News Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

[Al68]

And as much as I love a good beer, gun-to-my-head decision would be to say we DO NOT have a RIGHT to be able to drink alcohol in our homes or in public, when it generally leads to abuse of some way or another.
BUT REMEMBER, just because we don't have a RIGHT doesn't mean we can't have it. It just means it should be left up to the states to vote on it.

Do you and I have the right to use force against someone and imprison them for using alcohol in their home?

If not, where would the states get the right? Assuming we believe that all legitimate state power is delegated from the people.

 

[robertm]

No one has yet explained why they feel that society at large has the right to decide what a person can and cannot consume in privacy.

As I said before, there is I think a case against legalizing extremely addictive substances simply because such large segments of the population are highly vulnerable to such drugs, i.e. too many people have too much of an addictive personality.

Ideally, those of us who are known to be susceptible to such pit falls should have the education, self control, and social support to stay clear; and those of us who are not should not be forced on pain of jail time/high fines/probation/and humiliation to not consume whatever it is we so desire.

The only place that the law should enter the picture is when a person in a sufficiently altered state of mind puts the well being of others at risk.

I do not need nor want Big-Brother to protect me from myself, and neither should any adult of average capacity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Following unjust laws is unjust. The argument "because it's the law..." makes me sick. If the law is unjust, then it is our duty to protest it. Anything less would be failing to take moral responsibility, ignoring the big picture in favor of giving up and doing nothing (head in sand).

If you are protesting then you should be aware of the consequences and accept them rather than b****ing and whining about them. A complainer is not a protester.

Do you and I have the right to use force against someone and imprison them for using alcohol in their home?

If not, where would the states get the right? Assuming we believe that all legitimate state power is delegated from the people.

The state acquires the right by consent of the people to be a (theoretically) impartial moderator and enforcer of the law adopted by those same people. The difference is that "you and I" haven't the endorsement of the body of the people.

No one has yet explained why they feel that society at large has the right to decide what a person can and cannot consume in privacy.

I believe the general argument is that if someone does something that is harmful to themselves then society will be left footing the bill for their medical expenses if they are unable to pay themselves or, through the damage that they do to themselves, are unable to continue to take care of themselves.

Another point is that just because some few persons in a society are careful and responsible enough to not suffer problems due to their indulgences does not mean that their substance of habit should be made freely available to anyone to the detriment of the population who may indulge in general.

I'm not saying that these are good arguments against marijuana by the way, your question was framed in a general manner so I gave a general answer.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Does anyone here actually respect the governments ability to.. well.. .do anything? So why would we empower it to prescribe bloody healthy living for us?

 

[robertm]

I believe the general argument is that if someone does something that is harmful to themselves then society will be left footing the bill for their medical expenses if they are unable to pay themselves or, through the damage that they do to themselves, are unable to continue to take care of themselves.

Another point is that just because some few persons in a society are careful and responsible enough to not suffer problems due to their indulgences does not mean that their substance of habit should be made freely available to anyone to the detriment of the population who may indulge in general.

Which is precisely why I wrote this:
" As I said before, there is I think a case against legalizing extremely addictive substances simply because such large segments of the population are highly vulnerable to such drugs, i.e. too many people have too much of an addictive personality.

Ideally, those of us who are known to be susceptible to such pit falls should have the education, self control, and social support to stay clear; and those of us who are not should not be forced on pain of jail time/high fines/probation/and humiliation to not consume whatever it is we so desire."

In general, for highly addictive/toxic substances, this is the case. For Cannabis? The only case I've seen so far, here and else where, is personal bias being extended into law. And extremely harsh law at that. Though, I do think that in Alaska one must be in possession of a substantial amount of cannabis material to be charged with even a misdemeanor.

I'm not saying that these are good arguments against marijuana by the way, your question was framed in a general manner so I gave a general answer.

Thanks, I would like to here the views of someone who actually stands behind such an argument though.

 

[tchitt]

I believe the general argument is that if someone does something that is harmful to themselves then society will be left footing the bill for their medical expenses if they are unable to pay themselves or, through the damage that they do to themselves, are unable to continue to take care of themselves.

Another point is that just because some few persons in a society are careful and responsible enough to not suffer problems due to their indulgences does not mean that their substance of habit should be made freely available to anyone to the detriment of the population who may indulge in general.

