Just Say No

March 20, 2007 2:37 PM

Some say alcohol prohibition was a failure. Some say it worked. Alcohol abuse costs society billions. Groups seek to add a new flavor to regulation. Citizens are even taking up the cause.
posted by Gnostic Novelist (115 comments total)

Outlaw tobacco and alchohol, legalize pot.

Eliminate two of society's deadliest vices and replace them with a single one that serves both purposes and, although not without harmful long term effects, is not nearly as likely to kill people.

Secret lobbying and kickbacks from the pretzel industry will make this dream a reality.
posted by CynicalKnight at 2:51 PM on March 20, 2007 [4 favorites]

although not without harmful long term effects,

Really? I'd love to hear about them.
posted by mek at 2:58 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

"You can't legislate morality" is my decidedly lefty knee-jerk response to banning psychotropic or intoxicating substances.
(But imagine my surprise when Google tells me Barry Goldwater coined the phrase as an argument AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of '64...)
Been said a trillion times, but still rings true to me:
Tax it. Regulate it. "Control" it.
Everything else is commentary.
posted by Dizzy at 2:59 PM on March 20, 2007

Gene Amondson forgot to mention that the repeal of prohibition was the direct cause of Hitler's rise to power.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:01 PM on March 20, 2007

You will get my alcohol when you remove it from my cold dead hands. or at least you'll have to wait until I pass out.

(seriously; do not ban alcohol. It was an utter disaster when they attempted it last time, breeding disrespect for the law and giving organized crime unprecedented power. It only happened because a bunch of religious fanatics and nagging wives got to somebody in Washington. You cannot save people from themselves. Deal with it, busybodies)
posted by jonmc at 3:10 PM on March 20, 2007 [5 favorites]

Metafilter is so slow for me right now I suspect it is drunk.

(what is the point of this fpp anyway?)
posted by caddis at 3:12 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Some say the phrase "some say" is a way to say something and pretend you didn't.
posted by interrobang at 3:12 PM on March 20, 2007 [16 favorites]

mek: This is from the first page of PubMed results.
posted by docgonzo at 3:13 PM on March 20, 2007

I still want to know why it took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but every other substance under the sun can be banned on the whim of the DEA.
posted by mullingitover at 3:13 PM on March 20, 2007 [7 favorites]

Also, it's a proven fact that musicians make better music when they're drinking and getting high.
posted by jonmc at 3:13 PM on March 20, 2007 [3 favorites]

Mek, long term smoking of marijuana causes emphysema. In some people chronic use of marijuana increases their tendency to suffer from clinical depression.

By comparison to tobacco and alcohol these are relatively minor, but it is not the case that long-term use of marijuana is completely benign.

Oh, and driving while seriously stoned increases the chance of a traffic accident.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:15 PM on March 20, 2007

Some people just don't have any kind of grasp on black market economics. Alcohol Prohibition funded organized crime in the U.S.; Al Capone was famously against legalizing alcohol.

Human nature says that people who want to alter consciousness will find a way no matter what. And there will always be people to accomodate them. If you think "just say no" works, you're high.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:17 PM on March 20, 2007

By comparison to tobacco and alcohol these are relatively minor, but it is not the case that long-term use of marijuana is completely benign.

What? Are you fucking kidding? Who told you to say this?
posted by interrobang at 3:17 PM on March 20, 2007

I still want to know why it took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but every other substance under the sun can be banned on the whim of the DEA.

I think alcohol was grandfathered. But other drugs either didn't exist when the Constitution was written, or were not widely used in the US. (Except tobacco, and I think that's probably grandfathered, too.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:18 PM on March 20, 2007

Whoops, misread. My apologies, Den Beste.
posted by interrobang at 3:18 PM on March 20, 2007

It's a trap! You don't have to smoke marijuana to get stoned.
posted by nathancaswell at 3:19 PM on March 20, 2007

Nevermind, it's not a trap, it's a misread.
posted by nathancaswell at 3:19 PM on March 20, 2007

NOT STONED.
posted by nathancaswell at 3:19 PM on March 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

dear the world,

the problem with substance abuse is not the substance, but why it is abused. it is not the problem with people, but a symptom of that problem. the problem with people is that they must exist among other people. you all don't realize what fucking jerks you are, and the rest of us need a drink now and then to be able to deal with you.

sincerely,

the world at large.
posted by shmegegge at 3:22 PM on March 20, 2007 [7 favorites]

Outlawing alcohol simply moves the profits of alcohol to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean, and into the hands of criminals. It replaces mature drinking with binge drinking; it replaces good alcohol with poison.

You'll get my three martini lunch when you take it from my cold, dead liver. Which, at the rate I drink, should be any day.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:24 PM on March 20, 2007

Steven C Den Beste: So, marijuana wasn't around? Peyote wasn't around? Salvia (no, not banned yet, but it's getting there) wasn't around? I'm pretty sure all of those were in use by the various indigenous groups in North America before whitey ever showed up.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 3:24 PM on March 20, 2007

Mek, long term smoking of marijuana causes emphysema.

If you actually followed the science, you'd know that that is a highly debatable proclamation. Smoking tobacco may lead to emphysema, smoking pot maybe not.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 3:26 PM on March 20, 2007

What? Are you fucking kidding? Who told you to say this?

What? That use of marijuana might a component cause of negative health outcomes?

