hannity and colmes

[SonomaCat]

Ahh! I knew you were going to do that!
No, alcohol should not be illegal because margaritas are part of my food pyramid!
I am going to say that the there is not a postive invisiable correlation between drinking and trying drugs. Done.
PS: I hate drugs

I totally agree that alcohol should never become either illegal or hard to find.

I do have to counter, though, that I have no doubt in my mind that the correlation between hard drug use and people who used alcohol first is nearly 100%.

[Hello Kitty]

Ahh! I knew you were going to do that!
No, alcohol should not be illegal because margaritas are part of my food pyramid!
I am going to say that the there is not a postive invisiable correlation between drinking and trying drugs. Done.
PS: I hate drugs

I totally agree that alcohol should never become either illegal or hard to find.

I do have to counter, though, that I have no doubt in my mind that the correlation between hard drug use and people who used alcohol first is nearly 100%.

Now you are using my theories to work against me. I think you see my point that there is that a large number of people who drink alcohol and have never tried drugs. I think that the number of people who have used marijuana and have tried other drugs is much much larger but you already knew that now you are just messing with me!

[SonomaCat]

Ahh! I knew you were going to do that!
No, alcohol should not be illegal because margaritas are part of my food pyramid!
I am going to say that the there is not a postive invisiable correlation between drinking and trying drugs. Done.
PS: I hate drugs

I totally agree that alcohol should never become either illegal or hard to find.

I do have to counter, though, that I have no doubt in my mind that the correlation between hard drug use and people who used alcohol first is nearly 100%.

Now you are using my theories to work against me. I think you see my point that there is that a large number of people who drink alcohol and have never tried drugs. I think that the number of people who have used marijuana and have tried other drugs is much much larger but you already knew that now you are just messing with me!

You raise an interesting point ... but the difference is that right now, pot is illegal and alcohol isn't. So we can't really compare apples to apples in terms of % of people who do both booze and hard drugs vs. pot and hard drugs. In order to do pot right now, you have to overcome the legal factor (meaning you are forced into the underground markets). Because of this, pot is artificially leading to socialization with other drugs (all other illegal drugs). You are also artifically reducing the number of pot users (the people who refuse to do it because it is illegal, but would opt for pot over booze if both were legal).

So the real correlation here is that the same group of people who are willing to break the law to do one drug are also more likely to break the law to do other drugs. That speaks more to the criminalization of the behavior itself than the gateway effect.

If both pot and booze were legal, however, I expect you'd see about the same % of users of each who also used hard drugs ... and I think you'd actually see hard drug use decline due to the expansion of legal options (pot).

It's an interesting topic, with tons of studies done by various groups. Some are skewed based on people wanting a particular answer, but some seem pretty legit.

[Hello Kitty]

You raise an interesting point ... but the difference is that right now, pot is illegal and alcohol isn't. So we can't really compare apples to apples in terms of % of people who do both booze and hard drugs vs. pot and hard drugs. In order to do pot right now, you have to overcome the legal factor (meaning you are forced into the underground markets). Because of this, pot is artificially leading to socialization with other drugs (all other illegal drugs). You are also artifically reducing the number of pot users (the people who refuse to do it because it is illegal, but would opt for pot over booze if both were legal).

So the real correlation here is that the same group of people who are willing to break the law to do one drug are also more likely to break the law to do other drugs. That speaks more to the criminalization of the behavior itself than the gateway effect.

If both pot and booze were legal, however, I expect you'd see about the same % of users of each who also used hard drugs ... and I think you'd actually see hard drug use decline due to the expansion of legal options (pot).

It's an interesting topic, with tons of studies done by various groups. Some are skewed based on people wanting a particular answer, but some seem pretty legit.[/quote]

So you think peoples hard drug use will decline if they are legalized and
You also say that there are people who want to use drugs but they don’t because it is illegal
So legalizing drugs would increase and decrease drug use at the same time?
I guess I was naive to assume that most people choose not to use drugs because they are bad not because they are illegal.

PS: I Cant figure out this quote thing! ha![/quote]

[SonomaCat]

Yeah, the logic and the trends could tend to offset each other, depending on the [logical/legal/moral/personal preference for a buzz] buckets that people fall into.

But if we start with the assertion that pot is no more dangerous than alcohol, then an increase in the number of (legal) pot users is not a net negative. It is merely a shifting of users from one legal drug (booze) to another (pot).

Many people don't like booze, or want more than booze, but can't do pot legally, so they're forced to do drugs illegally. From a legal persepctive, you're already just as screwed if you're doing pot or doing coke/heroin/meth, so there is no real motivation to "just" do pot once you've crossed the legal/illegal barrier.

