Wow: Every major demographic now considers alcohol more harmful than marijuana

posted at 10:41 pm on April 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Week, the most eye-popping result from an eye-popping Pew poll showing American attitudes towards drugs softening in various ways. Not only does every demographic now regard alcohol as more harmful than weed, it’s not remotely close. Even when you ask people whether their opinion would change if marijuana was widely available, alcohol still wins by double-digit margins within every group, including seniors(!).

Prohibition can’t survive a result like this for much longer. If a drug universally regarded as more dangerous is perfectly legal, pot’s Schedule I status isn’t long for this world.

dem

You’ve got clear majorities of Republicans on both halves of that question. Which is not to say that people are sanguine about legalization: Although 54 percent now support it, 55 percent say drug abuse is a “serious problem” and 54 percent think legalization will inevitably lead more kids to try it. That sounds like people have decided, correctly in my opinion, not that there are no risks to legalizing weed but rather that the risks of continued prohibition are greater. Other data points to the same conclusion. Sixty-three percent now oppose mandatory sentences for drug offenses; in 2001, just 46 percent did. Sixty-seven percent support treatment for illegal drug users versus just 32 percent who prefer prosecution. That’s something close to total victory for the NORML types out there. The change in opinion is probably too late to shift candidates’ attitudes much for the 2016 election, since both parties are terrified of what seniors might do if this becomes a hot button, but by 2020 you may have an openly pro-legalization candidate heading the Democratic ticket and someone not far from that position heading the Republican one.

One interesting, expectation-confounding wrinkle that caught my eye was this:

bwl

Blacks and whites are, for once, in basic agreement — but Latinos vary considerably. Why is that? Any theories?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

That being said, I think that marijuana legalization will have a TON of problems, but I am not against the legalization of it.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 11:15 AM

melle, may I ask why?

bazil9 on April 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM

melle, may I ask why?

bazil9 on April 3, 2014 at 11:19 AM

I think it has medicinal uses, especially pain relief and nausea relief. I also do know people who don’t abuse it, but use it like alcohol. I don’t think it is as addicting as the harder substances, and think in the right hands; it isn’t any more dangerous than alcohol.

That being said, I certainly don’t think it isn’t dangerous. I think it is probably dangerous to the same kind of addictive personality that makes someone an alcoholic. I think we need some realism when it comes to that.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 11:24 AM

The Report

Letter of Transmittal

Introduction

I. Marihuana and the Problem of Marihuana
•Origins of the Marihuana Problem •Visibility
•Perceived Threats
•Symbolism

•The Need for Perspective •Historical Perspective
•Cultural Perspective •The Search for Meaning
•Skepticism
•The Limits of Rationality

•Formulating Marihuana Policy •Scientific Oversimplification
•Philosophical Oversimplification
•Sociological Oversimplification
•Legal Oversimplification

•The Report

II. Marihuana Use and Its Effects
•The Marihuana User
•Demographic Characteristics
•Patterns of Use
•Profiles of Users •Experimental Users
•Intermittent Users
•Moderate and Heavy Users
•Very Heavy Users

•Becoming a Marihuana User •Parental Influence
•Situational Factors and Behavioral Correlates
•Social Group Factors
•The Dynamics of Persistent Use

•Becoming a Multidrug User •Epidemiologic Studies
•Profiles and Dynamics
•Sociocultural Factors

•Effects of Marihuana on the User
•Botany and Chemistry
•Factors Influencing Drug Effect •Dosage
•Method of Use
•Metabolism
•Set and Setting
•Tolerance
•Reverse Tolerance
•Duration of Use
•Patterns of Use
•Definition of Dependence

•Effects Related to Pattern Use
•Immediate Drug Effects •Subjective Effects
•Bodv Function
•Mental Function
•The Intoxicated State
•Unpleasant Reactions
•Anxiety States
•Psychosis
•Conclusions

•ShortTerm Effects
•Long Term Effects
•Very Long Term Effects •Tolerance and Dependence
•General Body Function
•Social Functioning
•Mental Functioning
•Motivation and Behavioral Change

•Summary

III. Social Impact of Marihuana Use
•Marihuana and Public Safety •Marihuana and Crime
•The Issue of Cause and Effect •Marihuana and Violent Crime
•Marihuana and Non Violent Crime
•A Sociocultural Explanation