"Culpability studies have recently demonstrated an increased risk of becoming responsible in fatal or injurious traffic accidents, even with low blood concentrations of THC. It has also been demonstrated that there is a correlation between the degree of impairment, the drug dose and the THC blood concentration. It is very important to focus on the negative effect of cannabis on fitness to drive in order to prevent injuries and loss of human life and to avoid large economic consequences to the society."> (link)

"Chronic inflammatory and precancerous changes in the airways have been demonstrated in cannabis smokers, and the most recent case-control study shows an increased risk of airways cancer that is proportional to the amount of cannabis use." (link)

"Several different studies indicate that the epidemiological link between cannabis use and schizophrenia probably represents a causal role of cannabis in precipitating the onset or relapse of schizophrenia." (link)

"Regular use of any of the three substances [incl. cannabis] at age 14 or 16 was associated with lower condom use at age 16, adjusting for gender and social background." (link)

This is by no means an exhaustive list, just the result of 10 minutes on pubmed. While I do not support the current regulatory system on illicit drugs, I think any discussion must include the relevant harms from all substances, including marijuana.

posted by docgonzo at 3:27 PM on March 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

you all don't realize what fucking jerks you are, and the rest of us need a drink now and then to be able to deal with you.

My thoughts exactly. Can't wait for the fuckers to get raptured.
posted by c13 at 3:28 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Some of those websites were lik talking to people who still believe the world is flat.

One claimed that prohibition emptied out prisons and mental institutes, and dropped illiteracy to 2%. Come on! This reads like a parody!
posted by UseyurBrain at 3:28 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

No, I don't think the other drugs were ever outright banned they were "regulated and taxed" but not permitted to actually be sold (or actually be sold without a prescription in the case of cocaine and methamphetamine). That's how.

Regarding harms related to marijuana: [self-link] there's no evidence that marijuana causes depression or lung cancer but there is some that it can worsen psychosis or hasten its onset in those already predisposed.

However, with regard to schizophrenia, there's a real problem with those who claim that marijuana can cause it: there's been a massive worldwide increase in marijuana use without concommittant increase in schizophrenia. People are now making the claim that "skunk" is what does it because of the high THC content-- but again, that's been quite common for years, too and schizophrenia prevalence is steady.

With regard to the claim that Prohibition worked: they are leaving out that cirrhosis rates dropped around the world at the same time *without* Prohibition in other countries (although with anti-alcohol movements there). And they are leaving out the massive increase in violent crime, deaths from alcohol poisoning and gansterism which led to repeal.

The literacy claims and those about mental institutions emptying are absurd and unsurprisingly, unsourced.
posted by Maias at 3:29 PM on March 20, 2007

That banalcohol.com link is clearly a shill. Unless multiple links to spam link sites and cell phone companies, fronted by crappy design and abhorrent misspelling and grammar is no longer a tip-off?

Somehow, the warning, "They would be unable to buy Alcohol at a Liqueur store" and "If You Live with a Alcoholic You need a Camera Phone to Protect Yourself and Your Kids from Your Spouse When they become DRUNK and Hostile" don't have quite the level of umbrage that would support this post.
posted by pineapple at 3:32 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Do I want to jeopardize my future by getting involved with drugs? Don't I want to get into a good college, get and keep my driver's license, play sports, get a good job?

Hmmmm...I choose....D. All of the above.
posted by 235w103 at 3:37 PM on March 20, 2007 [3 favorites]

Do I detect a bit of funny business with that "groups" link? Is someone attempting satire?
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:38 PM on March 20, 2007

Steven C Den Beste: So, marijuana wasn't around? Peyote wasn't around? Salvia (no, not banned yet, but it's getting there) wasn't around? I'm pretty sure all of those were in use by the various indigenous groups in North America before whitey ever showed up.

Those people weren't involved in writing and ratifying the Constitution. What I meant was that the white men who were the only voters whose opinions mattered were regular users of alcohol and tobacco at the time the Constitution was ratified, and thus use of alcohol and use of tobacco would probably have been considered to be unenumerated rights under the 9th Amendment.

As of the 21st Amendment that's no longer the case for alcohol, but I suspect the courts would still say that about tobacco.

Marijuana is not native to the Americas; it was brought to the Western Hemisphere by Europeans.

There were a series of court tests in the 1960's on the question of whether peyote use by American Indians (and American hippies who claimed to have converted to Indian religions) was protected by the "free exercise of religion" clause of the First Amendment, and the courts pretty much rejected that argument.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:39 PM on March 20, 2007

mek: This is from the first page of PubMed results.
posted by docgonzo at 3:13 PM on March 20 [+][!]

OK, reading your link:

RECENT FINDINGS: Acute cannabis administration can induce memory impairments, sometimes persisting months following abstinence. There is no evidence that residual effects on cognition remain after years of abstinence.

Well then!
posted by mek at 3:40 PM on March 20, 2007

Steven C. Den Beste writes "I think alcohol was grandfathered. But other drugs either didn't exist when the Constitution was written, or were not widely used in the US. (Except tobacco, and I think that's probably grandfathered, too.)"

Uh, seconding marijuana and peyote. Opium use also predates the Constitution by thousands of years.
posted by mullingitover at 3:41 PM on March 20, 2007

# "Culpability studies have recently demonstrated an increased risk of becoming responsible in fatal or injurious traffic accidents

Wow, stoned people don't drive so good? Shocking. What does this have to do with long-term biological harm caused by smoking responsibly?

# "Chronic inflammatory and precancerous changes in the airways have been demonstrated in cannabis smokers, and the most recent case-control study shows an increased risk of airways cancer that is proportional to the amount of cannabis use."

There are a number of studies which fail to show any correlation between marijuana smoking and cancer, so don't put all your eggs in the latest basket... at any rate, if it's so damn difficult to prove it's capable of causing cancer at all, the risk is ridiculously small.