However, were pot legal, people would not have to cross over the legal barrier in order to do pot, and this would make it easier for people to do exclusively legal drugs as opposed to ever being forced to break the law in the first place.

I know it is all very complicated and involves a lot of perpetual loop sort of logic ... which is why I think we should just go ahead and try legalizing pot and see how it plays out in reality. That's the only true way to find out what happens.

[Hello Kitty]

Yeah, the logic and the trends could tend to offset each other, depending on the buckets that people fall into.

But if we start with the assertion that pot is no more dangerous than alcohol, then an increase in the number of (legal) pot users is not a net negative. It is merely a shifting of users from one legal drug (booze) to another (pot).

Many people don't like booze, or want more than booze, but can't do pot legally, so they're forced to do drugs illegally. From a legal persepctive, you're already just as screwed if you're doing pot or doing coke/heroin/meth, so there is no real motivation to "just" do pot once you've crossed the legal/illegal barrier.

However, were pot legal, people would not have to cross over the legal barrier in order to do pot, and this would make it easier for people to do exclusively legal drugs as opposed to ever being forced to break the law in the first place.

I know it is all very complicated and involves a lot of perpetual loop sort of logic ... which is why I think we should just go ahead and try legalizing pot and see how it plays out in reality. That's the only true way to find out what happens.

I guess you just have to smoke stuff to grasp that circular logic.

Just teasing!

[SonomaCat]

It seriously would help. Or, at very least, would make the entire question immensely profound, or immensely funny, or make me crave a ham and cheese omelet with pancakes.

But it would never make anyone mean or want to fight ... which is why I personally think it is so much better for people/society than booze.

[Hello Kitty]

It seriously would help. Or, at very least, would make the entire question immensely profound, or immensely funny, or make me crave a ham and cheese omelet with pancakes.

But it would never make anyone mean or want to fight ... which is why I personally think it is so much better for people/society than booze.

Ha! I hear that argument a lot. I think that is an urban myth. Just like some people say that booze makes them out going or flirty or quiet. I guess we will have to agree to disagree but if I ever see you when I am drinking I am going to kick your azz!

[briannell]

Ha! I hear that argument a lot. I think that is an urban myth. Just like some people say that booze makes them out going or flirty or quiet. I guess we will have to agree to disagree but if I ever see you when I am drinking I am going to kick your azz!

watch out Kitty has been hanging out with angelina jolie wish I was the kick your azz drunk, I'm just lovey and giggly so if you ever see me out drinking and i start to play with your hair, call me a cab and send my azz home to sleep it off

[SonomaCat]

It seriously would help. Or, at very least, would make the entire question immensely profound, or immensely funny, or make me crave a ham and cheese omelet with pancakes.

But it would never make anyone mean or want to fight ... which is why I personally think it is so much better for people/society than booze.

Ha! I hear that argument a lot. I think that is an urban myth. Just like some people say that booze makes them out going or flirty or quiet. I guess we will have to agree to disagree but if I ever see you when I am drinking I am going to kick your azz!

I have no doubt that you could kick my azz ... I'm kind of a wuss, regardless of what drug I am on, so the list of people who can do so is long and distinguished.

But having been around a lot of boozers and a fair amount of pot users in my life, I can promise that I have never seen a pot user who was anything but mellow, but I have seen more than my share of fights after booze and testosterone (and sometimes estogen) mix. It's no myth -- the brain's reactions to each are very different.

[BandCat]

Yeah, the logic and the trends could tend to offset each other, depending on the [logical/legal/moral/personal preference for a buzz] buckets that people fall into.

But if we start with the assertion that pot is no more dangerous than alcohol, then an increase in the number of (legal) pot users is not a net negative. It is merely a shifting of users from one legal drug (booze) to another (pot).

Many people don't like booze, or want more than booze, but can't do pot legally, so they're forced to do drugs illegally. From a legal persepctive, you're already just as screwed if you're doing pot or doing coke/heroin/meth, so there is no real motivation to "just" do pot once you've crossed the legal/illegal barrier.

However, were pot legal, people would not have to cross over the legal barrier in order to do pot, and this would make it easier for people to do exclusively legal drugs as opposed to ever being forced to break the law in the first place.

I know it is all very complicated and involves a lot of perpetual loop sort of logic ... which is why I think we should just go ahead and try legalizing pot and see how it plays out in reality. That's the only true way to find out what happens.

I think it's interesting that throughout this conversation about legal and illegal drugs, no one has brought up tobacco. There are over 40 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Additives that are in cigarettes include several different forms of ammonia. So why isn't smoking cigarettes illegal?