Another Great Victory in the War on Drugs.

[Death from the Sea]

Yes, sadly, Xenophobe only provided anecdotal evidence, which is next to useless. Bad Xenophobe. No cookies for you. Of course, you didn't provide anything but anecdotal evidence to counter it, so how about some numbers now?

All I claimed was that his example was not universal, I did not claim mine was. I realize that there are many people that have access but also realize that the are just as many actually more according to your numbers that do not have access to the drug.

*image snipped*
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, Youth interviews, spring 1993.

Interesting, no? In 1993, the average American 9th grader felt he could get marijuana just as easily as he could alcohol (we'll assume the 1% difference in favor of marijuana is trivial enough to ignore). Keep in mind that this equal availability comes despite:

1. Alcohol's widespread legal availability and aboveground distribution network

In theory, alcohol should be easier to get because you don't need any special connections to get it--liquor stores have very helpfully put out signs for potential patrons, and even light them up at night. If you don't know a drug dealer (or know someone who can introduce you to a drug dealer), you're stuck. But then again, a liquor store can be forced out of business for selling to kids, and it can't very well sell on school grounds. A marijuana dealer is going to jail no matter who he sells to, so why not sell to a 16 year old kid--and a large number of dealers are actually students who have free access to the entire student body all day.

think about it. Alcohol is much harder to make at home and sell than marijuana is to grow and sell. Which means it is going to make it easier for marijuana to be produced by those other than the commercial producers. This makes it easier for those who would otherwise be unable to buy legally, to buy.

2. Far higher rates of alcohol versus marijuana use among the general population

This doesn't need any explanation, I don't think.

see above

3. An intense marketing campaign for alcohol across all media

Again, self-explanatory.

marketing that

4. Widespread social acceptance and tolerance for alcohol

American culture is virtually soaked in alcohol. It's generally understood that it's okay to drink, as long as you do it in moderation. Marjuana, on the other hand, is still regarded by many as "the demon weed"--though attitudes seem to be shifting. Still, America has a long tradition of being an alcohol-consuming nation, while pot has only come into widespread recreational use this century. Yet pot is as easily available as alcohol in schools, according to the students who go there.

Moderation is exactly right, alcohol allows for moderation meaning just because you have a drink does not mean you get drunk. But from what I understand one joint will get you stoned/drunk/intoxicated; marijauna does not allow for moderation. People who drink to excess and alcoholics are not socially accepted, tolerated to a point but not accepted. and remember just because a kid claims to be able to do something, like buy pot, does not make it the 100% truth.

5. Disproportionate punishment for marijuana versus alcohol use (both illegal for high schoolers).

Get caught drinking underage, you get a fine, and maybe get your driver's liscense suspended (regardless of whether you were near a car or not). Get caught smoking marijuana, you're getting probation and possible jail time in many states. Yet again, marijuana is as easy to get as alcohol.

disproportionate in your opinion. While yes they are both illegal for a minor to posses and consume, you are ignoring the fact that a MIP is only a class C misdemeanor and that possession of marijuana is a class A misdemeanor so that is why there is a difference in punishments. At most a MIP can be a class B misdemeanor but only if it is on school property. As for the suspension of the DL it is because driving is a privilege not a right. and if you are underage you cannot be trusted to drive if you are going to break the law and drink underage. As for the jail time, well like I said it is a bigger offenese so possible jail time is natural.

Prohibition has failed as a strategy to keep marijuana out of schools. My solution is to legalize the drug, move the market aboveground, shut down the freelance dealers who have nothing to lose by selling to kids, institute honest drug education, and not do things like send SWAT teams into high schools on drug raids. Yours, apparently, is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Drugs are bad, mmmmkay!" at the top of your lungs.

