Marijuana vs. Alcohol...the debate

There is the gateway drug argument. It is an argument I don't buy. I am for legalization, although personally I would not start smoking.

I think alcohol consumption is a matter of culture and there s different consumer profiles. İt is not ruin lives or destroys relationships for some people but just rejoice. I don't know much about Marijuana but I've been guessing it more harmful than regular alcohol consumption.

One is used for medicinal purposes, and one is not.
One is addictive (and potentially leads to a disease), and one is not...(I know there are arguments to the contrary, but no medical evidence exists that I know of)...

myp said:

There is the gateway drug argument. It is an argument I don't buy. I am for legalization, although personally I would not start smoking.

Click to expand...

I do buy the gateway drug argument. But it only works that way because it is illegal. If alcohol were illegal, it too might be a gateway drug to yet more dangerous ones.

=Zoomer= said:

One is addictive (and potentially leads to a disease), and one is not...(I know there are arguments to the contrary, but no medical evidence exists that I know of)...

Click to expand...

The reason tobacco is addictive (and especially dangerous) is because it has high concentrations of a poison called nicotine, which protects plants from being eaten. The cannabis plant does not have this. Although drug dealers regularly cut tobacco into cannabis - that problem would basically be eliminated if uncut cannabis were sold legally at licensed stores. It would also undercut the lucrative and (far more) dangerous drug-trade, which can only be a good thing.

Dirk said:

I do buy the gateway drug argument. But it only works that way because it is illegal. If alcohol were illegal, it too might be a gateway drug to yet more dangerous ones.

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow the argument, but if I understand it correctly then either way the people who are going to go on to harder stuff will find something else illegal to start with, right?

Also, I wouldn't call nicotine a poison.

From a law enforcement perspective, I think marajuana should be legalized. The amount of money, the lives shaken by It could be eliminated by legalizing it. Sentencing a17 year old to jail for 2 years because he had a little pot seems like a waste to me. The number of people locked up in jail for only pot convictions, that costs our jail systems billions. All because people don't like it. Seems a waste.

I really think it is illegal just to lock up people.

I would much rather deal with someone who is stoned than drunk. Drunk people are belligerant and violent, pot heads are passive, they typically are not criminal offenders.

The gateway argument is flawed, because caffene is a gateway. That arguement is on the notion that people who use heroin started by smoking pot, they probably drank beer before smoking pot, they probably used caffeine before beer.

The claims that marijuana is not addictive are not proven…for that matter, neither are claims that it is addictive (though more and more research is linking symptoms of addiction to marijuana). However, if marijuana is made legal you can bet on much more extensive research into its affects which will undoubtedly turn up many links to health issues.

Alcohol and marijuana are very similar in that most people will exhibit no signs of addiction. They are also used for similar reasons. However, the main difference between the two is detection and how long it remains in your system. Alcohol leaves the system relatively quickly, but marijuana has been detected as long as 90 days after use. Therefore, even after its affects have worn off, marijuana will still be detectable.

I feel that this is the main deterrent from legalization. Once the affects of alcohol wear off it is out of the system…once the effects of marijuana wear off it is not. This makes it very difficult for law enforcement to deal with things like DUI and other issues of criminal impairment. If they find a way to test for marijuana levels that is the equivalent of blood alcohol levels, then there really is no good reason to keep it illegal. But, until they come up with a good method for proving impairment, I think there is just too much grey area to legalize it.

MPR said:

The claims that marijuana is not addictive are not proven…for that matter, neither are claims that it is addictive (though more and more research is linking symptoms of addiction to marijuana). However, if marijuana is made legal you can bet on much more extensive research into its affects which will undoubtedly turn up many links to health issues.

Alcohol and marijuana are very similar in that most people will exhibit no signs of addiction. They are also used for similar reasons. However, the main difference between the two is detection and how long it remains in your system. Alcohol leaves the system relatively quickly, but marijuana has been detected as long as 90 days after use. Therefore, even after its affects have worn off, marijuana will still be detectable.

I feel that this is the main deterrent from legalization. Once the affects of alcohol wear off it is out of the system…once the effects of marijuana wear off it is not. This makes it very difficult for law enforcement to deal with things like DUI and other issues of criminal impairment. If they find a way to test for marijuana levels that is the equivalent of blood alcohol levels, then there really is no good reason to keep it illegal. But, until they come up with a good method for proving impairment, I think there is just too much grey area to legalize it.

Click to expand...

I have only seen two people too stoned to drive. You simply administer a sobriety test, pass fail. There is no special testing required, simple officer descretion.
I personally have arrested hundreds of drunk drivers,

Yes, it was alcohol I was referring to as addictive (to many, not all), and the one that's not is marijuana/thc....But I didn't know that nicotine was a defense agent for tobacco plants. Tks

Dirk said:

The reason tobacco is addictive (and especially dangerous) is because it has high concentrations of a poison called nicotine, which protects plants from being eaten. The cannabis plant does not have this. Although drug dealers regularly cut tobacco into cannabis - that problem would basically be eliminated if uncut cannabis were sold legally at licensed stores. It would also undercut the lucrative and (far more) dangerous drug-trade, which can only be a good thing.

Click to expand...

