I looked at the CDC link that dex posted, and also the Wiki article associated with Anslinger, but was a bit disappointed. There seems to be a lack of a study of MJ effects to the depth of the same on alcohol and tobacco. Apparently, it is because MJ is not legalized while the latter two have been for a long time. So, it's the chicken and the egg. How do we know if we do not "experiment"? No, I mean not personally (which many of us have done), but as a social experiment. The Dutch have, but then someone may say that it was not complete in some aspects, like lack of "supply side management", or being a unilateral policy relative to its neighbors which may skew the results.
How will we ever know?
In my experience as far as MJ is concerned the personality of the individual is more important than the drug. A few will use the fact of being "stoned" to just drop all inhibitions but most won't. Alcohol seems to cause all users to lose most of their inhibitions.
I am getting more and more curious about the effects of MJ, but never to the point of experimenting on myself
I am too old to pick up another vice. Also, the testimonies of past users that I quoted earlier are hair-raising enough that I don't know if any reader would still give it a try. I have never heard of a tobacco user or an alcohol drinker having hallucinations!
But I know about the effects of alcohol, both personally and by observing fellow imbuers.
Yes, we tend to get more convivial and talkative. However, I have not seen any stripping, or groping the opposite sex, or cussing, or doing stupid stunts. If all that was what meant by "losing inhibitions" then, no, we never do that. Maybe I have never been with the wrong crowd. But same as with any other substance, the loss of inhibitions by itself does not mean a crime has been committed.
Shouldn't we step back and see why it is illegal in the first place? It was perceived as an addictive, gateway drug with no medical use. All of these claims are questionable. So, we are left with a substance that likely is much like alcohol, you can be impaired when you use it and shouldn't be driving or operating dangerous machinery. Some will use it too much and too often. Is that a reason to destroy people's lives by making users into criminals?
About the argument that the responsibility for using MJ should rest with the individuals, that is not any different than that used by the pro gun-ownership group. "MJ does not hurt people. People hurt people." Being a gun owner myself, for self protection as well as recreation, I cannot argue with that. Also, I shall not be a hypocrite and say that if alcohol is taken from me that I would not be very upset.
When it comes to public policy, my libertarian friends claim to have the most coherent philosophy: an individual should be allowed to do what he wants, as long as he does not infringe on someone else's rights. And they mean harder drugs too, not just MJ.
Ah, but should we be only reactive, meaning to punish the offender after the fact, or to be proactive in preventing the offense in happening, e.g. alcohol traffic checkpoints? And then, when the individual abuses theses substances, whether alcohol, MJ, or anything else, are his fellow citizens obligated to help him or his dependents out? Or should we wait until mayhem already occurs to do the cleaning up? Where do we draw the line?
Tobacco does not have the same psychological effects as other substances, yet has been demonized for its effects on health. Yet, even on that basis, I am not convinced that a tobacco user is more costly to society than other diseases. Lung cancer patients do not last long. It's got to be cheaper than what it costs to maintain an Alzheimer's patient, no? Don't we die of something or another eventually? Quick is cheaper than lingering, no? And one time, I read an argument about a person's shortened life having an economic cost due to his reduced productive life, I smiled when wondering if that argument applied to an early retiree who no longer produced. Hey, whose life is it anyway?
I cannot find the answer myself, on a philosophical basis leave alone the more pragmatic question of costs to society on the economical basis. Maybe I should just leave this to other people to figure it out and fight or vote as they wish.
