People knew others died from alcohol consumption, or their lives were destroyed by alcohol consumption. But others also knew alcohol consumption was possible in moderation. Of course earlier times didn't have the medical knowledge of today - but they had knowledge, just not as much.
What people didn't know is that some people are more inclined to addictive behaviors - for some substances (which may vary from individual to individual), or just in general. Before we developed the science to view behaviors more dispassionately, every negative action was attributed to moral flaws rather than issues of addiction or whatever else. There is a timeline, in a way, for this seen in the move from viewing epilepsy as demon possession to viewing alcoholism as an action with a basis in biochemistry, not sin.
As far as cigarettes - they have also existed throughout history in various cultures. It's a sacrament in Native American cultures. Not consumed casually, but within certain parameters. Peyote, which is illegal to use as a mind-altering substance, is also part of certain N.A. nations' religious practices.
The Turks introduced cigarettes to the west during the Crimean War, though people used tobacco in pipes long before that. The increase in longevity and the increase in population, as well as liberation for women made a lot more smokers out there. So we never made tobacco illegal - it has always been legal for certain age groups.
Likewise, cannabis has been part of many different cultures, over thousands of years, in various parts of the world. It was used as medicine in every part of the world until the 1930s. It was popularized as a recreational substance, like alcohol, in the 20th c. with interactions between different cultures (Mexican, musicians and other arts), until, by the 1960s, it became part of white youth culture on a scale never seen previously.
All that to say - substances that alter consciousness in some way or another are part of humans' interactions with this earth. It has been that way forever. It will always be that way. Our curiosity is part of what makes us who we are.
Once we can acknowledge this reality, we can work on creating a culture that emphasizes the dangers, for those who need to know them, and the upsides - because, honestly, the reality is that tobacco helps people to concentrate or stay awake, and helps their memories. For all the downside to tobacco, beyond it being an addictive substance, there are reasons that people have used it in the past and continue to do so.
As you note, someone can find an anecdote that disproves the norm - but I think the reality is that people will find ways to rationalize, no matter what. Others cannot simply hear a statement like that and say... well okay then! I think it's more like people take their chances because they don't have the motivation or capacity to change a behavior at a particular time. The reward for changing a behavior needs to be high enough to motivate - and when people look at a short term "want" in relation to long term outcomes - it's hard to have that ability to postpone current gains for future ones. That's where education helps to inform - but it can't provide the entire impetus to change behaviors sometimes.
I agree with you about not simply dismissing any questions or possibilities and that legalization will make this possible, not hinder it.
As I've noted here before, though, it's a response I understand because the history of this issue in the U.S. has centered on lies and propaganda by those opposed to cannabis, rather than honest appraisals. But, as I said, I think it's important to keep in mind that we may find cannabis use is counter indicated for people with certain medical issues.
I do think a cost/benefit analysis is a good way to go. The cost/benefit, of course, is not just based upon financials. It's also based upon the knowledge that prohibition of cannabis has been used in a way that targets minority populations and recreates Jim Crow, as Michelle Alexander has noted. The cost/benefit analysis also has to take into consideration our governing philosophy - and we claim (although our history shows how selective this view has often been, based upon race, class, etc.) anyway, we claim that liberty and happiness are important to our philosophical basis as a nation. We hold equality (not sameness) as a "natural law" that is one of the primary reasons for democracy.
The fundamental tension in our society is the need to both maximize the conditions of liberty and equality for all.
But, yeah, we're in agreement, overall.
= new reply since forum marked as read
