RIP Philo

Want another hit ?

Booze is bad for you (so they say):,,2040886,00.html

and it's being pushed hard as vendors fight for the market:

I've long thought the damage I've done with legal drugs has outweighed that done by the not-so-legal and that it's custom and vested interest rather than rational analysis that governs their regulation.
Permalink trollop 
March 23rd, 2007 3:42am
I have been addicted to legal drugs (Oxycontin) when I was younger that was very unhealthy but now I have a healthy relationship with illegal drugs (Weed/LSD/Shrooms) and only use them moderately in a way that has no ill effects on my life. So I agree, the legality doesn't matter.
Permalink Me 
March 23rd, 2007 3:53am
Booze would be illegal too were it not impossible to make it illegal. It's been tried.
Permalink Colm 
March 23rd, 2007 6:30am
good point, well made.
Permalink trollop 
March 23rd, 2007 7:55am
so what happened during prohibition is different from what is now happening with illegal drugs, how?
Permalink $-- 
March 23rd, 2007 9:09am
Main difference is ease of access for suppliers. They can't now just bring the "product" across the border from a country in which it is legal and can't easily get licenses to legally produce the real thing (which was at least theoretically possible during 20s prohibition as "near beer" was produced as a substitute for the real thing, but I don't know if it was ever done).
March 23rd, 2007 9:20am
For one thing alcohol, like lactose, has been around long enough for people to adapt (some of) their physiology to it. Not LSD.
Permalink blahty heartsheep 
March 23rd, 2007 9:22am
There's a lot of religiously motivated resistance to any mood-altering substance.

The point being, it's not a "slippery slope" issue.  Alcohol barely made it in, and THAT was after prohibition.  Tobacco is on its way out, but that's because of 100 years of evidence it will kill you eventually.

Instead it's a "pushing a rock uphill against enormous resistance" issue.  Just getting weed added to the allowed list has taken since 1960 or so, and still hasn't happened.  Now, should the tobacco companies figure out a way to become Weed companies, there'd at least be a powerful lobby for it.

However, I suspect Tobacco wasn't a carcinogen until the Tobacco companies got hold of it.  Probably Weed will wind up being a similar carcinogen, once they get hold of it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 23rd, 2007 9:49am
They can't now just bring the "product" across the border from a country in which it is legal ...

The Netherlands ... not to mention countries where illegality is a mere formality ...
Permalink $-- 
March 23rd, 2007 9:56am
Sadly, the Netherlands is much further away than Canada (where Prohibition brought in whiskey) and Mexico.

Also, I didn't realize the Netherlands was a hot-bed of weed growing.  Consumption, perhaps, but not growing.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 23rd, 2007 10:32am
Weed is also illegal in the Netherlands. It's just one of those countries where its illegality is a formality.
Permalink Colm 
March 23rd, 2007 11:45am
Weed has anticarcinogenic properties, so the studies have shown heavy pot smokers have a lower rate of lung cancer than nonsmokers.

I don't think pot should be class c, whatever that is. I think it should be off the list entirely, along with alchohol.

Ecstasy I don't agree with, it can cause long term psychological problems and lead to suicide. I'd be ok with it as a prescription recreational med, so you have to control your use. LSD as well. Perhaps limit them to religious or therapeutic use.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 23rd, 2007 11:45am
Hubble, plain tobacco is not bad for you at all, it's a beneficial medicinal herb. It's the additives that make it deadly.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 23rd, 2007 11:46am
Well, that was the point I was trying to make, isn't it?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
March 23rd, 2007 12:28pm
All drugs should be legalised, regulated and taxed. Then the govt should use the money to educate people.
Permalink Billx 
March 23rd, 2007 3:29pm
If it were additives in tobacco that make it deadly, the tobacco companies wouldn't be on the wrong end of multimillion dollar lawsuits. Instead, they'd be golden--marketing pure, unadulterated, organic tobacco products free of all harmful side effects.

Yes, OK, I know you were joking.
Permalink Send private email bon vivant 
March 23rd, 2007 9:58pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2007 Other topics: March, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics