It's 1920's Under The United State During Alcohol Prohibition.

[truthfinder]

I voted 4, but if i could've vote for more than one, I would have picked #3 as well.
The thing with that law was that the storage and consumption of alcohol were perfectly legal. So if you stockpiled before Prohibition became law, you could drink throughout the whole time. You just couldn't transfer the alcohol to a different location. ie. Your friend can come over and have a drink from your stock, but he cannot take a bottle home. The law was totally counterproductive. Drinking of hard liquor increased tremendously during that time. The law really just came around from the "lobbying" of radical temperance advocates, mainly womens groups such as the WCTU. (Sorry for the rant, I wrote a paper on this and get excited anytime I can write some more [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/lol.gif[/img] )

[kamiller42]

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' date='06 May 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1273121572' post='2105730']
The drug war is succeeding where the prohibition failed. [/quote]
It is certainly doing no worse than the war on most other crimes.

[dominicansoul]

i wish men today would dress like the men did back in the 1920's...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='06 May 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1273172343' post='2105941']
i wish men today would dress like the men did back in the 1920's...
[/quote]
I agree, although I think the 40s and 50s were a bit cooler.

[kamiller42]

Food for thought.

[quote]Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, [b]the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation[/b].

The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure.

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; [b]they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself.[/b]

...

In the discussion of legalizing marijuana, a useful analogy can be made to gambling. MacCoun & Reuter (2001) conclude that making the government a beneficiary of legal gambling has encouraged the government to promote gambling, overlooking it as a problem behavior. They point out that “the moral debasement of state government is a phenomenon that only a few academics and preachers bemoan.”

[b]Legalized gambling has not reduced illegal gambling in the United States; rather, it has increased it.[/b] [Hey! That's what I said in the other thread!] This is particularly evident in sports gambling, most of which is illegal. Legal gambling is taxed and regulated and illegal gambling is not. Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling just the way legal marijuana would set the stage for illegal marijuana trafficking.

[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/"]Source[/url]
[/quote]

[Selah]

I'd join him Heck, I'd bring more!

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 May 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1273124405' post='2105748']
I've never tried it, so I can't say you're wrong...... but still, I'm hesitant. Are you saying that smoking a single joint significantly impairs a person's spiritual faculties?
[/quote]
Yes, it does. And also leads to gluttony aka the munchies.

Edited May 7, 2010 by toledo_jesus

[ardillacid]

[quote]Marijuana is the most commonly abused illegal drug in the U.S. and around the world. Those who support its legalization, for medical or for general use, fail to recognize that the greatest costs of marijuana are not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from marijuana use itself.[/quote]
What are the costs? Some teenagers spend the day staring at a tv instead of out tagging or other criminal mischief?

[ardillacid]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 May 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1273180789' post='2105999']
Food for thought.
[/quote]
Fact. For some reason, this fellow thinks that marijuana is more akin to gambling than it is to alcohol.

Did you see where this guy worked? Seriously, this guy has incentive to keep the drug wars going.

[Winchester]

Might be able to get a side job working with him.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='06 May 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1273195840' post='2106091']
What are the costs? Some teenagers spend the day staring at a tv instead of out tagging or other criminal mischief?
[/quote]
He mentions the costs in the article.

And then there is this...

[quote]Joel W. Gray, professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy at the University of Southern California, for instance, is highly critical of any economic savings, saying that for every dollar of tax revenue generated, the government would spend $10 in "societal costs" through treatment programs, reduced workplace productivity, lower testing scores, absenteeism in schools, accidents caused by clouded judgment and other aggravating circumstances.

[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179733"]Source[/url]
[/quote]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='06 May 2010 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1273196023' post='2106093']
Fact. For some reason, this fellow thinks that marijuana is more akin to gambling than it is to alcohol.

Did you see where this guy worked? Seriously, this guy has incentive to keep the drug wars going.
[/quote]
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, what about them?

As he said, he was drawing an analogy. He sees there being a cost that comes with the legalization of behaviors. (Gambling is the latest prohibited behavior being legalized in areas. The comparison is apt.) Sometimes society agrees to live with the costs, like alcohol, and sometimes not, gambling and narcotics. He's examining the issue at a macro level and whether the U.S. could or should absorb the burdens which would come with legalization of marijuana.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 May 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1273166125' post='2105890']
It is certainly doing no worse than the war on most other crimes.
[/quote]

except that the war on murder doesnt really make murder INCREDIBLY more profitable, and thus increase it.

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 May 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1273180789' post='2105999']
Food for thought.


[/quote]

not really.