# "Several different studies indicate that the epidemiological link between cannabis use and schizophrenia probably represents a causal role of cannabis in precipitating the onset or relapse of schizophrenia." (link)

Virtually every narcotic is recommended to be avoided by individuals that are at high risk of developing schizophrenia (young males with a family history).

# "Regular use of any of the three substances [incl. cannabis] at age 14 or 16 was associated with lower condom use at age 16, adjusting for gender and social background."

?!?!?!
posted by mek at 3:47 PM on March 20, 2007

Steven C. Den Beste writes "I think alcohol was grandfathered. But other drugs either didn't exist when the Constitution was written, or were not widely used in the US."

Opium was available and being used in abundance though. I wanna know why they didn't grandfather the *good* drugs instead of lousy old booze.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:50 PM on March 20, 2007

From Gene Amondson's site, "What they didn't tell you about those thirteen years":

Prisons and mental institutions emptied.

Which is a laugh considering the present quorum of American state penitentiaries.
posted by adoarns at 3:52 PM on March 20, 2007

Opium use also predates the Constitution by thousands of years.

But they were not widely used by white men in the original 13 states at the time the Constitution was proposed and ratified. And I think that's what would have mattered to the American courts of the 19th Century.

A claim that a particular activity was widely practiced elsewhere, by people other than American citizens, generally would have been unpersuasive to American courts.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 3:54 PM on March 20, 2007

Mek, see Marijuana use affects blood flow in brain.
IANAD, but be a light to moderate user at worst. I personally have known some heavy pot users who smoked for 15+ years, and although my experience is anecdotal, they are definitely brain impaired. Even the guy who gave it up for five years was still aphasic. These guys were always lit for years though, so light to moderate use may be different.
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:54 PM on March 20, 2007

They would be unable to buy Alcohol at a Liqueur store. (from the banalcohol link)

Now, if I were making it my mission to ban liquor I think one of the very first things I would do would be to make sure I knew how to spell "liquor." Yep, I surely would.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 3:59 PM on March 20, 2007

*passes mek ans denbeste a 40*

calm down, already.
posted by jonmc at 3:59 PM on March 20, 2007

Mek, long term smoking of marijuana causes emphysema. In some people chronic use of marijuana increases their tendency to suffer from clinical depression.

Got links?
posted by owhydididoit at 4:01 PM on March 20, 2007

Oh, BTW, speaking of nonsensical drug policies, California's just about to schedule Salvia Divinorum as a Schedule I substance.
posted by treepour at 4:02 PM on March 20, 2007

I say that one site should ban Liqueur sales. Then maybe I won't have to watch those fucking idiotic "Disaronno on the rocks" commercials anymore. And my mom can't order highballs full of Bailey's. Which is no good for anyone.
posted by mckenney at 4:04 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

The PI values for light and moderate marijuana users improved over the month of abstinence. There was no improvement for heavy marijuana users. The light users smoked two to 15 joints per week. The moderate users smoked 17 to 70 joints per week, and the heavy users smoked 78 to 350 joints per week.

First of all, note that these PI values are detached from any symptoms or conditions; they are simply rates of blood flow in the brain. Secondly, the study is two years old; thirdly, it found that "light" and "medium" marijuana users recovered after quitting and only "heavy" marijuana smokers were permanently altered.

Heavy marijuana smoking is defined by the study as a minimum of 78 joints per week, or just over 11 joints a day. Some of the individuals in the study smoked upwards of 350, or 50 joints a day. A day. 350. To a layman, it seems miraculous that they're still alive, let alone asymptomatic...
posted by mek at 4:04 PM on March 20, 2007

I still want to know why it took an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, but every other substance under the sun can be banned on the whim of the DEA.

The answer is that it didn't take an amendment to the constitution. It could have been banned under the commerce clause just like the rest of the drugs, but A) that wasn't a sure bet at the time, and B) They wanted to make sure it "stuck" and couldn't be easily overturned if it didn't work out.
posted by delmoi at 4:05 PM on March 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

NOT YET STONED, DRINKING ESPRESSO FIRST.

No, please, ban alcohol. If the Marijuana prohibition is any indication of what prohibition does to the quality of the prohibited drug, please ban alcohol. It'll be fucking awesome.

I fully expect to see unlicensed, high-proof, gourmet, organically grown, brewed and distilled genuine potato vodka on the streets within a month, and it'll cost half the price of what it did when it was legal.

Ban tobacco, too. I look forward to the lovingly hand-cured Turkish-Virginia hybrids that will undoubtably flood the black market.

(Anyone who is seriously reconsidering alcohol prohibition doesn't remember how big of a party it was. Ban it, you sanctimonious, irreligious fuckers! Ban everything! It just makes it stronger!)
posted by loquacious at 4:05 PM on March 20, 2007 [4 favorites]

treepour writes "Oh, BTW, speaking of nonsensical drug policies, California's just about to schedule Salvia Divinorum as a Schedule I substance."

Shit! Time to stock up!
posted by mullingitover at 4:06 PM on March 20, 2007

delmoi writes "The answer is that it didn't take an amendment to the constitution. It could have been banned under the commerce clause just like the rest of the drugs, but A) that wasn't a sure bet at the time,"

Plus they didn't have the absurd interpretation of the commerce clause that we're saddled with today. Who could've guessed that interstate non-commerce was actually interstate commerce? It's like the SC is packed full of Taoists.
posted by mullingitover at 4:11 PM on March 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

"Regular use of any of the three substances [incl. cannabis] at age 14 or 16 was associated with lower condom use at age 16, adjusting for gender and social background." (link)

Be very, very, very careful quoting PubMed and statisticians out of context.