How is this NOT a legitimate argument? I spent a lot of my life in the drug world and I simply don't believe that most people can handle it. I can't be objective about this because it's too close to home. I've seen things that I never want to see again and it was all fueled by drug and alcohol abuse. The world became an extremely dark place very quickly. Sure, a few of us got out... but many of them are in prison or worse and most of them aren't even there for drug charges. Things like burglary, assault, etc.

If you've ever seen someone lose themselves you'd know how dangerous it can be to EVERYONE. A normal, decent person can undergo a metamorphosis in a matter of a couple of weeks from a meth binge... I had a friend of mine screaming at the top of his lungs about how his TV was talking to him and the guy inside was trying to kill him. He detoxed in a psych ward only to repeat the same process.

Drugs destroy your balanced state of mind over time. All of them. They cause depression, paranoia, desperation... while at the same time making their users fall in love with them. Your dopamine/serotonin/whatever neurotransmitters are believed to exist as a reward system to "train" you to take care of yourself. Eventually, instead of thinking about things like reproduction and food you're thinking about the drugs. This is addiction and addiction alone can make people do crazy things.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399 < - The amount of money taxing and regulating alcohol brings into the US.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/health-drinking-problems_cx_mh_nightlife06_0822costs.html < - The cost of alcohol use and abuse in the US.

Each year, alcohol abuse costs the United States an estimated $185 billion, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. But only $26 billion, 14% of the total, comes from direct medical costs or treating alcoholics. Almost half, a whopping $88 billion, comes from lost productivity--a combination of all those hangovers that keep us out of work on Monday mornings, as well as other alcohol-related diseases. People who drink too much and too often are at greater risk for diabetes and several kinds of cancer, according to some studies.

So when more people start getting stoned and lazy...

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/binge/a/2006_nsduh.htm

Binge drinking is considered having five or more drinks one occasion at least once in the past 30 days. According to the survey results, 23 percent, or about 57 million people over age 12, met that definition.

Heavy drinking is considered binge drinking five or more times a month. The 2006 NSDUH survey indicated that an estimated 6.9 percent of the population, about 17 million people over age 12, were heavy drinkers.

For young abuts, between the ages of 18 and 25, the rate of binge drinking and heavy drinking is almost double that of the general population. In 2006, the rate of binge drinking in this group was 42.2 percent and the rate of heavy drinking was 15.6 percent.

The survey also showed that the rate of binge drinking in adolescent drinkers -- those ages 12 to 17 -- is about 10.3 percent, with the percentage of heavy drinkers at 2.4 percent. All of these rates are basically unchanged from the 2005 NSDUH results.

Nothing I say is going to change your mind as you've already got your mind made up. It's just my opinion that legalizing these substances does give them a certain amount of social acceptance which makes kids more likely to get involved in their use. Which makes them many times more likely to become addicts later in life, which effectively stunts their overall potential.

 

[JDStupi]

I must say that the general viewpoint which states "If Marijuana is legalized more kids will get a hold of it"..leading to stunting of potential etc. (tchitt, I am not singling you out, I have just heard others voice that opinion and I am addressing it), is wrong. While to the majority of people it seems like a perfectly logical argument and people draw parallels between kids acquiring alcohol, despite being underaged, and no doubt these things happen and would happen with weed, but it is extrememly possible that the legalization of marijuana will lead to a decrease of marijuana availability to kids. I know this from experience. From a teenager's perspective it is easy to see why this would be the case. Due to weed's illegality it is so much easier to get, everybody down to the local 14 y/o is selling 20 bags. Whereas alcohol, being on a legal market is much more difficult to acquire. Teenagers spend their entire night trying to get ahold of alcohol to no avail, and they say "Son of a ***** man, I wanted to get wasted, I guess we'll just pick up a 20 bag". Since alcohol is legal you need to know or find somebody who is 21 who isn't doing anything that night and feels like running errands and usually you have to tip them causing the overall price to go up, the same thing would probably happen if Marijuana were legalized. It would be made at a price that would eliminate the black-market yet manage to keep profit up. Marijuana would, in fact, be more difficult to get if legal. (Sorry for my errors in writing and the general clumped/annoying to read nature of the reply)

One more thing I forgot we can discuss, How come everybody always dwells on those pot-smokers who were/are deadbeats? In my expereince, the majority of "deadbeat" stoners are those who before they ever smoked were "deadbeat" and were'nt planning on going anywhere with their life and then started "getting high", meaning anything they can do to occupy their time with a high. I think this is the wrong way to go about life also. Not too many people mention the kids who enjoy smoking, but don't let it get in the way of their priorities. There are many people you "wouldn't expect" to smoke, because they are not lazy and unmotivated,quite the contrary actually... the "lazy" stoners are "lazy" without the high, the people who are "normal" are "normal" while high and those who are active are many times "active" during their high.