Your "solution" is not solution but just a way to compound the problem. If you think that freelance drug dealers will disappear if pot is legallized you are wrong, why would they stop? Now if they are caught with pot, well it is legal to carry so what is wrong with that? Apparently if it is taking SWAT teams to scare kids into realizing how serious illegal drugs are then I say go for it, these days who knows what kids have in school. The only problem I see with the "infamous SWAT team raid on the school debacle" as people are calling is that their info was bad on this occassion.
[qiote]Speaking of shouting, I'm still waiting for your reply to my last post. Do you actually plan on addressing the points I made, or shall I just put another tick in my win column right now?[/quote]reply made

[RedImperator]

You assume that legalizing sales will move 100% of the marjiuana sales into the newly legalized channels; But what do you think that the street dealers are going to to? buy the license to do the thing they have been doing for years without one? I doubt it. You seem to think that those selling marijauna would be law abiding citizens if it weren't for weed being illegal but that is not really the way it is.

So tell me, who's going to BUY from street dealers if it's legally available, with guaranteed quality standards, from any liquor store? Do people still drink bathtub gin in speakeasies? And why continue selling if you are a street dealer? You can still go to jail for distributing without a liscense (try selling bottles of whiskey from a stand in your front yard), but since pot no longer contraband, it no longer commands fantastic prices. The whole point of being a drug dealer is to get rich quickly thanks to inflated drug prices. Legalization puts a stop to that.

Yes, I AM contending that a lot of people selling pot right now would be law abiding citizens if pot were legal, based on the fact that their only crime is selling pot. Not every drug dealer is a violent street criminal. Suburban dealers tend to be low profile, usally pot smokers themselves who have decided to make a little side cash selling.

Pointless and wrong. Let me count the ways:

1. This has absolutely nothing at all to do with the subject of drug use in schools whatsoever

never said it did

You could have done a better job separating it, then.

2. Why would tobacco companies sell marijuana? Tobacco companies sell tobacco.

why wouldn't they? it is in their market, no not tobbacco but smoking. And even if Camel and all the other cigarette companies didn't sell it then those who did would. After all you are the one saying we should make it a big business like tobbacco and alcohol, someone is going to start a big marijauna cigarette company if it is legalized, and they are going to want to make sure that they have customers just like the tobbacco does.

So your contention is that cigarette companies would sell marijuana because it's a smokable plant. Why wouldn't alcohol companies sell it because it's intoxicating? Or pharmaceutical companies because it's a drug? Or entirely new companies, because marijuana is different from everything else currently on the market?

But all that's really just a sideshow. Your fundamental assumption is correct: legalization would eventually lead to big companies selling marijuana, becuase that's the nature of American business. It's the only time you're right in this entire post. Congratulations.

3. The chemicals added to cigarettes are there to deliver nicotine to the bloodstream more efficiently, to make them more addictive. This isn't necessary with pot because 1) THC is non-toxic, so the potency of marijuana can be increased by breeding for higher THC concentrations, as opposed to nicotine, and 2) THC isn't addictive enough for it to matter anyway.

you don't think that they would add chemicals to marijuana to make them addictive? right because the cigarette companies are so just and honorable and would never want to get people addicted to their products.

Did you even read what I said? THC is NOT nicotine. Adding toxic chemicals in order to speed THC's absorption into the bloodstream won't make it more addictive, just more potent, and potency can be increased safely through selective breeding.

And while cigarette companies may not be just and honorable, the last time they started making their product more toxic to sell more of it, they got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars, so maybe they, or whoever ends up selling pot, will take this lesson to heart. Besides, you've created a false dilemma--either ban pot or legalize it and let whoever sells it jam it full of chemicals. We couldn't, say, create purity standards for marijuana, could we? Wow, there's a concept.

4. Even if they did, and one joint became the equivilant of, say, 10 tobacco cigarettes in terms of carcinogenic content, the overwhelming majority of heavy pot smokers would still be getting less exposure to carcinogens than a pack-a-day cigarette smoker.

you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if marijuana is more or less likely to give you cancer, the fact that it could is just icing on the cake. The reason that Marijuana is illegal is because it a minda altering drug. Yes alcohol is too, but it takes more than one drink to get you legally intoxicated, how many joints or even puffs off of a joint does it take to get stoned? I don't know because I have never smoked pot but I would bet one joint will get you stoned if not less than one joint.