If you read the abstract:

CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescent substance users, being "drunk or stoned" at intercourse was only one factor related to not using condoms. Psychosocial factors (including attitudes to sexual risks and peer sexual norms) and having more sexual partners also explained substance users' condom use, with lesser effects due to greater intercourse frequency and pill use. Multiple explanations for substance use/condom use associations may guide counseling and education services. (emph. added)
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:12 PM on March 20, 2007

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
- Ben Franklin
posted by caddis at 4:13 PM on March 20, 2007

Oh for the love of god, do not ban alcohol. Not because I like the occasional drink, (I would surely miss it,) but as was pointed out earlier, think of the boost it would give to organized crime.

And by organized crime, we are talking about the same street gangs that have been very good at keeping drugs readily available to anyone who can afford them. Now imagine giving them the keys to a multi-billion dollar industry and making sure they are the only real alternative to sobriety.

You think they are hard to deal with now? Ban booze and watch how fast things go from bad to worst.
posted by quin at 4:14 PM on March 20, 2007

Shit! Time to stock up!

Indeed! And if you feel inclined to write or call our legislators, contact info for the committee members is here. Also, Daniel Siebert wrote an excellent letter (pdf) opposing the bill.
posted by treepour at 4:16 PM on March 20, 2007

And yes, I understand that their goal is a limited ban, but that seems to be the way these things start. Slippery slope and all that
posted by quin at 4:17 PM on March 20, 2007

"It only happened because a bunch of religious fanatics and nagging wives got to somebody in Washington."

Why does this sound so familiar...?

"you all don't realize what fucking jerks you are, and the rest of us need a drink now and then to be able to deal with you."

Hear hear. *hoists a cold one to shmegegge*
posted by zoogleplex at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2007

Does it really matter whether marijuana is harmful or not? Freedom to choose is the freedom to make choices harmful to yourself. I would like to think those in favor of legalization do so out of respect for personal liberty (though the "Tax it. Regulate it. "Control" it." attitude makes me want to knock heads together).
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 4:19 PM on March 20, 2007 [3 favorites]

So all this must be the commentary.
posted by Dizzy at 4:21 PM on March 20, 2007

"Now imagine giving them the keys to a multi-billion dollar industry and making sure they are the only real alternative to sobriety.

You think they are hard to deal with now? Ban booze and watch how fast things go from bad to worst."

They would just take over, city by city. The entire population of non-gangsters would have to take up arms and fight a bloody war just to dislodge them. If you think there's corruption in law enforcement now because of the drug trade, imagine what would happen if all that booze money was available to pay off the cops?
posted by zoogleplex at 4:23 PM on March 20, 2007

My method of getting loaded is better than your method of getting loaded.
posted by jonmc at 4:23 PM on March 20, 2007

Uh, and the pot/driving mention has methodological problems out the fuckin' ass. You're sampling from people who have a) been pulled over for a driving offense, and b) are suspected of using drugs at some point, and using that to correlate drug use with driving offenses?
Most adults in accidents have had a drink in their lives. Therefore, using the same logic as the study, we can conclude that alcohol may have negative effects on driving ability for years after drinking.
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on March 20, 2007

Let's please also ban mountain climbing, eating tuna fish sandwiches that have been left out on the counter for more than five minutes, and driving while stupid.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:30 PM on March 20, 2007 [4 favorites]

Yeah, and you have to take abstracts on drug studies with a grain of salt. Sometimes, the full paper says the opposite of what the abstract claims. This is an area full of propaganda, often posing as research.

The U.S. government is extremely keen to demonstrate negative effects of marijuana. For at least 40 years, they have been trying to find a link to lung cancer. But the case-control studies (which, with tobacco, found a 10-20x greater rate of lung cancer in smokers compared to non) don't find one. See here for the latest-- by a guy who really thought there'd be a connection but also found none. Here's a review of the data before that large study, still finding no connection but essentially concluding "despite the data, there must be one."

Marijuana may indeed cause lung cancer, but the dose makes the poison. If you smoke 20-40 a day for 20-40 years, you're probably in trouble. But while such habits are seen in the typical cigarette smoker, they are rare even amongst the heaviest potsmokers. Your average marijuana user doesn't even use daily, let alone multiple joints a day-- and even those who use every weekend tend to only do so during high school and college, then cut back. It's just not the same kind of exposure.

The cognitive effects research is mixed, some studies finding some lasting effects in the heaviest smokers, others finding none. Unlike alcohol, however, marijuana doesn't produce a distinctive dementia with brain shrinkage in heavy users: but alcohol can lead irreversible damage called Korsakoff's Psychosis. Curiously, this is not caused by the alcohol itself, but by a thiamine deficiency produced by heavy drinking. But even if you supplement, once significant damage has occurred, recovery may not be complete.
posted by Maias at 4:33 PM on March 20, 2007 [2 favorites]

But other drugs either didn't exist when the Constitution was written, or were not widely used in the US.

The parody, she writes herself...

Someone get this guy an agent. He's way funnier than 90% of the shit on TV.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:33 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Your favorite high sucks.
posted by lekvar at 4:33 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

He's way funnier than 90% of the shit on TV.

Especially when you're fucked up.

*raises Iron Maiden pint glass (no joke, I bought it at the Rego Park Marshall's) full of Bacardi, pineapple juice and triple sec to you all. Shaken and on the rocks that stuff will have you on your ass, dude*
posted by jonmc at 4:36 PM on March 20, 2007

I'm drinking my sister-in-law's mother's excellent strong umeshu, cut with seltzer, and let me tell you it's a balm and a tonic to me.