(This is going to probably get much of my opinions disqualified in some people's eyes...) When I smoke, which isn't an incredible amount, I usually like to do things. I love smoking and going for a real long bike ride around and then through the woods and going swimming, I love being active and having fun. I don't take a hit and immediatley turn into a sack of laziness and I know many of my friends are the same way, they like doing things. Those who don't like doing things,(Surprise, Surprise!) don't like doing things no matter what state of mind they're in! ... As an afterword, I realize that their are exceptions to everything I said, but I'm just throwing out some personal experiences regarding the subject that should be factored in, because I'm sure many other people have similar experiences.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that a lot of people think getting drunk is fun (it causes feelings of euphoria and happiness), and I think that's why most people drink. You said earlier you think most people drink alcohol to enjoy the taste but I don't see that...

I have a theory that most people who are arguing in favor of pot in this thread aren't old enough to know what it means to be responsible about such things. Statements like that support my theory. When young, your tastes are different than when you are older. You like sweets, you don't like onions or garlic -- or wine or beer. So when an 18 or 20 year old drinks, they can't even fathom the idea that you might drink for another reason than getting drunk. The stuff tastes terrible, so who would drink it because they like the taste?

Drinking for the sole purpose of getting drunk ends nearly completely by the time a person reaches 25 or 30 and then you either drink almost nothing or you drink different things because you like the taste. I have a bottle of Vodka, Jack, and Tequila that have been sitting on my counter for 2 years and are still 3/4 full. I don't really like them, but some of my friends do, so I bought them for a party. I also have a half a case of Coors Light in my fridge that that I bought for a the same party. I drink wine and good beer, and that's about it. Yeah, if I'm out at a bar (I have a good one very near my houses), I'll sometimes drink more than a couple, but the last time I was drunk was New Years' and I can't remember the last time I vomited.

why is so much high proof liquor bought and sold in this country if that's the case?

Responsible people still drink scotch or Jack a vodka tonic. It's different from the way you drink in college, where you look for the easist hard alcohol to drink when mixed with a little fruit juice, so you can get drunk the fastest. A buddy of mine likes a glass of Johnnie Walker black with a cigar, but I think that's only because he aspires to be a lawyer...

I'm just curious as to why you're so "against" people getting intoxicated for fun.

Whether with alcohol or with drugs, it is self destructive. In particular, kids do it in college because they can and it gets in the way of academic achievement. I have a number of friends with similar stories: they spent the first two years drunk and high and getting bad grades (one failed out), then got their act together, reduced their drinking and smoking, and got better grades in their junior and senior years.

I haven't really stated my position fully in this thread. I used to be completely against pot, but only in about the same way I'm against cigarettes. I don't have a very strong opinion against doing it, say, once a week for entertainment and in the same way, drinking a lot once a week for entertainment isn't too bad either. But that isn't the way the drug/drinking culture works for kids in their late teens and early 20s. Drinking and smoking pot dominates their lives.

 

[russ_watters]

Someone a while back mentioned that Carl Sagan smoked pot and was of the opinion that he did his best thinking when high. Maybe that was true for him, but it isn't generally true. I'd been the only sober person in a circle of pot smokers a number of times and I wish I had a camcorder sometimes - not just because it was funny, but to show people the next day that no, those things they were saying last night were not profound, they were just dumb. They only sound profound because when you're high you can't understand your own ideas, which makes you think they are deep.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I have a theory that most people who are arguing in favor of pot in this thread aren't old enough to know what it means to be responsible about such things. Statements like that support my theory. When young, your tastes are different than when you are older. You like sweets, you don't like onions or garlic -- or wine or beer. So when an 18 or 20 year old drinks, they can't even fathom the idea that you might drink for another reason than getting drunk. The stuff tastes terrible, so who would drink it because they like the taste?

