I've always said: "I'd rather deal with a pot head than a drunk."
Drunks are unpredictable. One second they're sweet as can be, the next, they're beligerant and dangerous. I've never seen a pot head get violent (not to say they don't, but I've never encountered it). They pretty much stay mellow, they'll hit on you, you distract them with something shiny and they forget, they get something to eat, and then they fall asleep.
Fankly, I come from a mindset (thanks Dad! his idea...) that some drugs should be legalized, sold to people over 18, and then tax the shit out of 'em like you do alcohol and gasoline. Pot should definitely be on the legal list, IMHO. Nicotine is way more addictive than THC and really is the gateway drug to the really dangerous crap.
Also, possession of small amount of marijuanna isn't illegal in all U.S. states (altough dealing invariably is) and in many other states, no one bothers to enforce the possession laws (unless, again, dealing comes into play).
That said, I agree with your other part. Once you get beyond college, pot and alcohol isn't such a big deal for most people. Most people, in fact, can take or leave pot and alcohol even if it's sitting right in front of them and people are imbibing. Heaven knows I've been the sober one in both situations in more than once instance. People who tend to get hooked on marijuanna would also get hooked on something else, just like some people get hooked on alcohol or nicotine or other mind-altering agents.
I guess what I'm saying is: there are more effective ways to conduct civil disobediance to draconian federal drug than smoking pot. Pushing for legalization on a state level is a way to push back. Smoking pot? Not so much. You'd end up falling asleep in the middle of the rally (j/k). I'd say the federal prohibition on pot in the U.S. in 1937 was the result of a bad mix of hysteria and big timber interests. Prior to that date it was mostly legal, although some states were starting prohibition laws of their own or imposing some form of control so it would be less accessible.
One bad side effect to the marijuanna ban is that industrial marijunna (the kind that would only get you high if you smoked a dobbie the the size of a telephone pole) has the potential for a broad range of applications (paper, cloth, etc.) if it's growth was more encourage and use of the plants was opened up a bit.
While I don't disagree with you, I just think there's more of a complicated history on the marijuanna prohibition that (setting aside the question of legality) makes the question a little more complicated and, for some people, offers a certain amount of wiggle room.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2005-10-22 06:09 pm (UTC)Drunks are unpredictable. One second they're sweet as can be, the next, they're beligerant and dangerous. I've never seen a pot head get violent (not to say they don't, but I've never encountered it). They pretty much stay mellow, they'll hit on you, you distract them with something shiny and they forget, they get something to eat, and then they fall asleep.
Fankly, I come from a mindset (thanks Dad! his idea...) that some drugs should be legalized, sold to people over 18, and then tax the shit out of 'em like you do alcohol and gasoline. Pot should definitely be on the legal list, IMHO. Nicotine is way more addictive than THC and really is the gateway drug to the really dangerous crap.
Also, possession of small amount of marijuanna isn't illegal in all U.S. states (altough dealing invariably is) and in many other states, no one bothers to enforce the possession laws (unless, again, dealing comes into play).
That said, I agree with your other part. Once you get beyond college, pot and alcohol isn't such a big deal for most people. Most people, in fact, can take or leave pot and alcohol even if it's sitting right in front of them and people are imbibing. Heaven knows I've been the sober one in both situations in more than once instance. People who tend to get hooked on marijuanna would also get hooked on something else, just like some people get hooked on alcohol or nicotine or other mind-altering agents.
I guess what I'm saying is: there are more effective ways to conduct civil disobediance to draconian federal drug than smoking pot. Pushing for legalization on a state level is a way to push back. Smoking pot? Not so much. You'd end up falling asleep in the middle of the rally (j/k). I'd say the federal prohibition on pot in the U.S. in 1937 was the result of a bad mix of hysteria and big timber interests. Prior to that date it was mostly legal, although some states were starting prohibition laws of their own or imposing some form of control so it would be less accessible.
One bad side effect to the marijuanna ban is that industrial marijunna (the kind that would only get you high if you smoked a dobbie the the size of a telephone pole) has the potential for a broad range of applications (paper, cloth, etc.) if it's growth was more encourage and use of the plants was opened up a bit.
While I don't disagree with you, I just think there's more of a complicated history on the marijuanna prohibition that (setting aside the question of legality) makes the question a little more complicated and, for some people, offers a certain amount of wiggle room.
Wikipedia has a good entry here.