Suppose for a moment that a new food additive was discovered which had dramatic effects on humans:
1) it acted as a mild depressant.
2) It worked as a sleep aid.
3) Consumed in sufficient doses it was dangerous.
4) When abused, it was downright deadly.
5) It was addictive.
Obviously, the FDA would require all kinds of clinical trials, and the stuff would end up either banned outright or dispensed only under prescription.
I’m being pretty transparent, I know. Alchohol meets these criteria nicely, but because it’s been around for millennia (and because da gummint already TRIED to ban it once) it’s grandfathered in to our diet, our medications, and our culture. Most adults seem to be able to behave responsibly concerning alchohol, and don’t want a minority of substance abusers to ruin things for them.
Okay, let’s switch gears… what about marijuana? All I’ve read on the subject suggests that it’s SAFER than alchohol. Why the stigma? Is this a double-standard? Broad-stroked generalizations suggest that conservatives prefer to keep pot on the no-no list, liberals would like to see it legal for medicinal purposes, and libertarians would just as soon ALL regulations regarding pot, alchohol, tobacco, and anything else not immediately death-inducing be done away with because people are smarter than the government gives them credit for.
I’m not sure whether this post has a point or not. It’s just something I’ve been ruminating on, and it’s little more than an intellectual excercise for me. I don’t drink alchohol, and won’t smoke marijuana whether or not it’s legal. Y’all can pretty much do what you want.
Then again, my mother was killed by a drunk driver. He got the death penalty, self-administered, which is about what I think most drunk drivers deserve. We’ve got legislation starting to lean in that direction (albeit from a great, great distance), because the gummint has ample evidence that people are not as smart as they think they are once they start drinking.
Okay, now I’m rambling. But I wrote something today.