Drinking for the sole purpose of getting drunk ends nearly completely by the time a person reaches 25 or 30 and then you either drink almost nothing or you drink different things because you like the taste. I have a bottle of Vodka, Jack, and Tequila that have been sitting on my counter for 2 years and are still 3/4 full. I don't really like them, but some of my friends do, so I bought them for a party. I also have a half a case of Coors Light in my fridge that that I bought for a the same party. I drink wine and good beer, and that's about it. Yeah, if I'm out at a bar (I have a good one very near my houses), I'll sometimes drink more than a couple, but the last time I was drunk was New Years' and I can't remember the last time I vomited. Responsible people still drink scotch or Jack a vodka tonic. It's different from the way you drink in college, where you look for the easist hard alcohol to drink when mixed with a little fruit juice, so you can get drunk the fastest. A buddy of mine likes a glass of Johnnie Walker black with a cigar, but I think that's only because he aspires to be a lawyer...
Whether with alcohol or with drugs, it is self destructive. In particular, kids do it in college because they can and it gets in the way of academic achievement. I have a number of friends with similar stories: they spent the first two years drunk and high and getting bad grades (one failed out), then got their act together, reduced their drinking and smoking, and got better grades in their junior and senior years.

I haven't really stated my position fully in this thread. I used to be completely against pot, but only in about the same way I'm against cigarettes. I don't have a very strong opinion against doing it, say, once a week for entertainment and in the same way, drinking a lot once a week for entertainment isn't too bad either. But that isn't the way the drug/drinking culture works for kids in their late teens and early 20s. Drinking and smoking pot dominates their lives.

Ah, the old wisdom in age argument. Have you ever considered the possibility that you're just a square? Life is not about straight A's and stable investment portfolios.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

We the people, as long as those people are over 30 years of age and in my summation have sufficient life experience to make informed decisions about issues I have little invested interest in. Is that basically your point?

I don't see why all these anecdotal horror stories about drugs are particularly relevant. Ultimately it's a question of civil liberty not pharmacology. It is not the government's job to ensure that all its citizens are productive members of society or that they conduct their leisure time in a manner consistent with some sort of legislation.

 

[tchitt]

Trust me. The founding fathers did not have acting like an idiot in mind when they were talking about liberty. How can you not wrap your mind around the FACT that drugs and alcohol make people do things that they normally wouldn't?

Thousands of people die every year from the mistakes of people who were messed up on drugs. Mistakes they wouldn't have made were they sober.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well a) I'm not american and b) americas founding fathers were no stranger to drugs themselves and there are documented opinions expressed by people like jefferson that suggest they would have been strongly opposed to drug legislation. There are of course no direct statements since drugs weren't really recognized as an issue back then what with their snuff boxs, nitrous and opium and all

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Besides what philosophical argument are you invoking when claiming that "unaugmented" neural chemistry is "correct" and to augment neuralchemistry and the actions that result from that augmentation are "incorrect". Which really goes to the notion of "wholesome" fun vs. "unwholesome" fun that I keep bringing up and no one seems to be addressing. From an existential perspective what is the "correct" way of being? We are just flesh bags, there is nothing sacrosanct about our current state of mind.

 

[tchitt]

I agree but you're missing my point completely. The world was a simpler place two hundred years ago. I've stated several times that I myself have used drugs recreationally and I'm drinking a beer as I type this. I've got no problem with people taking drugs but I understand the necessity for drug legislation because it can be extremely risky even to people who aren't engaging in the activity. How many times do I have to repeat it?

Marijuana is largely decriminalized in America. Getting caught with less than an ounce gets you the equivalent of a speeding ticket. You seem to believe that any and all substances should be freely available to everyone and I simply do not agree. K?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

The world was a simpler place? Ya, most people were poor, desperate illiterate ignoramuses... Oh and drugs were legal back then.

 

[robertm]

Someone a while back mentioned that Carl Sagan smoked pot and was of the opinion that he did his best thinking when high. Maybe that was true for him, but it isn't generally true.

There's one more thing that me and Carl had in common,

I wish I could have known him.


tchitt:

Marijuana is largely decriminalized in America. Getting caught with less than an ounce gets you the equivalent of a speeding ticket.