•Marihuana and Driving

•Marihuana, Public Health and Welfare •A Public Health Approach •The Population at Risk
•Confusion and Fact

•Assessment of Perceived Risks •Lethality
•Potential for Genetic Damage
•Immediate Effects
•Effects of LongTerm, Heavy Use
•Addiction Potential
•Progression to Other Drugs

•Preventive Public Health Concerns •Summary

•Marihuana and the Dominant Social Order •Marihuana and the Dominant Social Order •The Adult Marihuana User
•The Young Marihuana User

•The World of Youth
•Why Society Feels Threatened •Dropping Out
•Dropping Down
•Youth and Radical Politics
•Youth and the Work Ethic
•The Changing Social Scene

IV. Social Response to Marihuana Use
•The Initial Social Response
•The Change
•The Current Response •The Criminal Justice System •Law Enforcement Behavior
•Law Enforcement Opinion

•The Non-Legal Institutions •The Family
•The Schools
•The Churches
•The Medical Community
•Summary

•The Public Response

V. Marihuana and Social Policy
•Drugs in a Free Society •Drugs and Social Responsibility

•A Social Control Policy for Marihuana •Approval of Use
•Elimination of Use
•Discouragement or Neutrality

•Implementing the Discouragement Policy •The Role of Law in Effective Social Control
•Total Prohibition
•Regulation
•Partial Prohibition
•Recommendations for Federal Law
•Recommendations for State Law
•Discussion of Federal Recommendations
•Discussion of State Recommendations
•Discussion of Potential Objections

•A Final Comment

Iowa Medical Marijuana 2014

svs22422 on April 3, 2014 at 11:26 AM

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 11:24 AM

I pretty much agree with ya. Well stated.

bazil9 on April 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM

I would not have a problem with my children being with us at a neighbor’s house while we adults enjoy some glasses of alcohol. Yes, we do that to feel the effects, just like with marijuana users. But the effects of the alcohol will not spill over and affect my kids like marijuana smoke would. If it were marijuana in pill form, I probably wouldn’t have a problem… but in this case, it is second-hand smoke where the effect will show up in my children’s blood stream even if they didn’t directly partake. In today’s society, that would probably involve a call to Child Services from a nosey neighbor and I could lose my kids. To me and my situation, 2nd-hand smoke makes smoked marijuana more dangerous than alcohol.

dominigan on April 3, 2014 at 12:01 PM

jefferson used “inalienable” because it is the more etymologically conservative — and therefore aesthetically appropriate — form of the word. indeed, black’s — going back to at least the 6th edition — gives “inalienable” as the primary form, defining “unalienable” (strictly, since the 7th!) in terms of it.

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 3, 2014 at 7:33 AM

Where is your citation for why Jefferson used inalienable? Did he say anywhere that he considered it “aesthetically appropriate”?

kcewa on April 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM

dominigan on April 3, 2014 at 12:01 PM

My neighbors used to take it outside and pass it around while the kids were busy inside.

steel guy on April 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM

My neighbors used to take it outside and pass it around while the kids were busy inside.

steel guy on April 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM

You made my point for me. Marijuana smokers must segregate themselves from others to enjoy. Alcohol consumers can drink without the effects spilling over onto others.

dominigan on April 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM

You made my point for me. Marijuana smokers must segregate themselves from others to enjoy. Alcohol consumers can drink without the effects spilling over onto others.

dominigan on April 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM

True, kinda like cigarette smokers these days. When I was a kid the smokers would just light up inside or wherever, now they take it outside.

steel guy on April 3, 2014 at 12:33 PM

You may be correct but I’m in that demographic too (voted in 10 presidential elections). The difference I guess (don’t know) is that I know engineers and bank vice presidents who partake and still live responsible and productive lives, pay their taxes and raised great kids. I think that might be unimaginable to some, but who knows for sure.

rhombus on April 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Same here, in fact I’m one of those engineers (networks, datacenters, etc) you’re talking about :)

Sorry for any perceived ageism, it’s thoroughly refreshing to find out that you’re in that cohort and still feel the way you do.

nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:34 PM

I could care less if you get jacked up 10 ways to Sunday and I don’t care how you do it, but I REFUSE to be made to pay for your methhead ways or the children who are neglected and abused, because you are a fvcking idiot. I have seen the damn end results of those drug addled parents in family law and the court system everyday. The “expense” of drug abuse isn’t going away if you legalize it.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I am so sick of this argument. I’m more successful than you are, guaranteed. Does it make me a jerk to say that? Probably, but I’m fed up, and it’s the truth. That’s what burns you nanny-staters the most… that all people who use things you disagree with aren’t ‘potheads.’ Quite the opposite in many cases. My circle includes several business owners, executives, etc. You people sound like the ignorant fools you are when you keep trying to marginalize marijuana users based solely on the fact that they do something you disagree with.

nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

You made my point for me. Marijuana smokers must segregate themselves from others to enjoy. Alcohol consumers can drink without the effects spilling over onto others.

dominigan on April 3, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of e-cigs? Vaporizer? No? Yeah… there’s no way to be around a marijuana smoker in a social situation… no way at all. Google is your friend, buddy.

nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:43 PM

I am so sick of this argument. I’m more successful than you are, guaranteed. Does it make me a jerk to say that? Probably, but I’m fed up, and it’s the truth. That’s what burns you nanny-staters the most… that all people who use things you disagree with aren’t ‘potheads.’ Quite the opposite in many cases. My circle includes several business owners, executives, etc. You people sound like the ignorant fools you are when you keep trying to marginalize marijuana users based solely on the fact that they do something you disagree with.

nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Well bully for you for making yourself feel better on an assumption. If your success ACTUALLY demands your read and pay attention; then don’t blame me for doubting your “success.” I said I don’t have a problem with marijuana legalization, and I have already justified why. YOU said you were for ALL drugs being legalized. So by all means, please who me a methhead business person who is functional, you elitist tool.. I’ll be waiting patiently. BTW, how exactly is my not wanting to pay for methheads make me a nanny stater?

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM

please who me

*please show me

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Richard [sic], what’s your point? Are you saying that because almost everyone you know consumes and doesn’t misuse alcohol, drunk drivers killing people and college-age binge drinkers killing themselved [sic] doesn’t happen?

Scopper on April 3, 2014 at 11:03 AM

The point is clear to all who would read for comprehension. Try reading a little objectively and you’re not likely to miss it. (hint: key on the word ‘comparison.”)

Ricard on April 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM

nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Btw, you see to be really good at making assumption about people you don’t i.e., success level, age etc. And then you bi+ch in the same breath about people making assumptions about you and your pot smoking buddies.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Btw, you seem to be really good at making assumption about people you don’t know i.e., success level, age etc. And then you bi+ch in the same breath about people making assumptions about you and your pot smoking buddies.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM

I hate typing on my phone.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:11 PM

I’m more successful than you are, guaranteed. nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I hope you are successful. At some point in my life I reached a position that I felt was successful and my philosophy became……… spend a third; save a third; give away a third. Again, I wish your many successes many more in the future to come. Live long and healthy.

HonestLib on April 3, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Some people are just addicted to pot threads.

rhombus on April 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM

BTW, how exactly is my not wanting to pay for methheads make me a nanny stater?

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:04 PM

What that attitude, how am I going to be able to sell my new line of Tee-Shirts?

“Tweak a Tweaker and Show ‘Em some Love” Guess no need for a TM on that slogan.

HonestLib on April 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM

What that attitude, how am I going to be able to sell my new line of Tee-Shirts?

“Tweak a Tweaker and Show ‘Em some Love” Guess no need for a TM on that slogan.

HonestLib on April 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM

:)

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Some people are just addicted to pot threads.

rhombus on April 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM

It’s interesting to see people who say that the 18th Amendment was wrong use the same kind of arguments to justify their opposition to marijuana’s legality. I wonder if they can admit that the 18th Amendment wasn’t just foolish, but that it was immoral. For people to use moral arguments to say that only one of those substances should be legal is asinine.

I smoked marijuana 5 times in my life, in 1992-1993, and drank alcohol 5 times, the last time in 2002. I liked neither, which is why I have no interest in repeating the experiences. I found alcohol to be noticably grosser, harsher, and more troublesome. Do I have any inclinication to deny the rights of others because of what I experienced? No.

