</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
SeptemberMorn said:
Guess I'm getting on the bandwagon about pot not being any worse than alcohol. Alcoholics aren't any more motivated than pot smokers. So why is pot such a "boogie"? Why isn't alcohol banned if the government thinks we can't take care of ourselves? They obviously think THEY can do a better job!

I'm beginning to understand the problems with some family members and the lack of motivation.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Well actually alcohol lessens inhibitions so "alcoholics" may be more active ("motivated"?) than pot smokers (I put alcoholics in quotes because it's little like comparing apples and oranges, not all people who drink, even regularly, are alcoholics, if you're going to use that word you would need to compare them to the marijuana version of alcoholism, maybe "heavy and regular user"? [I don't know if there's a single word.]).

Having said that I think there is a quasi-legitimate argument for criminalizing marijuana while allowing alcohol to be sold, namely that alcohol is a preexisting part of the culture and Prohibition didn't work, so they're trying to prevent marijuana from becoming mainstream. Having said *that* I've also heard that literally 99% of people in Congress favor legalizing marijuana *off the record*, but won't vote that way because it's political suicide. So yes you can say it's "the government", but also the reality that so many people would reflexively vote against a candidate or office-holder who was seen as pro-drug cannot be ignored.

What I find more bizarre than alcohol being legal and pot not is *cigarettes* being legal. I mean, it's like they're going to ban smoking one drug but not another? Nicotine is far more addictive from what I hear. Also caffeine is very addictive--it makes wonder whether there isn't a psychopolitical reason for these apparent inconsistencies--namely that government institutions allow substances which stimulate people (maybe because more energy results in increased levels of economic activity, which means more tax revenue?) but disallows drugs which facilitate people from feeling good in a passive way, not getting too worked up about applying to that MBA program or whatever. Just a philosophical thought.) :-)

P.S. On an historical note, I think the zenith of "reefer madness" in the U.S. also coincided with the Cold War--so maybe drugs which were seen as blunting people's aggressiveness were also seen as somehow detrimental to national security (like the Russians show up on the shores of New Jersey and you offer them a bong hit LOL.) So maybe there's a hangover from that perspective as well.