This Gnostic Novelist seems to like the "some say" construction. Not to mention he or she apparently has a minor fixation on issues of drug use and addiction. Hic.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:39 PM on March 20, 2007

*clinks glasses with adam*

(the set I got the Maiden pint in also had a Pistols pint and a Motorhead pint. It was in the bargian bin. Me and breezeway were only there to buy an air conditioner for me & pips' pad, but we saw that and we lost all control)
posted by jonmc at 4:46 PM on March 20, 2007

My pint glass has Batman on it!

But I bow to the superior Met-tal pint glasses. Those are way cool.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:51 PM on March 20, 2007

(also, adamgreenfield and zoogleplex: go visit my favorite songs countdown vox blog (adam has no email so he's forcing my hand. you two are two people who's opinions on my blatherings I'd like value and shit)
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on March 20, 2007

Whaaa? My email address is practically given away free with fill-ups at participating Mobil stations.

Nevertheless, I shall endeavor to see what yiz yammering about. Stand by.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:03 PM on March 20, 2007

CynicalKnight: Outlaw tobacco and alchohol, [...] Eliminate two of society's deadliest vices [...]

Eliminate? As in, like, no more ever forever? Chyah. History much? First post in thread pegs the rediculometer.

hoverboards don't work on water: Freedom to choose is the freedom to make choices harmful to yourself. I would like to think those in favor of legalization do so out of respect for personal liberty

This needed to be repeated.
posted by oncogenesis at 5:05 PM on March 20, 2007

I wanna know why they didn't grandfather the *good* drugs instead of lousy old booze.

Four words:

Swarthy Brown Skinned Foreigners
posted by tkchrist at 5:13 PM on March 20, 2007

"Also, it's a proven fact that musicians make better music when they're drinking and getting high."

Huh, and I thought you hated Bill Hicks.
posted by Eideteker at 5:13 PM on March 20, 2007

But they were not widely used by white men in the original 13 states at the time the Constitution was proposed and ratified. And I think that's what would have mattered to the American courts of the 19th Century.

Yet opium would have been all over the place, in the form of laudanum. Very common painkiller, although its addictive properties weren't really publicized until the 19th c. (Waves to Thomas DeQuincey.)
posted by thomas j wise at 5:37 PM on March 20, 2007

Someone get this guy an agent. He's way funnier than 90% of the shit on TV.

Adam, you got to watch out with that jerking knee. Someday it's going to hit something and you'll hurt yourself.

I didn't say I approved of those things. I was talking about what I thought courts would say. Modern liberal multiculturalist sensitivity is not part of the Constitution.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 5:45 PM on March 20, 2007

Some say the phrase "some say" is a way to say something and pretend you didn't.

Very true -- and found in oratory and rhetoric of ancient Rome. Cicero (et al) often relied on the "there are those who say; there are those who maintain" to advance a position without seeming to advance such.
posted by ericb at 5:50 PM on March 20, 2007

Drinking a Sam Adams -- clinks glass with others' who are imbibing, as well.
posted by ericb at 6:00 PM on March 20, 2007

"Modern liberal multiculturalist sensitivity is not part of the Constitution."

Heh... at the time it was written, I think the Constitution would have been considered the very epitome of then-modern liberal multiculturalist sensitivity.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:01 PM on March 20, 2007 [4 favorites]

Adam, you got to watch out with that jerking knee.

BZZT! WRONG! Wrong again, tiger! How can you stand it - being wrong so often?

A, if you knew the onliest thing about me you'd know I can't be trimmed to fit in some dang ideological box.

B, I'm not laughing at your position, I'm laughing at how you keep reframing and rewriting the things you said upthread, as one by one they're knocked down. It's absolutely symptomatic of your posting style, and it's gen-u-wine Comedy Gold™.

Keep being you, babe.

BTWs, jonmc: but for the fact that it's a toothache-inducing Vox site: top marks, my man. Top marks.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:18 PM on March 20, 2007

You have to wonder whether prohibition would ever have been repealed at all had if America had such a "disciplining and punishing" industry in the 1920s as it does now. Nowadays the state even knows how to its incarcerated population to profitable use.
posted by clevershark at 6:18 PM on March 20, 2007

Maybe that's why some people want to reintroduce prohibition. Since so many people drink, putting all those people in jail would make for a nice big slave labor force, eh what?
posted by zoogleplex at 6:21 PM on March 20, 2007

Oh and jonmc: I agree with adam. Good stuff! You are far more the music maven than I could ever be! :)

Home to the fridge with the frosty brews inside...

... BUT... FOR... HOW... LONG??!!?!?
posted by zoogleplex at 6:35 PM on March 20, 2007 [1 favorite]

Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically (Scientific American, 1996, by David Musto).

Ha! I guess that was well worth the price we paid.

Next up, I've got this amazing plan for lowering crime rates by forcibly aborting male offspring...
posted by kid ichorous at 6:44 PM on March 20, 2007

You are far more the music maven than I could ever be!

Yeah, I was impressed. And glad to see that jonmc and I bow to no man in our shared reverence for the '68 Comeback Special.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:45 PM on March 20, 2007

Steven C. Den Beste: when it comes to politics, the most I can say is that I disagree with you. As to your approach to constitutional law, on the other hand, I can confidently assert that you are completely full of shit.

