... of the statistics I cited, Mike. Do you dispute the others? Are they incorrect? Misleading in some way? How have I used them to misrepresent the truth?

>> I guess you could say guns never killed anyone either.... it was
>> the bullets striking the victims that did the killing not the guns.

Actually, I wouldn't say either. What I would say is that it was the person who pulled the trigger who "killed" the victim. I believe in assigning responsibility where it belongs. Guns and bullets are innately harmless ... they just sit there doing nothing until someone picks up the gun, loads it and pulls the trigger.

>> ... Or that alcohol was (not?) the cause of a fatal car crash ...
>> it was the driver not 3 sixpacks he had just consumed!

Now that, I would say. While alcohol has often killed the people drinking it, in and of itself it has never killed anyone in a traffic collision. It is only when someone who is alcohol impaired operates a vehicle that the societal problem arises. And believe me, when I was a prosecutor, I had a reputation as a "hard ass" about drunk driving. I am a strong supporter of anti-drunk driving laws (whether alcohol or drug induced).

However, do we say that no one can drink alcohol because a relatively small percentage of people will abuse it and cause harm to others. No, even though drunk drivers still kill more people every year in traffic collisions than die as a result of the use of all illegal drugs combined.

If your hypothetical driver had his 3 sixpacks, but never got in a vehicle, the only one harmed would have been the driver (and, perhaps, in a residual manner, his family). It is not the alcohol which kills people in drunk driving collisions, it is the drunk drivers.

>> Do you think marijuana has ever been the root cause of any
>> illegal/undesirable secondary affects on other people?
>> (I’m sure “Absolutely Not” will be your forthcoming
>> answer! Followed by how wonderful marijuana is.)

Don't know why you would think any of that, Mike. Of course, marijuana use can lead to socially undesirable conduct -- just as the use of any mind-altering substance can (including alcohol and prescription drugs). The point is not that marijuana can never lead to social problems.

Nor do I think marijuana is particularly "wonderful", though I accept the idea that it can have medicinally beneficial effects for people suffering from certain illnesses and diseases. I used it once, didn't like the effect and have not used it since. I don't drink, either, for the same reason. I don't smoke, mostly because it's a filthy, disgusting habit with no redeeming social value.

However, I don't think I have any right to tell you (or anyone else) that because I don't like those things, others should not be allowed to use them (though I support the laws which restrict smoking in public places because of the proven health hazards of second hand smoke). In my own home, I do not permit the use of marijuana (because it is illegal). I have never permitted anyone to smoke in my home (for the reason stated above), but have no problem with others drinking alcohol (and even have a small supply of wine and beer on hand for visitors).

For several years in the late 1970's, I was the "deuce deputy" in Orange County, California, and was responsible for overseeing drunk driving prosecutions, treatment programs, etc. During that time I wrote a credo which I have since had printed at the bottom of my lawyer letterhead. It says:

"No man has greater courage, honor and integrity than he who forthrightly accepts responsibility for his actions, regardless of the consequences."

While it was originally intended to apply to those arrested and prosecuted for drunk driving, I think it has much broader general application. I also believe that everyone should be accountable for any social harm they might cause as a result of any alcohol or drug use.

----- jim o\-S