I agree, really. As you said, too, not in the sense that alcohol should be banned or anything (tried it, doesn't work well), but that marijuana shouldn't be treated the way it is.
2006-08-02 05:23:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by mike_w40 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't do either one now in my wiser older age ,but have done both in the far distant past,and I think pot should be legal and alcohol illegal.Id much prefer getting into a car with someone that just smoked a joint or two than someone that just drank a fifth of gin or whatever. I will not ride with anyone drinking at all no matter how little they have been drinking.
The only problem with my argument is that back in my day pot was only that ,now it can be and is laced with other much more damaging additives that can cause many problems. If available only in its true form yes legal .but not as it can be found today.
I don't mean to vacillate ,only rethinking and redefining my answer.
2006-08-02 12:30:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Yakuza 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
alcohol is a controlled substance... that's why you're not supposed to be able to purchase it until you are 21. that's way more controlled than milk.
they did make it completely illegal before, and that is why we have the mob. i think it is more trouble than it is worth with some substances. i do think pot should be restricted but not banned because it does have almost the same effect as alcohol. the war on drugs is not really a very good way to combat addiction, it is having the same results as prohibition where you manufacture an underground economy for criminals. our prisons are full of people who are addicts... they need help, not to hang out with real murderers and thieves who can teach them neat tricks.
2006-08-02 12:29:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by uncle osbert 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the government makes too much money out of booze and cigarettes. They have "sin taxes" which is included in the price of the cigarettes and booze. So when people get wasted and get lung cancer the government just keeps making money. Its been proven time and again that someone that is drunk is much more dangerous than someone who is high. Yet alcohol remains legal. its all politics and money.
2006-08-02 12:24:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by deadly_donkey 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
They did make it illegal. It was called prohibiliton. but it didn't work because there was so much bootlegging and illegal activity around alcohol (kind of like pot now but even more) and so they changed the law back to make alcohol legal. In any case there are a lot of tax revenues from it. turns out making it illegal didn't actually solve problems with alcohol.
2006-08-02 12:22:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by BonesofaTeacher 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Government gets taxes from the sale of alcohol. More Democrats than Republicans made their money from the sale of alcohol during prohibition, ie the Kennedy's.
2006-08-02 12:22:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dawn C 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's a big industry. Our economy slumped after Prohibition in large part because of alcohol sales falling.
I guess they don't want that to happen again in order to avoid another Depression.
2006-08-02 12:21:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Um, it was
ever heard of the prohibition?
Congress banned alcohol, and gangsters like Al Capone got their start by smuggling alcohol into the US
2006-08-02 12:21:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by TLJaguar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know. You drive drunk - you are potentially in danger of getting into an accident. You drive high - you are are less likely to do so. Alcohol deteriorates your liver and you can die from poisoning. Weed - you cant die from it and it doesnt harm you. Man-made substance vs. natural substance.
2006-08-02 12:24:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by xcr0ss_my_heartx 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Prohibition didn't work --- it still won't
Addictive substances are difficult to root out of the human condition - even with the increased use of prozac. . . human must have it's diversion, and pain killers.
2006-08-02 12:25:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