This is what your argument comes down to now? Since alcohol isn't intoxicating in small doses (false, by the way--even one drink can begin imparing the user, even if the effects are subtle), it should be legal, but since pot gets you stoned with one joint, it should be illegal? Never mind that alcohol is fatal in large doses, and marijuana isn't. Never mind that alcohol is known to make many of its users violent and dangerous, while marijuana isn't. Never mind that alcohol duplicates nearly all of marijuana's harmful effects, while marijuana doesn't duplicate all of alcohol's. Never mind that IT'S LEGAL TO DRINK ENOUGH ALCOHOL TO GET DRUNK ANYWAY. By your logic, by law when I go into a bar, they should only be allowed to serve me on drink and then throw me out. Since that's not what happens, obviously it's not against the law to be intoxicated, so there goes your entire "marijuana fucks you up on one dose" argument.

Please. I've heard 14 year olds come up with better arguments for prohibition than that.

If you are going to legalize marijauna why not acid or cocaine or crack they are more expensive and could draw more tax dollars.

Right, because every mind altering drug is exactly the same and will have exactly the same effect, and thus will be treated exactly the same way.

I will tell you why, because like it or not mind altering drugs are harmful

Yes, mind altering drugs like alcohol can be quite harmful

and we don't want a bunch of people running around fucked up and doing stupid shit because they are high.

Luckily, nobody ever gets drunk and commits a crime or drives into a tree or beats up on his wife. Oh wait....

If marijuana was legal how long would it be before someone high on marijuana committed a crime and then claimed since they were high they are not responsible for their actions?

Care to prove stoners commit more crimes, other than the act of possessing marijuana itself, than drunks? Care to prove that there's a good legal reason for why "I was stoned, it wasn't my fault" would be treated differently from "I was drunk, it wasn't my fault"? Care to prove that even if all this is true, it's somehow worse than the enormous cost of prohibition, the massive corruption caused by the drug trade, or the cost in human misery of jailing people for smoking pot?

[RedImperator]

Yes, sadly, Xenophobe only provided anecdotal evidence, which is next to useless. Bad Xenophobe. No cookies for you. Of course, you didn't provide anything but anecdotal evidence to counter it, so how about some numbers now?

All I claimed was that his example was not universal, I did not claim mine was. I realize that there are many people that have access but also realize that the are just as many actually more according to your numbers that do not have access to the drug.

Hmm. I actually can't blame you for making that assumption, because I forgot to actually put the title of the chart in my post. My apologies. Here it is again, with a link to show I'm not pulling this out of my ass:

Figure 1.-Percent of students who reported very easy or fairly easy availability of substances at school, by student's grade level: 1993

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, Youth interviews, spring 1993.

Source As you can see, the figures here are those who report easy access to both drugs, not just any access at all. And none of that changes the basic point that it's just as easy to get pot as alcohol, something that shouldn't be possible if prohibition is working.

Interesting, no? In 1993, the average American 9th grader felt he could get marijuana just as easily as he could alcohol (we'll assume the 1% difference in favor of marijuana is trivial enough to ignore). Keep in mind that this equal availability comes despite:

1. Alcohol's widespread legal availability and aboveground distribution network

In theory, alcohol should be easier to get because you don't need any special connections to get it--liquor stores have very helpfully put out signs for potential patrons, and even light them up at night. If you don't know a drug dealer (or know someone who can introduce you to a drug dealer), you're stuck. But then again, a liquor store can be forced out of business for selling to kids, and it can't very well sell on school grounds. A marijuana dealer is going to jail no matter who he sells to, so why not sell to a 16 year old kid--and a large number of dealers are actually students who have free access to the entire student body all day.

think about it. Alcohol is much harder to make at home and sell than marijuana is to grow and sell. Which means it is going to make it easier for marijuana to be produced by those other than the commercial producers. This makes it easier for those who would otherwise be unable to buy legally, to buy. [/quote]

So your contention is the gap between how much marijuana should be available, based on its rate of use among the general population and its illegal status, and how much is actually available, is filled entirely with homegrown pot? What's all that stuff they're seizing at customs, then?