• I think alcohol was grandfathered. But other drugs either didn't exist when the Constitution was written, or were not widely used in the US. There is no "grandfather" clause for any drug or product in the Constitution. Certain portions like the habeas corpus suspension clause or the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement arguably "grandfather" common law concepts into the constitutional structure, this is completely 100% inapplicable in the way you have tried to apply it. You completely made that up.
• thus use of alcohol and use of tobacco would probably have been considered to be unenumerated rights under the 9th Amendment. Only if by "probably" you mean "probably not." Such many and varied figures as Justice Scalia, Lawrence Tribe, and a panel of the Sixth circuit agree that the 9th Amendment is (and was intended as, at the time of its ratification) merely a canon of construction, "added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution." Again, there is no legal foundation - none whatsoever - to read any tobacco or alcohol "rights" into the 9th Amendment.
• The much more likely correct answer was basically stated by someone else upthread: Congress probably COULD have prohibited alcohol under its Commerce Clause powers, just as it passed the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938, which has held up to several constitutional challenges since that time. But I guess you'd have to have a passing familiarity with some actual legal doctrine to come up with that.

posted by rkent at 6:47 PM on March 20, 2007 [3 favorites]

thanks, gents. I only mentioned it since even when we disagre we do so interestingly (and because adam's email isn't on his user page and since being laid off I no longer have it stored). and zoogleplex, if you dig deep into that countdown there's some gems to warm your bemulleted soul, my man.
posted by jonmc at 7:05 PM on March 20, 2007

education, education, education!

It's what's needed to avoid the abuse of substances.
not abolition.
posted by noriyori at 7:19 PM on March 20, 2007

Ban them all and let God sort it out... *hic*
posted by ZachsMind at 7:24 PM on March 20, 2007

"Some say" is often a cop out, but Gnostic Novelist gave a link in the very same sentence telling us who some of the "some" are, so I don't see what there is to complain about.
posted by iconjack at 7:29 PM on March 20, 2007

Come to think of it, ban everything. Make laws requiring that you can't exit your house without proper protective equipment. Everybody's gotta wear kneepads, elbowpads, a helmet, goggles, gloves, workboots, and a fullbody radiation suit that's water-resistant and fends off bugs. And bug repellant. Can't have enough of that. And a chin guard. You can't be within three feet of any other human being when outside of your home. Can't talk to each other either. Might accidently tick each other off and get into a fistfight and then you'll end up in a hospital, and none of the doctors can help ya cuz they're not allowed to take off their protective gear in order to operate on anybody. It's the law. No more cars either, or any other kinda vehicle that uses and internal combustion engine. Might blow up. And no bikes cuz you'll go too fast and might wrap yourself around a telephone pole. And no more work either. Might affect the work related accident figures which after all this will look better than ever before.

Also? Bubble Wrap. Gotta wrap everybody up in bubble wrap.

We'll pass laws saying you gotta wrap buildings in bubble wrap. And furniture. And writing utensils. And eating utensils. We gotta pass laws that say nobody can do nothing with anything unless it's first wrapped in bubble wrap. In fact bubble wrap can be dangerous. We better wrap bubble wrap around the bubble wrap. Can't build anything that has sharp edges. From now on, all houses gotta be build round. And no more doors. You might bump into them and hurt yourself. Same goes with walls. Unless you cover them with bubble wrap. The air's kinda dangerous too. Everybody's gotta wear oxygen masks now, just in case someone lights a fart. That can be dangerous. Farts will need to be wrapped up in bubble wrap, too.

Okay! After we do all of that, then we can reconsider making pot and cigs and alcohol legal, but no one's gonna be able to write any legislation, as they'll be unable to move.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:34 PM on March 20, 2007

"Ban them all and let God sort it out... *hic*"

Legalize 'em all and let torte law sort it out.
posted by klarck at 7:35 PM on March 20, 2007

rkent said, "Steven C. Den Beste: when it comes to politics, the most I can say is that I disagree with you. As to your approach to constitutional law, on the other hand, I can confidently assert that you are completely full of shit."

The phrase 'full of shit' has been ponderous to me as of late. At what point does the food you put into your body officially become shit? When it leaves the stomach and enters the small intestines? When it leaves the small intestines and enters the large intestines? Can there really be shit shit in your digestive system, or is it officially not shit until after you excrete it from your body? At which point the shit is outside of your body. A more hospitable and culturally acceptable synonym for 'shit' is 'excrement' which by definition must be excreted by something before it can actually be excrement. If that's is true, then never is there shit literally inside your body. It's scientifically unprovable to actually be full of shit.

Steven C. Den Beste is not full of shit. He is merely talking shit. Shit is excreting out of his mouth in the form of verbage. Or to be more technical, he is smearing his shit on this webpage by typing out on his keyboard completely erroneous statements about constitutional law. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. We're all smearing our shit all over this webpage. It's what we do.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:46 PM on March 20, 2007

Not only was Steven C. Den Beste full of shit, he also helped to expose a few assholes.
posted by Citizen Premier at 8:58 PM on March 20, 2007

I'd like to raise a glass of rye, but I already downed it an hour or so back and am back home from the bar by now. It even said "prohibition era whiskey" on the bottle, so much the better. I'm happy to see GN isn't self-moderating his threads to death, tonight, even if there's a weird moral bent.
posted by mikeh at 9:09 PM on March 20, 2007

I came across a report a long time ago on a journal/diary written by Jefferson (?) or some other constitutional founder whereby he was instructing his household to separate the male and female hemp/marijuana plants on his acreage. The idea was that the male plants wouldn't pollinate the female plants, giving rise to higher quality buds/flowers for smoking (bigger buds without any seeds in them).

