Featured Is Pot, okay?

On the contrary, it worked just fine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

The stringent prohibition imposed by the Volstead Act, however, represented a more drastic action than many Americans expected. Nevertheless, National Prohibition succeeded both in lowering consumption and in retaining political support until the onset of the Great Depression altered voters’ priorities. Repeal resulted more from this contextual shift than from characteristics of the innovation itself.​

I don't advocate a return to Prohibition by any means. But the outgrowth of Prohibition was a better educated public on the dire effects of binge drinking and excessive alcohol use. Liver disease dropped dramatically, and the economic effects were nothing short of astounding. No one knew that liquor sales had become so entrenched in the American family budget until they say average disposable income rise during Prohibition.

The shortest-lived child of Prohibition actually survived to adulthood. This was the change in drinking patterns that depressed the level of consumption compared with the pre-Prohibition years. Straitened family finances during the Depression of course kept the annual per capita consumption rate low, hovering around 1.5 US gallons. The true results of Prohibition’s success in socializing Americans in temperate habits became apparent during World War II, when the federal government turned a more cordial face toward the liquor industry than it had during World War I, and they became even more evident during the prosperous years that followed. Although annual consumption rose, to about 2 gallons per capita in the 1950s and 2.4 gallons in the 1960s, it did not surpass the pre-Prohibition peak until the early 1970s.

The death rate from liver cirrhosis followed a corresponding pattern. In 1939, 42% of respondents told pollsters that they did not use alcohol at all. If that figure reflected stability in the proportionate size of the non-drinking population since the pre-Prohibition years, and if new cohorts—youths and women—had begun drinking during Prohibition, then the numbers of new drinkers had been offset by Prohibition’s socializing effect. By 1960, the proportion of abstainers had fallen only to 38%.​

In short, Prohibition worked dramatically well -- just not the way the Women's Temperance Union wanted.

 

So why was it repealed?

Bingo! 'A better educated public' is exactly what's needed today in our re-thinking of drug policy.

 

Repeal of Prohibition:
"Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished."

 

It actually had nothing to do with the fact of Prohibtion itself. It was the fatal flaw of the language in the second clause of the 18th Amendment.

Again from the NCBI study:

Historians agree that enforcement of the Volstead Act constituted National Prohibition’s Achilles’ heel. A fatal flaw resided in the amendment’s second clause, which mandated “concurrent power” to enforce Prohibition by the federal government and the states. ASL strategists expected that the states’ existing criminal-justice machinery would carry out the lion’s share of the work of enforcement. Consequently, the league did not insist on creating adequate forces or funding for federal enforcement, thereby avoiding conflict with Southern officials determined to protect states’ rights. The concurrent-power provision, however, allowed states to minimize their often politically divisive enforcement activity, and the state prohibition statutes gave wets an obvious target, because repeal of a state law was easier than repeal of a federal law or constitutional amendment, and repeal’s success would leave enforcement in the crippled hands of the federal government.45 Even if enforcement is regarded as a failure, however, it does not follow that such a lapse undermined political support for Prohibition. Depending on the number of drinking drys, the failure of enforcement could have produced the opposite effect, by allowing voters to gain access to alcohol themselves while voting to deny it to others.​

Ah ah ah! Check your card before you yell "Bingo!" A better educated public, given the facts not obscured by the rhetoric, will reach the conclusion that the current ban on Schedule I-IV drugs outside of a prescription is not only sane, but absolutely necessary. Alcohol has its flaws, but only if used in excess. As you are likely well aware, studies are showing that alcohol, particularly that found in red wines, is beneficial in small amounts for cholesterol and triglycerides. There is nothing good about cocaine even if used only once. The damage it does to the brain and body is instantaneous, and it has no medicinal purpose whatsoever. Methamphetamines is purse poison unless clinically pure, and that is beyond the financial ability of anyone on the street to acquire. As I showed by posting the link to the WSU ADCAPS study, there is nothing redeeming about marijuana. What the "medical" advocates claim are pure fabrications, beyond it having a mild sedative and anti-nausea benefit that is better provided by existing prescription drugs.

