Skip to comments.Policy makers ignore alcohol in drug combat
Posted on 02/03/2003 9:54:04 AM PST by MrLeRoy
As law enforcement lobbies members of Congress and state legislators coast-to-coast for more funds to finance the war against illicit drugs, Utah's Legislature considers liberalizing Utah's liquor laws.
As leaders obsess over how governments will help pay for the costs of medical treatment, Utah's Legislature is considering liberalizing Utah's liquor laws.
Someone should teach Utah's legislators that alcohol is the most abused drug.
Pretend for a minute that humankind had not discovered alcohol until Drexel distilled it in 2000. After years of testing, would the Federal Drug Administration allow it to be sold as a drink? At best, the FDA would place it under a restrictive prescription schedule, complete with a list of warnings against side effects and addiction potential.
Studies that tout alcohol's benefit on heart health illustrate that some "scientific" testing is actually designed to justify our habits. If Drexel had discovered alcohol and tried to market it as a heart medication, the FDA would have denied the proposal because of its dangerous and addictive side effects.
Ancient beers and wines had minor food value. In specific times and places, they were safer to drink than the waters. Through the ages, humans experimented with wines and spirits, not to improve their food value, but to increase their alcohol jolt.
The snobbishness surrounding wine consumption is misleading, for vintners are just as obsessive about high alcohol contents as are the distillers of whiskey.
Alcohol, with tobacco and marijuana are the big-three hypocrisies in the American war on drugs. Proponents of these substances would have us believe they are really good for us because they are (in the popular cliché) "natural."
This logic is laughable. Mankind has so hybridized the plants involved in wine and the various types of cigarettes that nothing is natural about any of the products.
For example, mankind has so thoroughly hybridized marijuana in the past four thousand years that the original plant probably does not exist anywhere on earth. People tinkered with it -- especially since the late 1970s -- to increase the psychoactive buzz, not its dubious medical properties.
Neither the war on drugs nor the medical crisis can be taken seriously when billions are squandered to treat conditions and illnesses caused by culturally accepted drug abuse. When we are really serious about decreasing medical costs and drug abuse, we will end recreational consumption of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana.
#2 How come you never post about anything but drugs?
Pretend for a minute that you live in the real world. You know, the world where alcohol plays and has played a significant role in health, religious ceremonies, social customs, and societal acceptance.
I already rebutted this stupid argument in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834463/posts?page=53#53, to which you never replied; how cowardly and dishonest of you to repost it here.
#2 How come you never post about anything but drugs?
That is a lie; see, for example, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/833634/posts?page=26#26.
Provide evidence that alcohol plays a significant role in health.
religious ceremonies, social customs,
and societal acceptance.
Alcohol plays a significant role in societal acceptance? Now you're just babbling.
You forgot to mention alcohol's major role in domestic abuse, bar fights, broken homes, liver disease, car wrecks and early deaths. Something most illegal drugs are not close to being involved in on the same scale as alcohol.
But you knew that.....
Uh, after you. But don't hold your breath.
Not as strange as those who obsess about the topics of other's posts.
And not nearly as strange as those posters who only frequent threads with "drugs" or "libertarians" in the titles to flame them.
Sounds to me like they've got some catchin' up to do! Legalization should help.
I use no drugs, including the deadly addictive drugs alcohol and tobacco.
That makes one post out of fifty you made that is not about drugs.
Here are more:
Not much. From the U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (publication NCJ 145534): "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."
Keep up (what you think is) the good work.
Who said it did? Amazing how you've addressed NONE of the issues I raised in post #7.
No evidence of this other than anecdotes and hyperbole.
Why should I? Like it would make a difference to you? I'll give you an example of how you waste my time. Let's take the first one.
"Provide evidence that alcohol plays a significant role in health."
First of all, I said alcohol plays and has played a significant role in health, so already you're mis-quoting me. Alcohol has played a significant role as a disinfectant and the making of tinctures and elixers. It is used today as a disinfectant and in medicines such a cough syrups and sleep aids.
So what is your problem with that? Do you deny a long history of alcohol and health? Isn't is safe to say that alcohol has been used, and is being used, by our society in a health related capacity?
What's the first thing you think of when you hear medical disinfectant? Not significant?
So, did I waste my time, or are you convinced?
First of all, I said alcohol plays and has played a significant role in health, so already you're mis-quoting me.
