Alcohol Industry Benefits From Marijuana Remaining Illegal

LogicSoDeveloped

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
3,427
Location
The Mountains
I have spent my life in and around alcoholism. A recovering alcoholic myself, I worked at Promises in Malibu before founding Loft 107, the first sober living facility in New York City. I'm the cofounder of TheFix.com, a web site about addiction and treatment. I'm also an interventionist, the guy who gets called in when a family is at their wit's end. While I deal with clients in recovery every day at Loft 107, my work takes me everywhere, from schools to court and even into prisons. It was in the last of these where I found myself last week.

The scene: visiting day at Fishkill Correctional Facility in Beacon, NY. As I sat with a client, I watched a family playing Uno. Everyone was there -- two boys, aged 8 and 10, their mother, and their grandparents. As visiting hours wound down, the boys had tears streaming down their faces at once again having to leave their father, who is in prison serving a marijuana distribution charge. Were marijuana legal, this man might have been called an entrepreneur instead of a criminal. But it's not, and he's not. Is it his fault that he is where he is? Of course it is. But all the devils are here, including the alcohol lobby. Money from big booze is protecting a monopoly, and society is paying the price. The solution: It's time to legalize weed. Why? Because not only could legalized marijuana provide a tax revenue stream for funding treatment and recovery programs, it could also eliminate the high cost of incarceration and the emotional toll it takes on families.

People often wonder why someone in my position would advocate for diversified legal intoxication. After all, I'm an advocate for total sobriety, not just the state of being booze-free. My reasons are many, but the most notable is what the alcohol monopoly is doing to our communities and our families. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous intoxicants in existence -- it is estimated that it costs $200 billion a year to repair the destruction it wreaks. But you won't hear about that if you asked the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, a powerful lobby with the singular goal of keeping taxes on alcohol low. On their Facebook page, the council touts its many "achievements," among them the suggestion that they contribute more than $100 billion to the economy a year. While that may be true in the simplest sense, I asked them whether they'd thought of doing the math on the contribution minus the cost. "Don't you owe the taxpayer $100 billion?" I wrote. They unfriended me. (Credit where credit is due: The Council is very good at what they do. Many states haven't raised taxes on alcohol in generations.)

According to the World Health Organization, there are more than 2,500,000 worldwide annual deaths caused by alcohol. Given the challenge of accurate reporting about impairment, I would guess it's even higher than that. What's more, a simple death toll also takes no account of the life-altering disabilities caused by alcohol abuse or the many diseases that are fueled by its use. So let's compare. How many annual deaths are directly related to the use of marijuana? Zero. Yes, zero. A stoner may not always be so, but the data is clear: Marijuana is a far safer method of intoxication than alcohol.

Yes, alcohol is legal. No one is trying to change that. Which means that the alcohol industry, such as California Beer and Beverage distributors, can focus on quashing all attempts to expand the methods of legal intoxication. There's a huge benefit, after all, to being the only one of its kind: the business is recession-proof. And somehow culturally acceptable, despite all the evidence of its insidious effect. The war on drugs hasn't been a failure as far as they're concerned, but a total victory.

Don't get me wrong. I think drug abuse is a terrible thing too. At the moment, the country is rightfully focused on prescription painkillers and the high rates of overdose. I support that. But I'm also well aware that it is the mix of prescription pills with alcohol that is often the lethal cocktail. In other words, we're going after one suspect in crime committed by a team of two (or more). Keeping marijuana criminalized makes sense for nobody except the alcohol industry. Because of it, they keep their monopoly on legal intoxication.

Chatting with those grandparents during the check out process at Fishkill, I found out that they've been somewhat shocked to find themselves caring for two little boys instead of enjoying their retirement. But they're dedicated to keeping their son involved with his children and they therefore make the two-hour drive every week to bring those boys to visiting day. They're showing signs of their age, but they're steadfast in their determination to hold their family together.

It's easy to dismiss this fractured family and easy to blame their father for their plight. After all, he broke the law. But did anyone stay sober because of this family's plight? Did the community benefit? No. So who is this good for? No one but the Distilled Spirits Council. But don't ask them about it on Facebook. Because they'll probably unfriend you if you do.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-schrank/alcohol-industry-benefits_b_3056391.html
 
yep, so true. (he says as he sits here drinking a beer because he can't afford to buy cannabis because of the legality and expense).
 
What does any of that really have to do with the alcohol lobby? The author has yet to demonstrate how they're directly supporting cannabis prohibition.

Lots of people benefit from lots of things. I'm sure I somehow benefit from child labor in Bangladesh. That doesn't mean I'm writing checks to their prime minister.
 
Well, I believe I theorized that the pharmaceutical industry would benefit from legalization.

The title is misleading in my opinion, as it doesn't really provide projected statistics as to what would happen if marijuana were legal. I also honestly think that alcohol not only directly adds to the economy (as the article did state), but that it indirectly does so in invaluably facilitating social conduct, allowing us to better communicate and form bonds, passing ideas on and most importantly improving our well-being on a secondary level in a spiritual, mental, and psychical sense through this socialization, which I would argue is overall worth more than 100 billion dollars. I mean, we are social creatures; its what makes us want to survive in the end, not drugs, and alcohol ultimately procreates in this sense (subliminal meaning possibly intended). I would argue its worth the deaths and monetary damages.

But pot is unpredictable. It can lead to socialization, but mostly takes us away from ourselves and our friends, not contributing to the overall cohesion of the community. In this sense it can be said to cost our society money.

As for marijuana being safe: for some its very benign, and for others its worse than taking a gram of acid while watching the exorcist. There's really no way to know how it'll affect you.

And pertaining to what the title of the thread should be talking about: I expect pot consumption to go up when it becomes legal, not alcohol to consumption to go down and pot consumption to go slightly up. There's no data I'm aware of suggesting that pot has "anti-addictive" properties or stops people from using other drugs. I think there was a recent article on here confirming my theory in either Washington or Colorado.

Honestly, weed was much easier for me to get in high school than alcohol. It hardly effects availability where I live. Just because something's legal, doesn't mean its necessarily more or less easy to get.
 
Interesting article on the website (http://www.thefix.com) about The 10 Hardest Drugs to Kick

A team of researchers led by professor David Nutt of London's Imperial College recently set out to determine which drugs were most harmful based on their addictive properties (the resulting article suggested that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than cannabis and ecstasy, and led to Nutt getting sacked as the UK’s top drug adviser). Dutch scientists replicated the London study and devised a “dependency rating” that measured addictive potency of the biggest drugs out there on a precisely calibrated scale of 0-to-3

Interesting also to note that alcohol comes in at number 6 and cannabis doesn't rate at all in the top 10.

The article and ratings of each substance are here -


http://www.thefix.com/content/10-hardest-addictive-drugs-to-kick7055
 
Last edited:
Of course it benefits from it. I have no sources for weed so I'm gonna go get some beer instead.
 
As for marijuana being safe: for some its very benign, and for others its worse than taking a gram of acid while watching the exorcist.

I know that's a hyperbole but what? related case study? Wouldn't people that reacted badly to weed, reacted badly to acid? I thought it was the psycadellic (awful sp.) aspect that caused problems.
 
I know that's a hyperbole but what? related case study? Wouldn't people that reacted badly to weed, reacted badly to acid? I thought it was the psycadellic (awful sp.) aspect that caused problems.

Just look at the anecdotes of people on bluelight. Weed isn't a psychedlic in typical sense, though it does modulate 5-HT2a to an extent; its effects through CB1 are primarily dopaminergic. All said, its not a psychedelic (which are serotonergic drugs).
 
Top