The only real advantage marijuana has is its ease of transport and concealability compared to alcohol, and that's not THAT huge an advantage. It's not very hard to pour vodka into Gatorade.

2. Far higher rates of alcohol versus marijuana use among the general population

This doesn't need any explanation, I don't think.

see above

Your "marijuana is easy to grow" argument isn't cutting it. Besides, how hard is it for a kid to swipe something out of the liquor cabinet? It's relatively easy to grow pot, but it's even easier for an adult to buy alcohol and leave it someplace unsecured.

3. An intense marketing campaign for alcohol across all media

Again, self-explanatory.

marketing that

4. Widespread social acceptance and tolerance for alcohol

American culture is virtually soaked in alcohol. It's generally understood that it's okay to drink, as long as you do it in moderation. Marjuana, on the other hand, is still regarded by many as "the demon weed"--though attitudes seem to be shifting. Still, America has a long tradition of being an alcohol-consuming nation, while pot has only come into widespread recreational use this century. Yet pot is as easily available as alcohol in schools, according to the students who go there.

Moderation is exactly right, alcohol allows for moderation meaning just because you have a drink does not mean you get drunk. But from what I understand one joint will get you stoned/drunk/intoxicated; marijauna does not allow for moderation. People who drink to excess and alcoholics are not socially accepted, tolerated to a point but not accepted.[/quote]

False analogy. Smoking a joint is equivilant to drinking enough alcohol to get drunk, which this society very readily tolerates. Alcoholism is ADDICTION to alcohol, and not equivilant to someone who smokes a joint once a week or less, anymore than someone who drinks a few pints of beer every Saturday night is an alcoholic. Alcoholism would be more equivilant to someone who smokes pot once or twice a day every day, something that even most stoners frown on.

and remember just because a kid claims to be able to do something, like buy pot, does not make it the 100% truth.

Which I never claimed. Still, these kids are in the best position to know the availability of illegal substances in their own schools. Barring flaws in the survey methods, the real availability shouldn't deviate much from the percieved availability, and if they do, it's up to you to prove it.

5. Disproportionate punishment for marijuana versus alcohol use (both illegal for high schoolers).

Get caught drinking underage, you get a fine, and maybe get your driver's liscense suspended (regardless of whether you were near a car or not). Get caught smoking marijuana, you're getting probation and possible jail time in many states. Yet again, marijuana is as easy to get as alcohol.

disproportionate in your opinion.

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. The point is that the punishment for having alcohol is less than that for marijuana.

While yes they are both illegal for a minor to posses and consume, you are ignoring the fact that a MIP is only a class C misdemeanor and that possession of marijuana is a class A misdemeanor so that is why there is a difference in punishments. At most a MIP can be a class B misdemeanor but only if it is on school property.

In my state, possession of marijuana is a felony, but that's not the point. I'm fully aware that there's a difference in the penalties for a minor in possession of alcohol and a minor in possession of pot. My POINT was that despite the stiffer punishment for marijuana, it's still coming into the school at the same rate alcohol is, undermining the entire rationale for prohibition.

[qote]As for the suspension of the DL it is because driving is a privilege not a right. and if you are underage you cannot be trusted to drive if you are going to break the law and drink underage.[/quote]

I fail to see how one relates to the other. People caught shoplifting don't get their liscense suspended, yet they're breaking the law too.

As for the jail time, well like I said it is a bigger offenese so possible jail time is natural.

And what's the logical reason to it to be a bigger offense? That's right, there isn't one.

Prohibition has failed as a strategy to keep marijuana out of schools. My solution is to legalize the drug, move the market aboveground, shut down the freelance dealers who have nothing to lose by selling to kids, institute honest drug education, and not do things like send SWAT teams into high schools on drug raids. Yours, apparently, is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "Drugs are bad, mmmmkay!" at the top of your lungs.

