🚀 go-pugleaf

In calgary.general Mark <mark1w@n.o.s.p.a.m.oanet.com> wrote:
> By intoxication I am refering to what most people would call being drunk,
> not to a scientifically measurable change in physical response.

I understand your point. However, it applies equally well to marijuana, which
can be consumed in low enough quantities to not "negatively" affect an
individual significantly. The point isn't what it can do, it's what you do
with it. If you want to feel "good", it's possible with both substances. If
you want to feel "wasted", it's also possible.

> My reasoning is perfectly sound.  I drink on a regular basis, and not for
> the purpose of getting drunk.  In fact, I don't even like getting drunk.
> Many people, aware that drunk driving is a serious problem also limit
> there consumption when they are out for the evening.  So don't make
> the rediculous claim that alcohol only serves to get one drunk.

It's not ridiculous. Alcohol, as found in alcoholic beverages, causes
intoxication. In sufficient quantities, it can poison and kill (something
which marijuana/THC cannot do). If enough people show their concern about
getting drunk (by using the power of their wallet), maybe we could get some
decent tasting non-alcoholic beers. The alcohol itself doesn't add anything to
the flavour of alcoholic beverages (except that nasty rubbing-alcohol taste).

I'm only playing devil's advocate here, anyway. My purpose is to point out the
ridiculousness of making blanket statements, whether they be about alcohol or
marjiuana. The point is that some people *do* drink to get drunk, and it's
legal. Since being stoned is no worse than being drunk (and generally alot
better), there is no good reason to not decriminalize marijuana.

> My friends and I always used the words interchangably.  Cocaine is more
> similar to marijuana than you think.

They have completely different physiological and psychological effects.
Cocaine and alcohol actually have more in common than cocaine and marijuana.

> BTW the EPS has said that more people used cocaine in Edmonton last year
> than marijauna.

Interesting statistic. In the Netherlands, it was noted that use of "hard"
drugs actually decreased once marijuana was decriminalized.

> I can't see any reason why it's none of my business.  We all know that
> drug abuse is a serious problem, not just because of what it does to the
> user, but also what that user does to other people, especially their own
> families.

Alcoholism is much worse, and more pervasive. So is nicotine addiction. Yet
both of these are legal.

Besides, it has been repeatedly shown by every reputable scientific study
(including many funded by the US and Canadian governments) that marijuana use
is largely benign. The most serious negative effect of marijuana use comes
from smoking it, which has the same type of effects as smoking cigarettes.

> You haven't followed my resoning at all.

I beg to differ, but please enlighten me. The discussion is of no use if we
aren't understanding one another.

-- 
Scott Barker       scott@mostlylinux.ab.ca
Linux Consultant   http://www.mostlylinux.ab.ca/scott

Help me spread the word: I'm single and looking for a relationship.
http://www.mostlylinux.ab.ca/scott/single.shtml

[ Unsolicited commercial and junk e-mail will be proof-read for US$100 ]

"He who dies with the most toys, is, nonetheless, still dead."
   - ???