What kind of people believe their experiences and sensibilities should be imposed upon everyone else? People who define “freedom” selfishly, and who shouldn’t be trusted with power, that’s who.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:00 PM

That’s what burns you nanny-staters the most… that all people who use things you disagree with aren’t ‘potheads.’ Quite the opposite in many cases. My circle includes several business owners, executives, etc. You people sound like the ignorant fools you are when you keep trying to marginalize marijuana users based solely on the fact that they do something you disagree with.

nullrouted on April 3, 2014 at 12:40 PM

Oh, so you support lifting the tyranny of prescription drug regulations and want to legalize any drug that a person chooses to use?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM

What kind of people believe their experiences and sensibilities should be imposed upon everyone else? People who define “freedom” selfishly, and who shouldn’t be trusted with power, that’s who.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Oh, so you support lifting the tyranny of prescription drug regulations and want to legalize any drug that a person chooses to use?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Some people are just addicted to pot threads.

rhombus on April 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM

I think I understand your position. You like blaming SOCONs as the people who deprived you of pot for so long but still feel the need to deprive other folks of their chosen substance preference. So, you’re kind of on record as being a closet nanny-stater.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2014 at 2:05 PM

If a person can’t live life without using mind-altering chemicals to ‘artificially’ induce a sensation of pleasure in their neurological system, then what is the value of their very existence ?

listens2glenn on April 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM

.
I guess the value of ones existance is a subjective thing.

steel guy on April 3, 2014 at 10:46 AM

.
Subject to the individual’s own sense of self-worth, or something/someone else ?
.

And many people who like to alter their minds can live their live without just fine without it but enjoy to partake once in a while. I personally believe that John Lennon, Bob Dylan, Steve Jobs and thousands of others who were known pot smokers had some value in there existance….but hey that’s just me.

steel guy on April 3, 2014 at 10:46 AM

.
If marijuana is legalized everywhere “across the board” (as in Colorado), would you be confident that society-at-large would not experience any significant increase in “under the influence” accidents that involve innocent victims ? (the term “accidents” is not limited to vehicles on the street)

listens2glenn on April 3, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Oh, so you support lifting the tyranny of prescription drug regulations and want to legalize any drug that a person chooses to use?

hawkdriver on April 3, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Alcohol isn’t readily available to everyone. Do you consider it tyrannical to forbid its sale to minors? I don’t.

Heroin should be legal, with restrictions, like alcohol, morphine, oxycodone and Fentanyl already are. It once was in this country, until controlling prohibitionists got too involved and outdid the problems with drug abuse. I don’t like police states; some are more comfortable with them.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Heroin should be legal, with restrictions, like alcohol, morphine, oxycodone and Fentanyl already are. It once was in this country, until controlling prohibitionists got too involved and outdid the problems with drug abuse. I don’t like police states; some are more comfortable with them.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

.
Morphine, oxycodone, and Fentanyl are “prescription only”.

If Heroine were legalized on that basis, I’d be fine with it.

listens2glenn on April 3, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Morphine, oxycodone, and Fentanyl are “prescription only”.

If Heroine were legalized on that basis, I’d be fine with it.

listens2glenn on April 3, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to use prescription drugs recreationally if they want, or to ultimately decide for themselves how much pain relief they deserve? The hysteria over opiates has prevented too many good people from experiencing the relief to which they are entitled.

The problem I see is that it would take a lot of work to weed out responsible drug users from the irresponsible ones. In the name of ease, many people prefer a police state to doing the hard work, unfortunately.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM

that being said, good call nonetheless — one of the major issues many of the irreligious have with especially fundamentalist christians is their proclivity for treating their religion as hopelessly internalist finger-pointing club.
it’s always refreshing to see a religious individual reminding that judgment of others should take a back seat to the judgment of the self.

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 3, 2014 at 1:02 AM

It’s curious how certain things stay with you throughout the day.

It’s also interesting when a non-believer stumbles into the Truth and gets it right.

8] Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up speedily;
your righteousness shall go before you,
the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
[9] Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;
you shall cry, and he will say, Here I am.
“If you take away from the midst of you the yoke,
the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness,

[10] if you pour yourself out for the hungry
and satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
then shall your light rise in the darkness
and your gloom be as the noonday.