Your "solution" is not solution but just a way to compound the problem.

An assertion you've entirely failed to prove.

If you think that freelance drug dealers will disappear if pot is legallized you are wrong, why would they stop?

See my response in my previous post.

Now if they are caught with pot, well it is legal to carry so what is wrong with that?

It's legal to carry beer right now. Do people sell it on street corners? Believe it or not, you can make possession legal while keeping unliscenced distribution illegal.

Apparently if it is taking SWAT teams to scare kids into realizing how serious illegal drugs are then I say go for it, these days who knows what kids have in school.

So that justifies them running into a school with guns drawn? What if a student had resisted a little too much, or reached into his coat for whatever reason and gotten shot for his trouble? Would that still be an acceptable sacrifice in the name of prohibition?

And guess what? Here we are God knows how many words later, and you still haven't proven drugs are serious enough to warrant this kind of behavior when alcohol doesn't.

The only problem I see with the "infamous SWAT team raid on the school debacle" as people are calling is that their info was bad on this occassion.

They got outsmarted by the drug dealers they were trying to intimidate. Not only did they fail to find any drugs,endanger the lives of students, and open themselves up to lawsuits, they made themselves look like idiots. They didn't scare anybody. All they showed is that authority in general and cops in particular aren't smart enough to catch criminals, but act like Nazis anyway.

(No, I'm not saying cops act like Nazis, but that's the impression these kids have now)

[2000AD]

Please, tell me how old you are. I'm a fucking COLLEGE STUDENT, and I can tell you that alcohol is much harder to come by than pot. Any college student'll tell you the same thing.

What are you talking about? Alcohol is part of the student lifestyle from day 1! All you have to do is walk into a pub and ask for it and .... oh wait your in America.

*points and laughs at all the poor gits that have to wait 3 whole years longer than people in the UK*

[Death from the Sea]

So tell me, who's going to BUY from street dealers if it's legally available, with guaranteed quality standards, from any liquor store? Do people still drink bathtub gin in speakeasies? And why continue selling if you are a street dealer? You can still go to jail for distributing without a liscense (try selling bottles of whiskey from a stand in your front yard), but since pot no longer contraband, it no longer commands fantastic prices. The whole point of being a drug dealer is to get rich quickly thanks to inflated drug prices. Legalization puts a stop to that.

And what do you think that the drug dealers are going to quit selling to minors? If they can go get it cheaper and then charge a price that might be lower than current street prices but higher than the newly legalized price that minors will suddenly quit buying it because ALL drug dealers will suddenly want to become legit with the law? If people are being taxed heavily and prices are regulated that removes the get rich appeal of selling drugs, why bother going legit? After all they have remained underground for this long, why not stay there?

Yes, I AM contending that a lot of people selling pot right now would be law abiding citizens if pot were legal, based on the fact that their only crime is selling pot. Not every drug dealer is a violent street criminal. Suburban dealers tend to be low profile, usally pot smokers themselves who have decided to make a little side cash selling.

Like I said before I highly doubt that those making the extra cash will simply come out and let Uncle Sam take a piece if they can stay under the radar.

So your contention is that cigarette companies would sell marijuana because it's a smokable plant. Why wouldn't alcohol companies sell it because it's intoxicating? Or pharmaceutical companies because it's a drug? Or entirely new companies, because marijuana is different from everything else currently on the market?

Most likely if marijuana was legalized it would be entirely new companies and but I wouldn't put it past the tobbacco industry to dip their hands into the mix.

But all that's really just a sideshow. Your fundamental assumption is correct: legalization would eventually lead to big companies selling marijuana, becuase that's the nature of American business. It's the only time you're right in this entire post. Congratulations.

Well at least you are starting to see the light.

Did you even read what I said? THC is NOT nicotine. Adding toxic chemicals in order to speed THC's absorption into the bloodstream won't make it more addictive, just more potent, and potency can be increased safely through selective breeding.

