It was my experience as Social Chairman of a fraternity that there was always a certain proportion of the membership that were substance abusers and that it mattered which substance they had available to abuse. If the substance du jour was a case of vodka, then the weekend would be filled with mayhem, fights, crying coeds and possibly a car or two driving at speed down the sidewalks. I was always relieved when the boys got themselves a big new bag of weed. Because they preferred that to booze and it minimized the chaos.
I'm not sure whether someone impaired by marijuana is any safer a driver than someone who is drunk but I do know that people who are doing marijuana don't feel compelled to go out and do aggressive things nearly so much. The 'stoner' stereotype matches up well versus the 'drunk' stereotype because it's true. And in general it is my observation that consumption of one is a substitute for the other - just like you wouldn't consume as many beers if you were also drinking vodka.
This is why it is so astounding to me that we haven't legalized marijuana and the various uppers like amphetamines and cocaine. They're safer than alcohol and would probably displace alcohol consumption which would result in less mayhem, less chaos. But the church lady's unreasoning moral panic and the lawyer guild's will to power rule over sanity and basic human decency. Sigh.
No comments:
Post a Comment