In retrospect, I guess it could have something to do with increasing... I was going to say breeding better strains to make longer fibres so as to make better material for rope, cloth, or paper... but I guess it could also be interpreted as breeding for better smoking.

Dang, I should get around to finding a dealer again, it's been 4 or 5 months since I last toked. Stupid alcohol. Being drunk's so much better on weeeeed.
posted by porpoise at 9:19 PM on March 20, 2007

Canada taxes alcohol heavily and controls access to it somewhat (not sold in cornerstores or supermarkets) and we do have fewer heavy drinkers (though more light drinkers) than the U.S..

Though I'm not aware of any study that proves a causative link, it seems like a plausible assumption that this is at least partially because almost doubling the cost of alcohol through taxes does reduce the incidence and/or degree of alcohol abuse. It also helps to appropriately distribute the cost to society of alcohol abuse.

It certainly affects me. I'm a light drinker to begin with, but I'm a much lighter drinker here than I was when living in Europe, and the fact that I could buy a beer for $0.75Cdn in the supermarket in Europe, as opposed to having to go to a special store and pay $3.00 per bottle (for non-swill comparable to German beer) has much to do with it.
posted by lastobelus at 10:20 PM on March 20, 2007

@ZachsMind

This is the sort of rant that seems really cool when you're still in high school, but comes off as eye-rollingly juvenile in a discussion about how to balance a cost-benefit issue for society.
posted by lastobelus at 10:23 PM on March 20, 2007

porpoise : Being drunk's so much better on weeeeed.

Honestly, as someone more than a decade out of the game, I don't remember that being the case. I recall loving being high, and seriously enjoying the whole drunk thing, but my limited exposure to combining the two was nothing more than a recipe for instant sleepiness.

I mean, I'm all for sleep inducing drugs, but I prefer them to give me that 'well rested vibe' when I wake up. Combining the two great tastes that seem to not taste great together only made me wish that I had picked one and really appreciated it's worth, rather than trying to amplify it, one way or another.

Then again, I've become an old man and I'm not hip to how to make the new hotness that is the booze-THC thing work, so YHMV.
posted by quin at 10:58 PM on March 20, 2007

This post made me go grab a beer out of the fridge.

At 9 in the morning.
posted by moonbiter at 1:09 AM on March 21, 2007

hah, i grabbed a beer out of my fridge at 7.15 this morning

of course, i work night shift
posted by pyramid termite at 4:34 AM on March 21, 2007

One of the reasons alcohol (and tobacco, to some extent) have been given special status is that they were, in their day, an alternative form of wealth storage. Farmers would be burdened by having to store so much grain and suffer spoilage and transportation costs, so they'd convert their grain to whiskey. Banning alcohol was almost like banning money. Banning opium and cannabis, not so much.

Last time they banned alcohol (my Great Grandmother was a WCTU gal), a good chunk of the US male population was away fighting a war and unable to register opposition. So long as that doesn't happen again, we probably won't see any serious attempts at banning booze.

Thing is, some people can handle substances, some can't. It is sub-optimal to craft one-size-fits-all policy. If legislation is necessary, we should be focusing on individual ability / responsibility. License it, just like we do for driving, flying, hunter's safety and other dangerous activities. If someone can't handle their intoxicant, they get fined, jailed, suspended and ultimately banned from use.
posted by gregor-e at 6:06 AM on March 21, 2007

I came across a report a long time ago on a journal/diary written by Jefferson (?) or some other constitutional founder whereby he was instructing his household to separate the male and female hemp/marijuana plants on his acreage. The idea was that the male plants wouldn't pollinate the female plants, giving rise to higher quality buds/flowers for smoking (bigger buds without any seeds in them).

It was Washington. The place I've seen it quoted is in Illuminatus!, but I don't remember the original source.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:32 AM on March 21, 2007

Here's a reference. According to this it was in Washington's diary for August 7, 1765:

"...'began to separate the male from the female () plants,' describes a harvesting technique favored to enhance the potency of smoking cannabis, among other reasons."

"Among other reasons" sets off my weasel detector though.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:54 AM on March 21, 2007

Here's a more historical reference, the actual diary entry by Washington for August 7, 1765, “Began to seperate (sic) the Male from the Female hemp at Do.- rather too late.” That is all, no reason given.
posted by caddis at 7:35 AM on March 21, 2007

Freedom to choose is the freedom to make choices harmful to yourself

Devout libertarians are anarchists swaddled in a thick layer of naivete. A person could open, for example, the seatbelt debate in response to this but I'll just mention alchohol-fueled crime and second hand smoke.

Pot is not completely immune to the above public ills but you can't rip a hole in social concourse without applying a sufficiently distracting patch.

All the people I know who've smoked up daily for years are noticeably zombified by it. They cough a lot. They stink. If they stopped, maybe they would get better. But at least they're not dead at 38, riddled with cancer from inhaling a witches brew of toxic additives, or sleeping in a puddle of their own urine on the sidewalk.
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:49 AM on March 21, 2007

CynicalKnight, I understand why you bring up seatbelts, and I can understand that a person's freedom to smoke conflicts with another's freedom to breathe fresh air, and indeed it does. That's why it is right to ban smoking in public areas, and allow it in private areas.

But why do you mention alcohol-fuelled crime? Are you trying to say the prohibitionists might have a point there? What other freedoms are you willing to roll back for the sake of a more ordered society?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 11:04 AM on March 21, 2007

one last thing before I call it a night:

if alcohol is banned, and I'd risk prison time or something of that sort for getting tanked, then I'm just gonna go full boat and start shooting heroin. If I'm gonna go to jail for getting fucked up, I better get good and fucked up.
posted by shmegegge at 11:12 AM on March 21, 2007

"and zoogleplex, if you dig deep into that countdown there's some gems to warm your bemulleted soul, my man."