Whoa, this is definitely not true. Maybe in a couple states, say Alaska or Minnesota, this is true but the vast majority have mandatory jail time, probation, fines, and suspensions for first time offenders caught with small amounts. Here is a state by state break down: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516"

You also seem to equate marijuana use with the use of more 'substantial' chemicals that probably should be banned (for the reasons I have stated several times). Is this your position? I should also point out, that there are a great number of POWERFULLY psychoactive substances that are currently not covered by any statutes and have been in use for many thousands of years. Salvia Divinorum is probably the most well known, and can be purchased almost anywhere. Many consider the effects of the active chemical 'Salvinorin A ' to be more profound than LSD.

Why do people think that they need the government to protect them from themselves?

 

[tchitt]

Anyone who says the effects of salvia are anywhere close to the effects of acid is dead wrong.

Anyway, I've said it about seventeen billion times now. The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do. Learn to read. I'm not posting in this thread again.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Anyone who says the effects of salvia are anywhere close to the effects of acid is dead wrong.

Anyway, I've said it about seventeen billion times now. The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do. Learn to read. I'm not posting in this thread again.

Yes, but the beautiful thing about a democracy is that we can evaluate things like:

-do we need "protection" from drug users
-do we trust the gov't's judgment in these matters
-did we actually ask for this kind of protection/restriction
-is this so called protection at the cost of liberty a fair deal or a faustian one?

which is exactly what we're evaluating in this forum. A lot of these laws come not from the peoples wants but simply their aquiescence. Once again I'm not american but I doubt 50% of your country wanted all the subsections and regulations of the Patriot Act. How'd that turn out? you feel safer? You think it did its job? Was it worth it? There's nothing wrong with questioning these things.

 

[robertm]

Anyone who says the effects of salvia are anywhere close to the effects of acid is dead wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvinorin_A"

Salvinorin A has been reported to be the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive drug known to date, with an effective dose in humans in the 200–1,000 μg range when smoked. In that way Salvinorin A's quantitative potency may be compared with LSD, though it is otherwise dissimilar, having quite different effects and timeframes

It is beside the point anyway.

Anyway, I've said it about seventeen billion times now. The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do.

Why would you need protection from someone lounging on their couch without the ability to stand? I have already stated that the only place that law should enter the equation is when the acts of a person under the influence of any mind altering substance places his/er fellow citizens at risk.

Learn to read. I'm not posting in this thread again.

Ok...

 

[Al68]

Do you and I have the right to use force against someone and imprison them for using alcohol in their home?

If not, where would the states get the right? Assuming we believe that all legitimate state power is delegated from the people.

The state acquires the right by consent of the people to be a (theoretically) impartial moderator and enforcer of the law adopted by those same people. The difference is that "you and I" haven't the endorsement of the body of the people.

OK, where did the "body of the people" get the right to imprison a person for using alcohol in their home?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Why would you need protection from someone lounging on their couch without the ability to stand? I have already stated that the only place that law should enter the equation is when the acts of a person under the influence of any mind altering substance places his/er fellow citizens at risk.

Well junkies jonesing for a fix have certainly been known to commit violent crime. Although I sometimes question whether the correlation of heroin abuse really implies causation. Seems to me that crappy, poor, desperate lives cause both violent crime and substance abuse. So maybe we should focus more of our effort on increasing the average wealth and education level.

 

[Woody101]

As was posted very early on in this thread, "prohibition don't work" It didn't work in the 1920s with booze, it won't work with drugs. We spend billions on the war on drugs and stop about 10% of what is coming into this country. Obviously all we have to do to stop illegal drugs is spend more money. For a few trillion maybe we could stop 30%. Or, we could just declare victor, legalize all of it, tax it and spend the money we are wasting fighting drugs on something worthwhile.

If a conservative, elderly redneck can figure this out it shouldn't be a quantum leap for our well educated politicians.

 

[robertm]

Oxymoron: * conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence');

or as in...

well educated politicians.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

condi had a PhD

 

[drankin]

As was posted very early on in this thread, "prohibition don't work" It didn't work in the 1920s with booze, it won't work with drugs. We spend billions on the war on drugs and stop about 10% of what is coming into this country. Obviously all we have to do to stop illegal drugs is spend more money. For a few trillion maybe we could stop 30%. Or, we could just declare victor, legalize all of it, tax it and spend the money we are wasting fighting drugs on something worthwhile.

If a conservative, elderly redneck can figure this out it shouldn't be a quantum leap for our well educated politicians.