Isaiah 58:8-10

Cleombrotus on April 3, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to use prescription drugs recreationally if they want, or to ultimately decide for themselves how much pain relief they deserve? The hysteria over opiates has prevented too many good people from experiencing the relief to which they are entitled.

The problem I see is that it would take a lot of work to weed out responsible drug users from the irresponsible ones. In the name of ease, many people prefer a police state to doing the hard work, unfortunately.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:40

PM

Because it is very hard to use “opiates” responsibly. As a person in chronic pain, I can tell you that you build a tolerance to the opiates quite quickly. Any “Oxy” user who uses it “recreationally” will tell you that what started out as one pill takes SIX in a couple of months to get the same effect. Opiate use at that level is extremely hard on your liver, and they are horribly addicting for this very reason. You also lose your ability to tolerate pain, and to actually realize when you are in fact pain or just jonesing for a pill. I don’t consider regulating drugs to be a “police state.”

I think a lot of you use hyperbole, and don’t actually realize what the “Utopia” of your position would actually be like.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM

If marijuana is legalized everywhere “across the board” (as in Colorado), would you be confident that society-at-large would not experience any significant increase in “under the influence” accidents that involve innocent victims ? (the term “accidents” is not limited to vehicles on the street)listens2glenn on April 3, 2014 at 2:17 PM

For sure freedom isn’t free. When prohibition ended did drunk driving deaths increase? My guess is it did. Do I think it was a good decision to end prohibition? Yes I do.

steel guy on April 3, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Cleombrotus on April 3, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Thanks for pointing me to that. That’s an interesting text during this Lenten season. If you go back a few verses:

4 Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.

5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord?

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

kcewa on April 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

No surprise that soros is throwing his money behind this. A stoner population only helps him ruin the country some more. Helps the country along down the obama path. You can all belong to obamas choom gang.

crosshugger on April 3, 2014 at 3:58 PM

The point is clear to all who would read for comprehension. Try reading a little objectively and you’re not likely to miss it. (hint: key on the word ‘comparison.”)

Ricard on April 3, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Alright. I think you’re missing my point. ^_^ So I will make it again.

In the minds of the people who voted in the poll, when they think of alcohol being harmful, they think of alcoholic relatives, drunks who irresponsibly get behind the wheel, college children pouring booze down their throats. When these same people think of marijuana being harmful, I think most of them are at a loss. They think of Cheech and Chong or Donald Sutherland in “Animal House”. They just don’t know how weed can be as harmful as alcohol. Marijuana is available via prescription for gosh sake, so it can’t be BAD, can it?

My comparison between homicidal drunk drivers and docile potheads is extreme by design, to clearly illustrate what I believe most average Americans think about the harmfulness of alcohol versus marijuana based on the poll.

Scopper on April 3, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Because it is very hard to use “opiates” responsibly.

But it’s not impossible.

Where does government get the “right” to tell people they can brew and consume their own alcohol in private, but can’t do the same with marijuana? Why do so many people think it’s ok to allow people to drink until they pass out, but it’s not ok to let them do the same with pot brownies? Where does “privacy” end and “public” begin with these people?

Too many people wish to restrict responsible drug users in the name of public safety while arguing differently when it comes to alcohol. They are not operating under objective principles, they are arguing from their own feelings and sensibilities. Tyrants always do.

As a person in chronic pain, I can tell you that you build a tolerance to the opiates quite quickly. Any “Oxy” user who uses it “recreationally” will tell you that what started out as one pill takes SIX in a couple of months to get the same effect. Opiate use at that level is extremely hard on your liver, and they are horribly addicting for this very reason. You also lose your ability to tolerate pain, and to actually realize when you are in fact pain or just jonesing for a pill.

Again, like with Adder@ll which often receives a similar critique, it’s not true for everyone who uses opiates.

I don’t consider regulating drugs to be a “police state.”

I indicated this, too. However, do you consider the 18th Amendment a success? Not representative of a police-state mentality?

Regulating substances based upon their popularity and not objective principles is what exactly police states do.

I think a lot of you use hyperbole, and don’t actually realize what the “Utopia” of your position would actually be like.

melle1228 on April 3, 2014 at 2:52 PM

What unrealistic hyperbole have I used? There is a downside to legalization, but it’s preferable to prohibition’s downside, a truth which led to the 18th Amendment’s repeal.