I want to state for the record here that neither my soul, nor my actual skull, sports a "mullet." My hair is not short anywhere on my head; I do not do the "work in front, party in the back" thing.

In actuality, I'm sporting the "balding ponytail guy" look. If I let out the ponytail, I still look like a long-haired rocker - as long as I keep my hat on. Without the hat, I look like I could be in the Scorpions (or really, any other German 80's metal band).

I suppose it's debatable whether "balding ponytail" is superior to "bemulleted," but there it is.

Just wanted to make sure the record is clear on all that.

"But why do you mention alcohol-fuelled crime? Are you trying to say the prohibitionists might have a point there? What other freedoms are you willing to roll back for the sake of a more ordered society?"

Be interesting to see what the actual rate of "alcohol-fueled crime" is, excluding DUI. Would probably include quite a bit of assault, battery, and domestic abuse, but I don't know what else... Does anyone actually collect such statistics?
posted by zoogleplex at 11:17 AM on March 21, 2007

Just gotta wonder how much worse this scene would have played out if the guy (off-duty cop) was stoned rather than drunk. warning: scary-looking-but-apparently-impotent violence, Not Safe for Petite Bartenders

Won't somebody think of the pretzels!!!
posted by LordSludge at 11:46 AM on March 21, 2007

why do you mention alcohol-fuelled crime

As an example of how alchohol abuse is a choice that has noteworthy potential to harm not just yourself, but others. Beyond the observations by zoogleplex, this includes vandalism and theft.

Although I am not a ganja evangelist I predict the incidence of pot-fueled crime is lower by an order of magnitude. Even in DUI the danger with pot is primarily falling asleep at the wheel whereas booze provokes aggressive and violent driving behaviour.

What other freedoms are you willing to roll back

That's what people always say, ie "You know, Hitler started with .....". Every restriction placed on society needs to be evaluated on it's own merits and not as part of a collective dictatorial policy. There are enough watchdogs currently in place in Western society that I trust a tobbacco/alchohol ban will not lead to heat-seeking pink straight jackets and liquid goo phase street pods
posted by CynicalKnight at 1:26 PM on March 21, 2007

There are enough watchdogs currently in place in Western society that I trust a tobbacco/alchohol ban will not lead to heat-seeking pink straight jackets and liquid goo phase street pods

Let's put aside the cost of fighting a new "war on drugs," and of creating a whole new class of criminals, for a moment. Let's pretend that America doesn't already have the world's highest percentage of its population locked away in cages.

Let's just focus on the Fourth Amendment.

Do you really think that laws regulating substances come at no cost to our privacy? The War on Drugs has resulted in consistently looser and looser justifications for searches, raids, and seizure of property.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:51 PM on March 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

Also, I'd like to see some examples of modern societies that have experimented with alcohol prohibition and kept it on the books. Saudi Arabia? Iran? Pakistan? Some real winners here.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:59 PM on March 21, 2007

Let's please also ban [...] driving while stupid. - IRFH

Well, there's fuck-all chance of that happening. Every driver who thinks it's their Spud-given right to talk on their cell while driving and fucking around, and most of the taxi drivers in major cities (I'm looking at you, Dallas, and at you, NYC) will whine until they get kicked in the nuts.

(And when I say 'fucking around' I mean it. I looked out the window of the bus to work this morning, and in the car next to me was the impossible-to-confuse motion of a long-haired person's head in a man's lap. And all I could think was, "Is this why people buy Hummers?")
posted by mephron at 2:08 PM on March 21, 2007

What an idiot. Go to an Alanon meeting.
posted by chance at 6:34 PM on March 21, 2007

Devout libertarians are anarchists swaddled in a thick layer of naivete.

And people who make this facile accusation of ignorance are nothing more than blind, naked statists. What about the vast majority of people who manage not to become criminals after imbibing a pint or two?

I understand that liberty is part of a two-sided coin, and the other side is marked "responsibility". I accept that unreservedly. So I don't want your government safety net to catch me when I my seatbelt-free corpse is launched through the windshield. Just as I don't want your lemon-faced state-sponsored nanny slapping my hands with a ruler every time I reach for a beer.
posted by oncogenesis at 9:43 AM on March 22, 2007 [1 favorite]

Modern liberal multiculturalist sensitivity is not part of the Constitution.

The Preamble to The Constitution contains an inkling of this way of thinking:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And the whole idea of a 'Bill of Rights' is fairly modern, liberal and sensitive...

But to really seek out the beginning of 'Modern liberal multiculturalist sensitivity' in The United States, turn to The Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 2:49 PM on March 22, 2007

> why do you mention alcohol-fuelled crime

As an example of how alchohol abuse is a choice that has noteworthy potential to harm not just yourself, but others. Beyond the observations by zoogleplex, this includes vandalism and theft.

I understand you now. Thing is, I would say vandalism is caused by vandals, and theft is caused by thieves, whereas you would say both are caused by alcohol. I imagine you would say gun crime is caused by guns, too. I'm not going to claim that people are prime movers with no prior causes for their actions, but the line of personal responsibility must be drawn somewhere. The extent to which you draw it somewhere back down the chain of causality is the extent to which you deny people responsibility, and hence freedom, which as oncogenesis points out, are always in delicate balance.

A lot of people think other people should not be granted responsibility or freedom, but before you argue this position, consider whether you are one of the good guys or not.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 5:07 AM on March 23, 2007