You apperently didn't read what I said, I said that they would add the chemicals to make them addictive. Besides there is also the whole idea of people becoming psycologically addicted to the high from marijuana. Physical and mental addiction are seperate issues.

And while cigarette companies may not be just and honorable, the last time they started making their product more toxic to sell more of it, they got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars, so maybe they, or whoever ends up selling pot, will take this lesson to heart. Besides, you've created a false dilemma--either ban pot or legalize it and let whoever sells it jam it full of chemicals. We couldn't, say, create purity standards for marijuana, could we? Wow, there's a concept.

Yeah because we always get all the rules and regs perfect right from the start of any new industry.

This is what your argument comes down to now? Since alcohol isn't intoxicating in small doses (false, by the way--even one drink can begin imparing the user, even if the effects are subtle), it should be legal, but since pot gets you stoned with one joint, it should be illegal? Never mind that alcohol is fatal in large doses, and marijuana isn't. Never mind that alcohol is known to make many of its users violent and dangerous, while marijuana isn't. Never mind that alcohol duplicates nearly all of marijuana's harmful effects, while marijuana doesn't duplicate all of alcohol's. Never mind that IT'S LEGAL TO DRINK ENOUGH ALCOHOL TO GET DRUNK ANYWAY. By your logic, by law when I go into a bar, they should only be allowed to serve me on drink and then throw me out. Since that's not what happens, obviously it's not against the law to be intoxicated, so there goes your entire "marijuana fucks you up on one dose" argument.

It might be legal to consume the alcohol but it is not legal to be intoxicated. Why do I say this? because there is this little thing called public intoxication that you can be arrested for, why aren't most people? because believe it or not the police are very lenient on this. So yes you can go to the bar and get drunk, but you can also be arrested for public intoxication. It is kinda like how at Mardi Gras in New Orleans they allow women to show their tits and allow mooning, even though it technically is indecent exposure they are ver lenient and just but people showing their genitals for indecent exposure.

Please. I've heard 14 year olds come up with better arguments for prohibition than that.

is the flamebait really needed?

Right, because every mind altering drug is exactly the same and will have exactly the same effect, and thus will be treated exactly the same way.

but marijuana is closer to those than to alcohol and so that is why it falls into the same category

[Wicked Pilot]

It amuses me when people ask why the subject of history is taught in public schools. The obviousness of the answer is quite apparent in this thread.

[RedImperator]

And what do you think that the drug dealers are going to quit selling to minors? If they can go get it cheaper and then charge a price that might be lower than current street prices but higher than the newly legalized price that minors will suddenly quit buying it because ALL drug dealers will suddenly want to become legit with the law? If people are being taxed heavily and prices are regulated that removes the get rich appeal of selling drugs, why bother going legit? After all they have remained underground for this long, why not stay there?

Why not stay there? Because they can still go to jail for selling without a liscense, they can still go to jail for selling to minors, their adult customer base has just evaporated, and there's hardly any money left in it anyway. Far, far more minors smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol than smoke pot, so why aren't there thousands of people buying alcohol and tobacco legally and reselling them to minors? The reward simply isn't worth the risk.

This would all be speculation if historical precedent wasn't on my side. When alcohol prohibition ended, the black market rapidly dried up. If the speakeasies had stayed open and the bootleggers hadn't gone back to just brewing up a little bathtub whiskey for themselves, you might have a point, but that's not what happened. Most people aren't going to risk jail time for marijuana (or any drug) once its price has dropped to the level of other legal drugs.

And at any rate, saying that legalization won't keep it out of schools doesn't justify keeping it illegal for adults. If minors are using drugs, then we should target the laws at those who sell to minors, and focus our efforts on educating them on the dangers of using drugs before they're old enough to deal with the consequences. There are any number of things that minors aren't allowed to do that we allow consenting adults to do, and you need a better reason to throw a responsible, consenting adult in jail for putting something in his own body than "kids might use it". Again, by that logic, alcohol and tobacco should be banned.

Like I said before I highly doubt that those making the extra cash will simply come out and let Uncle Sam take a piece if they can stay under the radar.

