“While you may be right about the comparative lengths of use, the level of consumption and penetration of alcohol use into popular culture and cultural rituals is of a magnitude far beyond any other drug so your comparison doesn’t really hold up.”

I think Insider is right here MikeE – general society has a lot more experience with alcohol and tobacco than with cannabis.

Think of it this way – if alcohol was JUST discovered, they would want to ban it too. Fundamentally, the set of drugs that can be legally consumed is path dependent.

However, this path dependence suggests to me that “maybe” the set of laws we have now will not be socially optimal – I’m not sure.

That is a dirty old spanner in the works. If they are complements in consumption there will be issues. However, if we tax each for their externality then the “complementarity” merely tells us that the legalization will help to increase welfare in two ways: By increasing choice, and by increasing the value of the current set of choices.

That is a very good point insider. However, if the use of other drugs could be legalized and incorporated into culture we wouldn’t need to think about this after a generation or two. Fundamentally, I’m interested in what is the optimal type of laws once all the social rules have settled back down – the steady state.

I realise this can be too simplistic if the costs of transition are too high – however, are they in this case?

“THey are gateway drugs. How many drug users didn’t start with those two?”

Then they should really be held to the same standards as cannabis shouldn’t they?

While you may be right about the comparative lengths of use, the level of consumption and penetration of alcohol use into popular culture and cultural rituals is of a magnitude far beyond any other drug so your comparison doesn’t really hold up.

We have widespread and plentiful written accounts back almost to the birth of writing of alcohol manufacture and its consumption by the general population. I don;t believe we have the same for C, notwithstanding its limited geographic spread

If there’s a shortage of marijuana, the whiskey just won’t be the same.
And without whiskey and reefer, I won’t even mention the cocaine.

Theres about the same with Cannabis.

Its been consumed by cultures all over the world without the cataclismic harm that the anti drug brigade think it causes for thousands of years.

“What you dont realise is that you think it relaxes you. It makes you paronide which keeps you alert. then the sleeping tablets are needed.thus the cocktail begins”

Mary F – have you ever even met someoen who has consumed drugs? Just out of curiousity?

I’d be willing to bet that with yoru comments, you probably don’t even know the difference in effects of Cannabis vs Meth vs Ket vs MDMA etc.. I’m guessing that in yoru mind they are all equally “evil” – yet the considerably more harmful tabacco and alcahol aren’t.

Well about 10,000 years of alcohol integration into daily culture probably plays a part…

“If it was legal, it wouldn’t be any more of a gateway drug than beer or ciggarettes.”

THey are gateway drugs. How many drug users didn’t start with those two?

Marijuana? Are it paranoia effects any more than the crushing depression that people can get from drinking alcohol?

Personally I think legal marijuana with good education and information (and some high taxes) would be the best way to minimise any negative effects from the drug – just like with alcohol.

When I think whether a drug should be illegal I try to think of its impact on “other people” – as if a person screws up their own life it really is their own fault. Marijuana appears to have less externalities than alchohol – so I can’t really understand why one is banned above the other …

Thats like saying increasing the price of milk will drive up the demand for alcohol as both are liquid drinks. ”

Yes – but at the same time that is partially true …

“Not all drugs are perfect (or even imperfect) substitutes for each other. ”

Definitely – but there is still some degree of substitutability.

“The only reason pot is (or can be) a gateway drug, is because you have to deal with criminals to access it, and they often have other substances. If it was legal, it wouldn’t be any more of a gateway drug than beer or ciggarettes.”

I actually agree with that myself – it is really just like prohibition. However, I wasn’t making the case for it being a gateway drug – I was hoping someone else would try to make the case.

The primary argument against legalising weed is that it “normalises” drug taking. Ok I can buy it. However, doesn’t this also imply that legal alcohol and smokes should normalise drug taking as well? When I put it that way suddenly the argument becomes less convincing …

“Edited for language. Please avoid foul language in comments. – TVHE.”

When did that happen 🙂

Agreed, it was an extreme example. However, even so there is some margin over which they are substitutes – if that effect exceeds any complementarity then we end up in a situation where this is suboptimal.