 

Why? Bottom line, because the arguments for alcohol were raised and backed (true or not) on many more fronts, regardless of the health and social effects on our society as they pertained to individual liberties, than the arguments which basically solely rested on the detrimental effects of alcohol on another (individual’s) body and mind. IOW’s the battle to impose moral and health laws for the good in society are eventually drug down by arguments of freedom, individual liberties, and moral relevance issues. (i.e. abortion, homosexual rights, family values, marriage, etc.) The pot issue is but yet another example of deterioration of morality and health in our society because more people are buying into moral relevance/personal responsibility for one’s own actions arguments than those arguments trying to maintain social values and “un-provable” morality issues. People today even more than in the days of prohibition consider themselves "better educated" if they are buying into the many arguments rooted to moral relevance pertaining to individual rights than morality itself – that is all.

 

So you agree with the gist of the essay that Prohibition failed due to inadequate enforcement? Then you would agree that the 'war on drugs' has failed for the same reason? We need only to pour more resources and make more laws and we will eventually succeed in legislating morality?

A 'governor' on an internal combustion engine serves an essential purpose in preventing the engine from running amok thus self destructing, but at the same time it's control has to be limited or the engine loses efficiency. When I say 're-think our drug policy' in no way am I advocating a blanket legalization of all drugs; my immediate beef is with the restrictions on industrial hemp. Prior to the Civil War hemp was a major cash crop here in KY, it seems the climate here is perfectly suited for it. Since the demise of tobacco as a cash crop the farmers here desperately need a viable alternative. Lawmakers should 'tweek' the governor on the engine to allow industrial hemp to be grown. - That is all.

 

Losing the battle to the overwhelming attack from the users and their supporters, which buy into the aforementioned moral relevance arguments, does not make it right, nor does it justify giving up the battle on morality. The reasoning of if you can’t beat them then join them and allow it, or justifications by means which come through the agendas of habituation (such as “in your face” homosexuality), fails those (claiming to yet support morality) who “think” they are becoming “better educated”…

You can't force morality it must be taught. Hard to teach one is convicted by his principles of morality if he gives up on them though. Your activist argument amounts to two wrongs makes a right or if you can't win by the type enforcement which has been tried and failed (battling to maintain moral laws in a society against moral relevance issue holders) then give up.
You seem to disregard that every inch you allow that moral line to be pushed that you (supposed defender of morality) will NEVER be able to "impose" (adequately enforce) that morality line back again. (Do you think the "rights" of abortion will ever be taken away now?!? doo you believe once pot smoking becomes more socially acceptable that declaring the wrongfulness of its use will be tolerated by the users of it. NO! Just like we've learned and it is taught to our children we are now bigots to speak against homosexuality.!!) Good luck with such rollover strategies on morality.

Apparently you in line with the majority of "better educated" thinkers who accept defeat by laying down on morality as the tactics of habituation does its work.

 

Is Pot ok? Law says yes, Bible says no.
Is Abortion ok? Law says yes, Bible says no.
Is drunkenness ok? Law says yes, Bible says no.
Is homosexual behavior ok? Law says yes, Bible says no.

 

Sigh, once again:

"When I say 're-think our drug policy' in no way am I advocating a blanket legalization of all drugs; my immediate beef is with the restrictions on industrial hemp."

But what I hear you saying:
Let's pour more money into the war on drugs, make more laws, build more prisons, house more inmates, create more foster children, cause more bankruptcies, cause more divorces, etc., etc., and everything else that goes along with locking these 'outlaws' up that we have created by making more laws.

We are NOT winning the war on drugs by doing these things. We are NOT making things better. See post #43, it really is deja vu.

Are you fine with going the 'totalitarian' route that some other countries have and let's just start locking them away forever or executing them?

Imagine, if the 18th amendent would have 'stuck', if we had just poured just a little more resources into enforcement, we could be just as pure as Kuwait, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, etc., when it comes to alcohol. Wow! Did we ever miss the opportunity there!

 

You make my point with the *battle cry that it is wrong to impose morality in a society, you side with moral relevance thinkers who are more concerned with individual liberties while unwittingly giving up on moral values AS IF THEY DON"T EXIST!

