View Single Post
  #109  
Old 08-17-2013, 11:46 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,452
Default

We hear a lot from those advocating the legalization of recreational and performance enhancing drugs that alcohol is legal and that marijuana is much more dangerous. Furthermore, we hear that prohibition (rather than the drugs themselves) is the cause of crime associated with illegal drugs.

There are several fallacies here that need exposing. First of all, the idea that even if alcohol were "more dangerous" that marijuana would then be "safe." First of all, there is not a one dimensional safety scale. A 0.1% blood alcohol level may impair motor control and driving more than a barely measurable THC content, but the technical challenges of determining and regulating what levels of THC content may impair driving is a bigger technical challenge. Colorado has legalized marijuana, but has not passed any limit on blood THC content with respect to driving. Somehow, I doubt allowing people in Colorado to drive with no limit to the amount of THC in their blood is going to make Colorado roads safer. Their 0.08 blood alcohol limit is strictly enforced.

Secondly, even while cannabis may not present the same long term health risks as alcohol, it presents even greater risks for dangerous sexual behavior (especially among teenagers) when compared with control groups who do not use cannabis. And we're not talking about just "fooling around" that is present in the lives of most teenagers. These studies document cannabis leading to much higher occurance of the riskiest behaviors (from a public health viewpoint): multiple partners, sex without condoms, anal sex, production of pornography (including minors), and predatory sexual behaviors, (sex without consent, greater age and experience differences between partners). Sure, alcohol abuse also has potential for risky sexual behaviors, but should this mean we legalize weed or that we better inform our teenagers and better enforce existing laws regarding access to both?

We've got plenty of dry counties and dry parishes in the south, and I don't see the prohibition of alcohol causing a lot of crime in those areas. Drugs (all types) have the potential to motivate both access crimes and consequence crimes. Marijuana and alcohol are both relatively inexpensive and easy to get for an adult with the right connections and a car. Most local crime and destructive behavior related to cannabis and booze are consequence issues: driving under the influence, risky sexual behavior (or no consent), domestic violence, firearms possession under the influence, and all the other stupd stuff men tend to do when drunk, high, or stoned.

One other big factor in my dislike for cannabis is the scientific fact that THC never leaves the brain. Unlike alcohol, which is metabolized from the body in a matter of hours, THC from every joint ever smoked will remain in the fat between your brain cells until you die. Brain function and cognitive abilities (IQ) have been shown to be imparied long after cannabis use has stopped, and these effects are even more pronounced for users under the age of 21, whose brains are still developping. Sure, there are occasionally great scientists who have been users (though there is no support for the assertion that Einstein was an opium abuser), but most students find the math and science of a normal college preparatory curriculum hard enough without the added impariment of cannabis.

It is also revealing what we don't hear from legalization advocates:

We do not hear that providing drugs to minors should remain a felony, as it is today. They make no effort to deny our reasonable inference that access to drugs by minors may become as easy and unrestricted as access to cigarettes and pornography are today.

We don't hear that insurers and employers should be at liberty to implement whetever level of drug testing they deem necessary to limit their risk.

We don't hear that (just like alcohol) blood THC limits can be established and strictly enforced to reduce the incidence and risks of people driving under the influence.

We don't hear that folks burdening the healthcare and welfare systems due to drug use and/or subsequent risky sexual behaviors should be denied care because they assumed the risks.

We don't hear that folks who lose their jobs due to drug abuse will be denied unemployment and welfare benefits.

We don't hear that mechanisms should be in place to ensure people do not use food stamps, medicare, or other government benefits to acquire drugs.
Reply With Quote