What's their incentive to do so? Remember they're still risking fines and jail, except now they're competing with legitimate businesses who can gurantee their customers good quality and a better price. Would you risk buying bathtub gin if you knew you could go to the liquor store and get cheap liquor that's been approved by the government for sale?

Historical precedent says most pot dealers would fold up shop after legalization. The big growers will likely go legitimate and start selling to legitimate channels, assuming cash strapped farmers don't beat them to the punch by planting marijuana where they might have planted something else. That puts most of the runners and dealers out of business immediately. Those with homegrown operations might continue to grow their own, but why risk selling it anymore--and who's going to buy it anyway?

Most likely if marijuana was legalized it would be entirely new companies and but I wouldn't put it past the tobbacco industry to dip their hands into the mix.

I don't know enough about tobacco or marijuana cultivation to answer this one way or another. The big tobacco companies are actually part of larger conglomerates, so it's possible their parent companies might get involved, but they'd have to get into an entirely new industry with virtually no experience. I don't see the tobacco companies themselves getting into it, though--they've become very specialized at selling one product, and it would be a major investment for them to spread out into something new.

You apperently didn't read what I said, I said that they would add the chemicals to make them addictive. Besides there is also the whole idea of people becoming psycologically addicted to the high from marijuana. Physical and mental addiction are seperate issues.

I'm aware of the differences between physical and psychological addiction. How you increase the psychological addictiveness of a drug by adding other chemicals to it is beyond me. Your scenario is extremely unlikely--there's a narrow class of chemicals which are addictive to humans, none of which can be readily added to marijuana. The chemicals in cigarettes are there to improve the delivery of nicotine to the bloodstream, but are not themselves addictive. You could, I suppose, add opium or nicotine to a marijuana cigarette to make it more addictive, but then you'd be addicting your customers to opium and nicotine.

And is well into the grounds of wild speculation anyway, not to mention a slippery slope--prove that legalization would automatically lead to chemical tampering with marijuana to increase its addictiveness. For that matter, prove it's possible. Again, look at alcohol: it's been brewed commercially in this country since the colonial era, and nobody's yet managed to increase the addictiveness of alcohol other than by increasing the concentration in a particular drink.

Yeah because we always get all the rules and regs perfect right from the start of any new industry.

So now your false dilemma is "if we can't be certain we'll get all the regulations exactly right on the first try, we should keep it illegal"? Frankly, unless they start spiking commerical marijuana with lethal doses of rat poison, the problems created by legalization will be practically invisible against the improvements brought about by ending prohibition.

It might be legal to consume the alcohol but it is not legal to be intoxicated. Why do I say this? because there is this little thing called public intoxication that you can be arrested for, why aren't most people?

The key word being "public". It's still perfectly legal to get sloshed in your house. The law in that case is to prevent more serious crimes that come from public intoxication, not to ban intoxication itself.

Right, because every mind altering drug is exactly the same and will have exactly the same effect, and thus will be treated exactly the same way.

but marijuana is closer to those than to alcohol and so that is why it falls into the same category

How? Alcohol, cocaine, nicotine, and heroin are all more addictive than pot. They're all fatal in large enough doses; THC is not. Alcohol, crack, meth, and PCP are well known to make people dangerous and tolerant to pain; marijuana isn't. Alcohol, barbituate, and heroin withdrawal can be fatal; what little evidence of marijuana withdrawal there actually is says it isn't. ALL drugs save nicotine and caffeine cause impairment to one degree or another as soon as they're consumed, regardless of the dose. A man who's only had one beer might be able to enjoy a very light buzz but still be able conduct himself in public; the same goes for a marijuana smoker who's only had a few hits off a joint. Marijuana is not closer to hard drugs than alcohol; it's actually the reverse. Quite simply, if you're going to argue for the continued legality of alcohol based on the fact that it's not dangerous enough to warrant prohibition, then you have no grounds for arguing that marijuana should be illegal because of its own harmful effects.