No I'm not; when you say "alcohol plays and has played a significant role in health" you make two claims: alcohol plays a significant role in health, and alcohol has played a significant role in health. I questioned the first claim. Get it now?
It is used today as a disinfectant and in medicines such a cough syrups and sleep aids.
Are you using "significant" as a synonym for "any"? If not, you have not yet supported your claim that alcohol plays a significant role in health.
What's the first thing you think of when you hear medical disinfectant?
That orange-y stuff they put on my arm when I give blood.
And all this leaves my other two points in post #7 completely unaddressed.
Now you are comparing different compounds of "alcohol" claiming that rubbing alcohol is equivalent to grain alcohol? Good grief.
I guess we have one of two conclusions here: Morphine and other opiate derivatives should be illegal because those substances are similar compounds as opium and heroine, or opium and heroine should be legal because of the medical history of related compounds such as morphine and codeine.
All of that can be rendered moot by a simple declaration by the DEA that there is no recognized medical use for alcohol, and that any potential benefit can be had by substituting other substances.
That's why I say I'm wasting my time explaining myself. It falls on deaf, orange-y ears.
Show us any proof that Jack Daniels whiskey or Budweiser beer have been used in the area of medicine.
When I see you pushing for medical THC (or one of 399 other chemicals) instead of medical marijuana, I'll make the alcohol distinction.
Should I be? If so, why?
(And have you abandoned your claims about the current medical significance of alcohol?)
So FreeTally argues for the medical availability of a single plant that contains 400 active chemicals, and you think that justifies your treating as identical two chemicals that do not naturally occur together? Seldom have I seen a more dishonest argument.
The author is attempting to ignore that by placing alcohol and marijuana on equal historical footings with his sentence, "Pretend for a minute that humankind had not discovered alcohol until Drexel distilled it in 2000".
Not the same.
One actually crosses the rubicon of healthfulness or abusiveness the day a cigarette is first pressed to their lips. You would think that would be important enough to want to stamp out. Why isn't addictive behavior the subject attacked in these ads?
I think kids would buy into it a helluva lot better if all these substances (legal and otherwise) were attacked concurrently.
I did---see my post #7.
Alcohol has a history of use in the US (add cooking, an area I forgot), whereas marijuana doesn't.
But they can't be attacked concurrently while some are legal and some are otherwise. I prefer legalizing it all for adults, and giving kids straight information (not Reefer Madness horror stories).
What the heck are you babbling about? Taking someone else's post and running with it? Do some research on your own before making a fool of yourself.
In the past, ethanol, with added iso-propyl alcohol, was used as rubbing alcohol. Ethanol (grain alcohol) is what you drink.
Rubbing alcohol, these days, is synthetically produced isopropyl alcohol diluted with water to 70% strength. Not fit for consumption.
Alcohol as an ingredient in sleep aids? Kindly cite one.
In the past, ethanol, with added iso-propyl alcohol, was used as rubbing alcohol.
Reading comprehension problems again, I see.
My response is that the United States has a history with alcohol that we don't have with marijuana. In my post #4, I pointed out that alcohol plays and has played a significant role in health, religious ceremonies, social customs, and societal acceptance (and, yes, cooking). Marijuana has not.
And that history is one reason why the two are not treated the same.
No, you are trying to equate alcohol in a form that can be ingested and intoxicate a person with alcohol in the form that if ingested, would kill the person. The author is not ignoring anything; your specious argument is irrelevant.
"History" is not a justification for inprisoning certain people for ingesting a certain substance, and not inprisoning others for ingesting another substance..
Yeh, and has nothing to do with the fact that pot smokers are generally passive, peaceful, non-violent people and rabid alcohol addicts are the complete opposite and have a huge, multi-billion dollar industry behind them. Yep, nothing to do with that.......
Give this guy credit for consistency---which is more than most Drug Warriors can claim. His basic point is irrefutable: alcohol is a deadly, addictive mind-altering drug that fits the criteria by which the War On Some Drugs has been defended.His point is definitely religious, he's starting from the official view of the LDS Church. Since passing laws for avowedly religious reasons is verboten even in Utah, he has to come up with "secular" reasons to support his position. Of course, he's picking and choosing based on his preconceived conclusion. In science that is called "cooking the data".
Of course, this makes him similar to most of the other Drug Warriors out there.
Well then, my post #4 was a waste of your time, wasn't it?