This is where all my haters are going to come out of the woodwork. Now I know I have yet to reveal whether or not I am for or against the legalization of the pot, though I’m sure you have figured it out. I am personally not a fan, and one of my biggest oppositions is the in favor argument that is the title of this blog. Everybody that I have ever had a conversation with about this topic says the same thing. “Well, statistically pot is the cause of much less harm than alcohol is, and alcohol is legal, so why shouldn’t pot be legal.” This statistic that is referenced is commonly a D.U.I. statistic as to what the inhibiting drug was in the case of the automobile wreck that resulted.
So here are my rebuttals to this argument.
- Alcohol is readily more available and maybe even more intoxicating in smaller amounts. It has also been around for a lot longer so there are many, many years of stats to pull from. We haven’t had any control test done where weed was as readily consumed as alcohol without consequence and then we saw who could drive and who couldn’t. Believe it or not things being illegal does prohibit people from partaking in that practice or product. If tattoos were illegal, would as many people have them? If you said yes, then just go bang your head against a wall, because that’s all you’re really good for anyway. While on the topic of tattoos, even though there hasn’t been a questions of legality, up until recently it would cost you a possible hire at a job interview if your tattoos showed. Now, not so much. It’s almost a non issue now, so as society allows for the freedom to do something the people that participate increase. That’s how it works.
- Other than the fact that there is not any credible statistics to back up the comment, there just seems to be flawed logic in the making of that claim. Arguing for the use of something to be ok because its not as bad as something else. Its like saying I didn’t shoot the the sheriff because I shot the deputy. I only tortured him, it’s not like I killed the guy. Committing or performing lesser degrees of evil does not make it less evil in and of itself. So I don’t understand the argument: it’s ok to take this drug because its not as strong as this other drug. They are both drugs, neither is ok. The only difference maker in the levels of what harmful drugs are allowed and to what extent are whether or not the government has figured out how to profit off of it.
OK, I’m off my soapbox, and frankly, I feel a little better.