MPR said:

The claims that marijuana is not addictive are not proven…for that matter, neither are claims that it is addictive (though more and more research is linking symptoms of addiction to marijuana). However, if marijuana is made legal you can bet on much more extensive research into its affects which will undoubtedly turn up many links to health issues.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure the point is to prove that it's not....I think the burden of proof would be that it is addictive. And as for research into the health effects of smoking it....I assure you there are more studies published than you can count~ I don't know ALL the conditions that are currently treated with medical marijuana, Glaucoma is one, Chemo tolerance is another. But I can't think of a single condition that's treated by drinking alcohol.

=Zoomer= said:

I'm not sure the point is to prove that it's not....I think the burden of proof would be that it is addictive. And as for research into the health effects of smoking it....I assure you there are more studies published than you can count~ I don't know ALL the conditions that are currently treated with medical marijuana, Glaucoma is one, Chemo tolerance is another. But I can't think of a single condition that's treated by drinking alcohol.

Click to expand...

Medical properties, I am not sure about, I never did that research, if it improves the condition of life for those suffering the effects of cancer treatment, why not let people use it for that. We give kids speed to make them behave in class.

The addictive side of it, anything can be addictive, why pot addiction is worse than say cigarette addiction our caffeine addiction, I will never know

clax said:

I have only seen two people too stoned to drive. You simply administer a sobriety test, pass fail. There is no special testing required, simple officer descretion.

Click to expand...

That is baloney. Testing will need to be required or the courts will be flooded with he said, she said arguments. Just as with drunk driving, it is important to have more information than whether or not someone passed a sobriety test based on an opinion. Being able to establish acceptable levels of influence that can be measured and reported is critical to enforcing the laws in today's society.

=Zoomer= said:

I think the burden of proof would be that it is addictive. And as for research into the health effects of smoking it....I assure you there are more studies published than you can count~ I don't know ALL the conditions that are currently treated with medical marijuana, Glaucoma is one, Chemo tolerance is another. But I can't think of a single condition that's treated by drinking alcohol.

Click to expand...

Yes, the burden is on proving it is addictive, but as I said, plenty of studies are showing signs that it is (however, that does not necessitate that it be illegal).

The number of studies is irrelevant at this point since most have been done by groups that support marijuana legalization. However, just look at the studies on cholesterol, high fructose corn syrup, eggs, and many other things where findings continually change as more unbiased research is done. Legalization of marijuana is going to open it up to a lot more public scrutiny and a lot more testing, and not just by people who support it.

Alcohol was used in medicine quite a bit for things where other remedies of the day did not suffice - much like pot is being used today. As time went by people started noticing more side affects and more research was done and better solutions were found. Also, alcohol IS still used today in medicine as a preservative and as a means for dissolving and distributing active ingredients (think cough syrup). It is also used in mouth wash, hand soap, and for sterilization in surgeries (among other places).

However, medical uses for a substance should have no bearing on whether or not the substance is legal for general use. There are plenty of illegal substances that you can possess legally with a prescription. The production and distribution of those substances is highly regulated however, contrary to most medical marijuana laws. So, making the medical argument is really irrelevant to the general debate on legalization, and most likely counterproductive since it would put it in a highly regulated category.

However, no matter how much I disagree with the typical arguments for marijuana legalization I am not opposed to eventually making it legal in the general sense. When the government creates laws against an action, laws that limit freedom, then they need to have just cause and plenty of proof that the action infringes the rights of others. The only case that could be made against marijuana, based on current knowledge, is endangerment to others through impairment (like public intoxication or drunk driving). If there was a quantitative means for determining the level of influence of marijuana, then there would be no valid case against it.

Well, if you can't prove someone is intoxicated then they are not.

MPR said:

That is baloney. Testing will need to be required or the courts will be flooded with he said, she said arguments. Just as with drunk driving, it is important to have more information than whether or not someone passed a sobriety test based on an opinion. Being able to establish acceptable levels of influence that can be measured and reported is critical to enforcing the laws in today's society. it.

Click to expand...

you are dead wrong, it is not necessary to establish levels of intoxication to enforce the law. It's necessary to prosecute crime. Suspicion and preponderance of evidence is the only level of proof I need to arrest someone.

Establishing proof is the procicution's job. If you can prove reasonable doubt, any body can get off of any dui charge regardless of a bac test. There has to be a sopena to make embody take a bac test. So, in the case of dui or dwi it is really officer discretion.

tecoyah said:

So...you do not know, but think your "Guess" meets the criteria established in
the OP for "Actual Debates"....


Opinion Noted

Click to expand...

Legal status of them made me ''guess'' like that. İt's a contradiction if you are right but as someone who rarely drink, I don't see the devastating consequences of it. People may tend to cover their actions, mistakesetc with substances.


And also contrary to the belief, alcohol markets are not completely free and legal. Generally countries have a law for limiting the alcohol content of each liter and different applications for various products.

clax said:

...It's necessary to prosecute crime. Suspicion and preponderance of evidence is the only level of proof I need to arrest someone.
Establishing proof is the procicution's job. If you can prove reasonable doubt, any body can get off of any dui charge regardless of a bac test...

Click to expand...

Law enforcement is not merely arresting someone, but also prosecuting them. If you do not have a qualitative means of proving something, then you are making it very difficult to enforce laws and opening the courts up to a lot of unnecessary cases.

Sure, “anyone” can get off a DUI regardless of bac tests, just as “anyone” can get away with murder if the glove don’t fit. However, having test results show the accused was over the legal limit is highly in the favor of the prosecutor. Without those results “anyone” would not need to be in quotes since literally anyone would have a good chance of at least a reduced sentence.