The prohibition DID work. The sale of alcohol was prohibited and you could not buy it at the local supermarket. Do you have some data to support your allegation? The prohibition is working in the sense that it is illegal and not publicly available. It's a weak argument if you actually had one.

Drugs are a vice, alcohol is vice. Just because one vice is legal is not a good argument that another should be legal as well.

 

[jreelawg]

The prohibition DID work. The sale of alcohol was prohibited and you could not buy it at the local supermarket. Do you have some data to support your allegation? The prohibition is working in the sense that it is illegal and not publicly available. It's a weak argument if you actually had one.

Drugs are a vice, alcohol is vice. Just because one vice is legal is not a good argument that another should be legal as well.

I would ask what specific definition of vice you refer to? Using cannabis, or drinking a little alcohol isn't an immoral or evil act in my opinion, however it can become a bad habit. If vice is meant to mean bad habit, then it is required that you are abusing the substance for it to be a vice. Cannabis can actually be a very effective medicine under some circumstances.

Probably one of the most damaging of vices for some, soda pop(high fructose corn syrup).

I would be in favor of law in which it is legal to grow and consume a limited amount for yourself if you are over 18. However, sales should be restricted to medical patients. That way kids can't legally get a hold of it, medical patients can, and the government isn't micromanaging your life.

 

[drankin]

It is not a good argument to say that cannabis is a vice. In actuality,it is very effective in many cases as a medical treatment. I also argue that alcohol, like cannabis, is only a vice when abused.

I would ask what specific definition of vice you refer to in order to appropriately respond though. Using cannabis, or drinking a little alcohol isn't an immoral or evil act in my opinion, however it can become a bad habit. If vice is meant to mean bad habit, then it is required that you are abusing the substance for it to be a vice.

Then I would like to know why a bad habit should be illegal. Should it be illegal to pick your nose? Should it be illegal to chew with your mouth open, or to not brush your teeth? Bacon, eggs, chocolate, tuna fish, all potential vices. Probably one of the most damaging vices is soda pop(high fructose corn syrup).

I would be in favor of law in which it is legal to grow and consume it for yourself if your over 18. However, sales should be restricted to medical patients. That way kids can't legally get a hold of it, medical patients can, and the government isn't micromanaging your life.

Cannibas is illegal. Alcohol probably should be illegal too. Pot is a vice. It's a habitual mind altering drug. It alters ones judgment in a different way than alcohol but none-the-less it does.

Ultimately, it comes down to the voting public. The people of the US do not want it legalized. End of discussion because that's what it comes down to. What does the public want? They do not want it legalized. Though I'm a regular consumer of alcohol, I wouldn't be opposed to an actual prohibition of it. It would save me a bunch of cash and the rest of America could be a little more confident that they are going to make it home after working a swing shift (lol, I don't drink and drive, I'm talking about the other consumers).

Society, currently, has a line of drawn as to what is an acceptable mind altering product. And pot isn't on the acceptable side of the line. And in my experience, that is where it belongs.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

OK, where did the "body of the people" get the right to imprison a person for using alcohol in their home?

Because it's their community. Majority rules. That's pretty much the way it works. If you want it to be different then you have to convince people to agree with you.

The prohibition DID work. The sale of alcohol was prohibited and you could not buy it at the local supermarket. Do you have some data to support your allegation? The prohibition is working in the sense that it is illegal and not publicly available. It's a weak argument if you actually had one.

Drugs are a vice, alcohol is vice. Just because one vice is legal is not a good argument that another should be legal as well.

Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

All of these things, save perhaps for export, were rather rampant during the prohibition era. Illegal or not alcohol was rather readily available for all but the poor. So if the point was to make alcohol unavailable, it failed. If the point was to stop the abuse of alcohol, it failed. If the point was to reduce crime, it failed rather spectacularly.
In a cost-benefit analysis would you really rate prohibition as a success simply because it was unlikely alcohol would be found at the local grocers?

 

[Kronos5253]

Society, currently, has a line of drawn as to what is an acceptable mind altering product. And pot isn't on the acceptable side of the line.

Where are you getting that info. from?

Give me a cite-able source that says that society thinks that marijuana should be illegal. Because from my experience, and from most people I know, they think marijuana should be legal, just controlled (like alcohol is for instance)... So I don't know where you're getting the assumption that society has decided that.

I'm pretty sure what you meant to say was politicians.