[i]"Marijuana is currently the leading cause of substance dependence other than alcohol in the U.S. In 2008, marijuana use accounted for 4.2 million of the 7 million people aged 12 or older classified with dependence on or abuse of an illicit drug. This means that about two thirds of Americans suffering from any substance use disorder are suffering from marijuana abuse or marijuana dependence. [/i][i]If the U.S. were to legalize marijuana, the number of marijuana users would increase. Today there are 15.2 million current marijuana users in comparison to 129 million alcohol users and 70.9 million tobacco users. Though the number of marijuana users might not quickly climb to the current numbers for alcohol and tobacco, if marijuana was legalized, the increase in users would be both large and rapid with subsequent increases in addiction."[/i]




these arent "costs" of being addicted to a terrible drug. if you could link to say... hospitalizations for overdosing and treatment for withdrawal, etc(which dont exist because you actually cant overdose on pot, and it is not chemically addictive) then this might have a point.

as is, these costs are basically the guy counting how many people are "addicted" to this drug. its like saying the costs of chocolate being legal is that several million people eat it.

and once again, people can only be as addicted to marijuana as they can be addicted to something like chocolate. it makes them feel good, so they keep eating it. there is no chemical dependency, only the same force of habit that makes you have toast with jam and eggs every morning, because you like it. No nasty withdrawal effects like true narcotics, or even alchoholism.



[i]"Drug-impaired driving will also increase if marijuana is legalized. Marijuana is already a significant causal factor in highway crashes, injuries and deaths. In a recent national roadside survey of weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL (2.2 percent). "
[/i]
what this doesnt mention is how impaired these people are. the percentage of people driving with only 0.02 BAC(about 1 drink) is probably several times higher than people with BAC's of over 0.08 but that statistic doesnt really matter, because at such low levels, you are not really impaired at all.
so problem A, there is no scale shown for marijuana impairment(partially because you will never be as truly impaired on marijuana as you so easily can be drinking alchohol.)

and problem B, marijuana isnt in your system the same way as alchohol.

with alchohol, being tested for it in your blood indicates you have ingested it fairly recently, and are likely impaired to some degree. and when you sober up, that blood test will change along with it. with marijuana, it is not metabolized and processed the same way. while the pot "high" may go away in a few hours, tests will still show minute amounts in you(stored in fat cells) for a long time. the impairment has completely gone away, but for a few weeks afterward cops can still test you positive for it.
it is similar to drinking a lot on friday night, sobering up on the weekend, and wearing the same shirt home and getting yelled at by your spouse, because the alchohol smell is still detectable.
this also means lots of those tested will not be impaired, and the numbers skew heavily towards larger values. simply because the testing interval is so much longer it is harder to avoid driving during those intervals, even though there is no drug impairment left remaining.
the alchoholic can go on a bender, completely sober up and drive the next day and test negative, while pot smoker can get really stoned, completely sober up and test positive days later.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='06 May 2010 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1273197609' post='2106101']
As he said, he was drawing an analogy. He sees there being a cost that comes with the legalization of behaviors. (Gambling is the latest prohibited behavior being legalized in areas. The comparison is apt.) Sometimes society agrees to live with the costs, like alcohol, and sometimes not, gambling and narcotics. He's examining the issue at a macro level and whether the U.S. could or should absorb the burdens which would come with legalization of marijuana.
[/quote]

He only used Gambling instead of alchohol(which is by far the more similar comparison) because the effects and costs of Alchohol Prohibition would destroy his argument instead of propping it up.
the similar analogy(legalization of low level drug) failed, so he looked for for something else.

[dominicansoul]

...where was marijuana in the 1920's?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='06 May 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1273200901' post='2106133']
...where was marijuana in the 1920's?
[/quote]

Rising in popularity, but not considered a social threat or illegal. was being used to treat many illnesses and conditions.

made illegal in 1937, a major contributing factor to this being misinformation and powerful lobbyists for companies that competed with companies making hemp products.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='06 May 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1273192975' post='2106073']
Yes, it does. And also leads to gluttony aka the munchies.
[/quote]
Can you comment on exactly how the spiritual faculties are affected?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='06 May 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1273201708' post='2106141']
Rising in popularity, but not considered a social threat or illegal. was being used to treat many illnesses and conditions.

made illegal in 1937, a major contributing factor to this being misinformation and powerful lobbyists for companies that competed with companies making hemp products.
[/quote]

...so, in a sense, alcohol and marijuana don't really threaten mankind, except for the abuse of such products...and it took some lousy lobbyists to get the government involved and take away our liberty to partake of it...

...the tobacco lobbyist must be some pretty powerful people, seeing that their product has never been banned and it actually kills people...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='06 May 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1273206653' post='2106175']
...so, in a sense, alcohol and marijuana don't really threaten mankind, except for the abuse of such products...and it took some lousy lobbyists to get the government involved and take away our liberty to partake of it...

...the tobacco lobbyist must be some pretty powerful people, seeing that their product has never been banned and it actually kills people...
[/quote]
That would be because the government collects enormous tax revenue off of it.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 May 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1273206775' post='2106177']
That would be because the government collects enormous tax revenue off of it.
[/quote]

yeah, with all the arsenic etc in it, if it wasnt for the taxes it would be long gone.

someone said "if ketchup had 1/10th of the stuff as in cigarettes it would be banned in a heartbeat"

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='06 May 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1273206908' post='2106178']
yeah, with all the arsenic etc in it, if it wasnt for the taxes it would be long gone.

someone said "if ketchup had 1/10th of the stuff as in cigarettes it would be banned in a heartbeat"
[/quote]
It would probably taste freakin' awesome though.