Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Vice Quota?

After listening to a BBC report on the 'severity' of cannabis factories in London, I was wondering, does society have a vice quota? From what I understand it is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with ingesting pot, so long as one does not smoke packs a day. Is it possible, however, that society needs vice? Currently people use marijuana to get their vice fix, but were it legal many (not all, or probably even most) would ("be forced to") get their fix in other ways, such as with more severe narcotics?

There are certainly many hippies out there who love the psychedelic effects of hash, but there are also many stupid teenagers who smoke weed because it serves as an affront to power. Those stupid teenagers would probably just find some other outlet, or worse, pick up cigarettes. If you look at the problem as a vice addiction as opposed to a drug "addiction" (which really doesn't apply for weed) the contours of the problem might change significantly.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Drugs are bad. Don't do drugs.

Anonymous said...

Since it seems Zev reads sibling relationships into most world events, I propose we all read Zev's sibling relationships into most of Zev's comments.

Shmuli

Zev said...

Shmuli, last I checked "most" meant "a preponderance" or at least "greater than half" which is just clearly not true of my keen insights. Some, maybe, a lot, possibly, but surely not most.

For instance, in no way did I intimate that al-Bashir's ICC warrant was issued for familial reasons. Nor have I ever claimed that the fall of Iceland's government had anything to do with sibling rivalry. Though given the family trees on the island it might be plausible, come to think of it.

Yehuda said...

"From what I understand it is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with ingesting pot, so long as one does not smoke packs a day."

There are, of course, many experts who do not agree with this. Hence the illegalization of marijuana. I have seen people I know whose brains have been damaged significantly through marijuana use and who have even done things while under the influence of the drug that induced their untimely death. While I cannot say whether these people smoked less than a pack a day (in fact, I can not even say whether marijuana is sold in "packs"), I believe the experts who say that the drug is far from harmless. I have, indeed, heard the myths that marijuana is better than cigarettes or alcohol, but those who say such things tend to be marijuana users.

In any case, lest there be any doubt, I condemn all use of marijuana and disapprove of the use of this blog to promote illegal substances.

Zev said...

Kind of like alcohol.

I was going to use Ann Arbor as a counter example, but apparently possession here is a civil violation with a $25 fine (city charter does not specify stricter penalties for larger amounts). I paid $300 when my car was towed. I am still upset with that.

Lots of things are legal, but ill-advised. Substance abuse is always ill-advised.

Anonymous said...

yehuda, are you seriously contending that marijuana is more destructive, socially and personally, than alcohol (calling the contrary assertion a " myth")?
I agree Zev likely overstated the case with "harmless." But to concede that something is not harmless hardly disposes of whether illegalizing it is good social policy.
Miriam

Anonymous said...

Zev you are right. I wildly overstated your propensity to view world events through the lens of sibling rivalry. I apologize for my gross exaggeration. That said, you clearly sidestepped the issue of fraternal drug use. Do you think that when the Obama administration offers you a cabinet post you can so easily brush the issue aside? I suppose, though, questions of family drug abuse will seem insignificant next to roommate issues. A bloodthirsty neocon warmongerer and a greedy wall street fat cat. A roommate, unlike a brother, you can pick. Are we to believe you had no better alternative?

Shmuli

Zev said...

Another blown confirmation for Obama, I guess.