4 ms·
No, it's because as a stimulant it has a combination of relatively low addictive properties and is easy to withdraw from when compared to more "hardcore" substa
by whyleyc 13y ago
No, it's because as a stimulant it has a combination of relatively low addictive properties and is easy to withdraw from when compared to more "hardcore" substances [1]
[1] http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm http://www.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm
- jlgreco 13y agoAll of those things, except "stimulant" technically, can be said of pot too. Hell, caffeine is physically addictive (not to even get into the lifestyles you can build around it that lead to less 'medical' forms of addiction...) while pot is not. You ever caffeine withdrawal? Yeah, during that week-long vacation last year when you stopped going to Starbucks every morning. Most of us have gone through that; it is a bitch and lasts longer than most hangovers. You ever get pot withdrawal? Yeah, me neither. Whatever, lets say for the sake of argument that pot and caffeine are on par with each other despite the obvious discrepancies. It is undeniable that pot prohibition is harmful to society; why would caffeine prohibition not be?
- dllthomas 13y agoI don't think anyone in this thread is arguing for continued criminalization of marijuana.
- jlgreco 13y agoI know, that is why I used marijuana as my example. @whyleyc is asserting that drug "hardness", not drug prohibition, is the cause of the societal harm associated with drugs. I am pointing out that we see similar harm with marijuana, which everyone here accepts as not "hard", but which is prohibited. It therefore stands to reason that if prohibition can cause harm to society with a "non-hard" drug like marijuana, it would cause harm to society with a "non-hard" drug like caffeine.
- dllthomas 13y agoBut this doesn't demonstrate that it doesn't prevent greater harm with a "hard" drug, which was the point at issue as I read things.
- jlgreco 13y agoWell, if I wanted to argue that point I would just point out that I am pretty sure drunk fathers kept on beating their children during the 1920s. I mean, that is the sort of shit that spawned the temperance movement, but when prohibition came into effect, did the temperance movement actually see the sort of social change that they anticipated? I doubt that the 1920s were some sort of utopia for battered children and spouses...
- dllthomas 13y agoMy understanding is that overall consumption of alcohol did decline slightly under prohibition, so "drunk fathers kept on beating their children during the 1920s" needs a citation - and, in particular, that they kept doing so at the same rate. The problem with prohibition wasn't that it did no good in any way ever - the problem was that the harm overwhelmingly outweighed the good. Likewise with the current war on drugs.
- baddox 13y agoHow about nicotine? Granted, there have probably been people who steal cigarettes are steal other things to buy cigarettes, but I think it's a much smaller problem than with illegal drugs.
- jlgreco 13y agoIf COPS is representative of real life, there are plenty of people willing to rob convenience stores of cigarettes. I have little doubt that this would turn much uglier if nicotine was banned.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> If COPS is representative of real life Its not. Its representative of what its producers think will appeal to its target market.
- jlgreco 13y agoOf course. In reality 50% of all corner store robberies don't end with the shop owner beating the crooks ass with a broom. ;)
- shawn-furyan 13y agoI've worked in an in an institution where cigarettes were prohibited for certain patients and not for others. Cigarette theft was very, very common.