ALL civil societies "impose" moral values on others, without such laws we are doomed! Let me make this perfectly clear - MORALITY EXISTS! - it is not relevant to an individual's desires, - without the imposition of morals on others in a civilized society there is no law and nothing to maintain morals...

God demonstrated to us that to impose laws was for the good and that grace should abound does not do away with the law for the law is good. The people in the world would argue that we are trying to be as God then, right? Well, these same people, these "better educated" people "think" there is no higher power than their own free liberties to be their own judge of what is good or evil - i.e. moral relevance, therefore, it is wrong to "impose" morality - *welcome to the atheist mindset that is being taught to the "better educated" people in our society.

 

Well Ben, we're not just broke, we're something like 16 trillion dollars in debt. I suppose we can hit China up for some more loans so that we can 'pour more money into the war on drugs, make more laws, build more prisons, house more inmates, create more foster children, cause more bankruptcies, cause more divorces, etc., etc.'

Same logic goes with forcing a regime change in Iran or Syria or who knows where else. Let's borrow or print it, that's our options. At least by legalizing industrial hemp we might actually be able to create bonafide revenue instead of borrowing or printing it.

And, imagine this! Actually taking control of the illicit drug trade from the cartels and regulating/taxing the drugs as we have with alcohol! Actually turning it around from a gapping grand canyon of throwing money into and turning a profit from it, diverting our efforts from enforcement/incarceration to education of our children on the dangers of drugs. Wow! But I suppose such thinking is evil though. Shame on me.

 

You have to learn to spot a bad idea when you see one;



Smoking pot is a bad idea.

 

Let's look at where your "logic":

Imagine this, concerning the “rule” of forgoing moral principles for the more economic principles. Actually taking control of illicit pedophilia sex trade from the pedophiles and regulating/taxing child prostitution! Actually turning it around from a gapping grand canyon of throwing money into and turning a profit from it, diverting our efforts from enforcement/incarceration to education of our children on the dangers of prostitution. Wow! But I suppose such thinking is evil though. Shame on me.

Well, maybe not, huh? That’s a line maybe you’re not willing to move on so easily, …yet. The ole battle cry of totalitarian rule mindset is starting to fail you, eh? Haven’t become numb enough through habituation to surrender your moral convictions that this is evil to our society and now maybe a little more willing to stick to “your” values and “enforce” your morals?

Extreme example, I know. But, my moral line isn’t budging on the pot issue on the same grounding objection of allowing the line to inch forward. First pot, then cocaine, then heroine. First, homosexual marriage, then polygamy, then marriage at puberty – as I watch my “Christian godlike” family values slowly go out the window. My moral convictions cannot be bought, nor does the suggestion that I’m un-rationally not looking at the economic issues behind it sway me and am unfairly judging another as being on the side of evil for not giving up on my moral line.

 

We're either printing it or borrowing it. It's inevitable that the economics of it will eventually force a change in our drug policy along with a lot of other things. It can't/won't continue as it is. The war on drugs as we've come to know it is lost.

 

I just might add that cannabis has many psychoactive molecules and each has a different effect. So while there may be some agents
that have some beneficial effects for certain conditions, it is a "mixed-bag", a hybrid.
I say it is a "Trojan Horse" drug that will have very detrimental effects on a true Christian. In that respect, I consider it Satanic.

 

Yes, unfortunately the battle ground has changed. And now, the enemy has a strong new ally, legality.

 

I'd consider that a very accurate description concerning the potentials and dangers of pot. Might add, I'd say that the effects are detrimental whether on a true Christian or not.

I often claim the use of it is a type of sorcery. Reminds me of this scripture:

Act 8:9-11
(9) But there was a certain man, called Simon [Pot] , which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
(10) To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
(11) And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.

 

Making drugs legal is not going to make them any less illicit. And it will not do anything to empty out our prisons.

 

That isn't the conclusion of the study at all. The conclusion of the study is that Prohibition was a success, not because of but despite the intent of those who ramrodded it through. Their intent was punishment. The result was education. Please reread the study.