to pay; and the money our society would save, raises my standard of living.

Your standards of living would be raised even more, if people obeyed the law as is, plus the freely availability of even more dangerous drugs, and probably more crime,   would lessen  your standards of living obviously. 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's such an obvious win win, one has to wonder, who's dragging their feet? 

No win win at all, simply an unproven prejudice, philsophical stance, based entirely on opinionated speculation, that certainly, and thankfully  will not eventuate in my society.

Alcohol is a social necessity. It can be harmful if taken to excess and over long periods. Education of young people particularly should be undertaken to make them aware of those dangers. All other illegal drugs are illegal for the same reasons. It makes absolutely no sense to legalise anything more and give many more reason to abuse. At best, perhaps cannibis could be decriminalised, but certaily not legalised. 

Decriminalisation is not legalisation. If drug possession and personal use are decriminalised, it is still illegal to possess and use drugs. Selling and manufacturing drugs still carry criminal penalties. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

All illegalities are wrong, some like traffic offences are less in degrees of affects on the population in general then murder for example. Plus I have already agreed that decriminlisation for cannibis, the  less harmful of the illegal drugs, may be benificial. Decriminalisation is not legalisation though. I also recognise Hitler was a war criminal.

Happy to be stoned or possibly happy to drive into a bunch of kids on a footpath,  while stoned, killing them. Plus of course while one is able to drive after a night out on alcohol, probably later the next day and be under the legal limit, while with any of the current illegal drugs, will stay in your system for 2 or 3 or more days.

See previous answer....or we can legalise unlicensed driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, being drunk and disorderly, break and enter and we'll have even less to chase! 🤣 

Your standards of living would be raised even more, if people obeyed the law as is, plus the freely availability of even more dangerous drugs, and probably more crime,   would lessen  your standards of living obviously. 

No win win at all, simply an unproven prejudice, philsophical stance, based entirely on opinionated speculation, that certainly, and thankfully  will not eventuate in my society.

Alcohol is a social necessity. It can be harmful if taken to excess and over long periods. Education of young people particularly should be undertaken to make them aware of those dangers. All other illegal drugs are illegal for the same reasons. It makes absolutely no sense to legalise anything more and give many more reason to abuse. At best, perhaps cannibis could be decriminalised, but certaily not legalised. 

Decriminalisation is not legalisation. If drug possession and personal use are decriminalised, it is still illegal to possess and use drugs. Selling and manufacturing drugs still carry criminal penalties. 

Like I said, I'm not going to feed you, but I'm happy to use you as an example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, beecee said:

By George, what a heap of garbage and effort in trying to get out from under!!

Under what? I made my case; you have repeated yours. Again. We are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One question you should be asking yourselves.
And we won't even consider abusers, but if you have a son or daughter, how happy would you be if he/she had the occasional alcoholic drink, or burned an occasional joint, or did an occasional line of coke, occasionally smoking crack or crystal meth, or even injecting heroin every once in a while. 
Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ?
And, if you found your son/daughter with a needle stuck in their arm, would you say that it was all-right since prohibition wasn't working anyway ?

If it does, ask yourself "why ?", and then apply the resulting answer to the question of making it legal for everyone's son and daughter. 
 

Call up from the basement, Dim, and ask your mom if she's happy with you making the house smell 'skunky' all day and night.
( yes, that was a dig )

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, MigL said:

Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ?

Of course. There is a reason young people don't tell their parents everything. At least, there was when I didn't tell mine. They would have been more upset about the grass than the LSD, which they didn't understand. They would have been more afraid of me getting arrested than getting high, simply because it was illegal. In fact, I was a lot closer to being arrested for political activities than pot. They - and I - also didn't know that I was a lot closer to following my father into alcoholism than any of the other dangers they didn't know about. And they didn't know what I would pay, eventually, for the tobacco habit I picked up from them. 

What parents worry about is not much altered by what's written in the law-books. 

  

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.