I said it would take work to weed out irresponsible drug users from responsible ones. Many people would rather not bother, and they shouldn’t be trusted.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

I am very sympathetic to Libertarianism but I notice in the fervor to legalize / decriminalize they seem to rarely warn of government involvement and the likely costs that America will incur. Let’s say I think their “purity” and sincerity is suspect in many cases.

CW on April 3, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Why isn’t this thread in the left-hand column ?

Seems like it would qualify, to me.

listens2glenn on April 3, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Alcohol isn’t readily available to everyone. Do you consider it tyrannical to forbid its sale to minors? I don’t.

Of course not. I’m not going on about people not having a say in restrictions though.

Heroin should be legal, with restrictions, like alcohol, morphine, oxycodone and Fentanyl already are. It once was in this country, until controlling prohibitionists got too involved and outdid the problems with drug abuse. I don’t like police states; some are more comfortable with them.

non-nonpartisan on April 3, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Meth. You didn’t mention meth.

hawkdriver on April 3, 2014 at 7:20 PM

I wouldn’t read too much into it. We should probably not assume that wine in the ancient world was exactly the same as wine in the modern world.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 3, 2014 at 2:52 AM

I am sorry, but this is an empirically false statement. The basic fundamental fermentation process has not changed in 1 million years. Yeast conversion of sugar into alcohol remains a constant based upon sugar content by volume. Grapes ferment to 12% to 19% alcohol by volume based upon the sugar content in nearly all grapes.

Fermentation time is likewise a constant that has not changed in recorded history. Primary fermentation takes place within the first 3 to 5 days, and results in a 70 percent conversion, in other words, the wine reaches 10% or greater alcohol by volume.

Secondary fermentation takes another week to two weeks resulting in wine that is 12% to 19% alcohol by volume.

This process was absolutely no different 3000 years ago then it is today.

oscarwilde on April 3, 2014 at 3:43 AM

It may be that the process you describe is ‘absolutely no different 3000 years ago than it is today.” But that rather obviously assumes that the same processes were followed 3000 years ago.

First, it’s not empirically false unless it can be reproduced. Which is a little hard to do for historical events, unless you reproduce the exact steps by following a detailed historical description.

Second, the process of fermentation can be done in multiple different ways, so it’s hardly a universal process, even if the principles behind it are universal. (The Mongols making a fermented drink from mare’s milk comes to mind.)

Any way, you’re making the same mistake of assuming that the ancient world did everything the same way as we do it now. Wine is pretty much universally considered an alcoholic drink today, but that doesn’t mean all wine was alcoholic in the past.

In fact, as at least one other person has already pointed out, wine seems to have been a more generic term for any drink made from the vine. So fresh grape juice was called wine, just as much as the fermented drink.

There was also a non-fermented version of wine which was produced by condensing fresh grape juice by boiling it down into something like a syrup, which could then be preserved for later use, and reconstituted by adding water.

Also, sometimes the grapes themselves were preserved, so that grape juice could be “fresh-squeezed” by pressing the grapes against the side of a cup.

Far from the automatic assumption that ‘wine is wine, so of course it was alcoholic,’ the subject of wine was remarkably complex in the ancient world, including both fermented and non-fermented versions.

A resource discussing this in great detail is https://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 3, 2014 at 8:49 PM

kcewa on April 3, 2014 at 3:43 PM

It’s an interesting thought experiment as to how * ahem * they can appear to us as “homeless, naked, poor,” etc. It’s actually a lesson in how to view things from an eternal perspective and not a human one.

“From now on, therefore, we no longer regard anyone from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard Him thus no longer. ” 2 Cor. 5:16

Cleombrotus on April 3, 2014 at 9:57 PM

I worked as a Police Dispatcher for 20 years. During that time I have dealt with a ton of alcohol fueled disturbances. But very rarely any Marijuana fueled ones. (I say “very rarely” because there may have been some, but I don’t recall any)

THAT is the major reason that I am in favor of Marijuana Legalization for recreational use.

There might be some disturbances, like when someone eats the last Cheetos, but I don’t think they would be of long duration or extreme violence.

schmuck281 on April 4, 2014 at 12:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6