On 13 nov, 12:39, Dave J.  wrote:
> In MsgID on Sun, 11
> Nov 2007 10:47:16 -0800, in uk.politics.drugs, 'sobriquet' wrote:
>
> >Potentially cannabis and alcohol could go together like coffee and
> >cigarettes or alcohol and cigarettes.
>
> IME not so, but you're right it would take proper research to ascertain if
> that was a general trait.
>
> I did fully understand the ideas over the improvement that would be
> offered if there was the choice over recreational substances, I was just
> commenting that they don't tend toward mutual exclusivity to anything like
> the same degree as cars vs bikes. Arguments to be used as ammunition
> against prohibitionists need to be fully tested before they're used :-)

The argument against prohibition is intended primarily in the sense of
it being ridiculous to outlaw an activity that is less risky than a
somewhat equivalent and more dangerous activity that is allowed. Like
banning knives while allowing guns or banning bicycles while allowing
cars.
The counterargument from a prohibitionist might be that we have enough
problems with alcohol and legalizing cannabis would only add to those
problems. I guess the most logical reply would be that drug education
would be taken more seriously (and hence be more effective) if
legislation regulating drugs has a rigorous scientific basis rather
than arbitrarily penalizing certain less dangerous drugs and allowing
other more dangerous drugs.

But in a way the substitution hypothesis might still be a good
counterargument against the added-harm argument. In the hypothetical
situation that bicycles are illegal, legalizing bicycles would not
mean that people would stop using cars, but there would be many
situations where people might prefer to use a bicycle but they feel
forced to use a car because bicycles are illegal (like when the
weather is nice, they have to travel a relatively short distance and
they don't have a lot of luggage). Likewise, there are many situations
where people might prefer to use cannabis but they feel forced to use
alcohol because cannabis is illegal.
So legalizing cannabis would not mean people stop using alcohol
completely, but it can be argued that people might use cannabis in
situations where they would have used alcohol if cannabis was not
available. Although research might be needed to determine how
significant this substitution effect is.

>
> Dave J.
> --
> Freeware Open Source Internet Television / Video RSS player. Fetches Video
>   RSS feeds or retrives from regular searches on Youtube or Google video.      
>     Dozens of feeds as defaults.   Science, Politics, Music, Geekery...
>      Miro -> Downloadable fromhttp://www.GetMiro.org <- Worth a try!