Some people need weed.

[Jackalope]

I'm having a sense of deja vu. Cannabis remained legal at a federal level during the entire period of alcohol prohibition in the US. Even if I thought your idea was a good idea (I don't), history doesn't support the idea.

[CapnAwesome]

I know some people who NEED weed like other people need crack. Hardcore stoners are addicts, despite people saying that weed isn't addictive. I've gone through weed withdrawls myself.

Also I don't treat it like alcohol. Weed is way more benign than alcohol. Alcohol is involved in 31 percent of vehicle fatalities and 40% of all murders.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/im...sheet.html
https://ncadd.org/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-crime

Somehow I doubt marijuana is anything close to those numbers.

[Razzle]

I'm having a sense of deja vu.  Cannabis remained legal at a federal level during the entire period of alcohol prohibition in the US.  Even if I thought your idea was a good idea (I don't), history doesn't support the idea.

How weak was weed was in those days, before strains were bred for their current ~20% THC content? I think I'm justified in supposing it was not very good. And how accessible and well-known was it? It was probably almost as obscure as salvia divinorum is today. If it wasn't being sold in the same bars and at the same price as alcohol, it wasn't being used as a full cultural replacement for alcohol, which is what I advocate.

[Ravenshire]

some people need to smoke a joint

So quit Bogarting it and pass it on down. :-P

[Jackalope]

I'm having a sense of deja vu.  Cannabis remained legal at a federal level during the entire period of alcohol prohibition in the US.  Even if I thought your idea was a good idea (I don't), history doesn't support the idea.

How weak was weed was in those days, before strains were bred for their current ~20% THC content? I think I'm justified in supposing it was not very good. And how accessible and well-known was it? It was probably almost as obscure as salvia divinorum is today. 

I couldn't tell you how strong it was - I suppose it wasn't as strong as the best available today. I *do* know that you can get good and stoned off shit weed, so I fail to see the relevance of that point at all. As obscure as salvia? I don't think history supports you on that.

If it wasn't being sold in the same bars and at the same price as alcohol, it wasn't being used as a full cultural replacement for alcohol, which is what I advocate.

I'm not for prohibition in general - it appears to create new problems and not solve the ones it was intended to. So no thanks.

[Razzle]

How weak was weed was in those days, before strains were bred for their current ~20% THC content? I think I'm justified in supposing it was not very good. And how accessible and well-known was it? It was probably almost as obscure as salvia divinorum is today. 

I couldn't tell you how strong it was - I suppose it wasn't as strong as the best available today.  I *do* know that you can get good and stoned off shit weed, so I fail to see the relevance of that point at all.  As obscure as salvia?  I don't think history supports you on that.

People who smoked in the 60s-80s are frequently amazed by how modern weed knocks their socks off. There is a HUGE difference between smoking 4% THC and 20%. In terms of accessibility I think it was very comparable to where salvia is at the moment: legal, but you can't just wonder into any local bar, pub, corner shop or supermarket for it as you can with alcohol. Was probably more expensive, in relative terms, as well.

[Jackalope]

I couldn't tell you how strong it was - I suppose it wasn't as strong as the best available today.  I *do* know that you can get good and stoned off shit weed, so I fail to see the relevance of that point at all.  As obscure as salvia?  I don't think history supports you on that.

People who smoked in the 60s-80s are frequently amazed by how modern weed knocks their socks off. There is a HUGE difference between smoking 4% THC and 20%.

*I* smoked it in the 70's and 80's. Frankly, what people are subjectively "frequently amazed" by isn't a good metric for determining the truth value of a claim, in my estimation.

Yes, 4% THC is weaker than 20% THC. So what? This kind of illogic would inform us that it's it's impossible to get just as drunk drinking beer as whiskey.

In terms of accessibility I think it was very comparable to where salvia is at the moment: legal, but you can't just wonder into any local bar, pub, corner shop or supermarket for it as you can with alcohol.

"I think" is also a poor metric for determining the veracity of claims.

TL;DR: [citation needed]

Was probably more expensive, in relative terms, as well.

"Was probably".

You have anything beyond opinion on this matter?

[rado84]

Weed could relieve your urge to hump dead threads.....

Joint never dies.

[Razzle]

People who smoked in the 60s-80s are frequently amazed by how modern weed knocks their socks off. There is a HUGE difference between smoking 4% THC and 20%.

*I* smoked it in the 70's and 80's.  Frankly, what people are subjectively "frequently amazed" by isn't a good metric for determining the truth value of a claim, in my estimation.

Yes, 4% THC is weaker than 20% THC.  So what?  This kind of illogic would inform us that it's it's impossible to get just as drunk drinking beer as whiskey.

In terms of accessibility I think it was very comparable to where salvia is at the moment: legal, but you can't just wonder into any local bar, pub, corner shop or supermarket for it as you can with alcohol.

"I think" is also a poor metric for determining the veracity of claims.

TL;DR:  [citation needed]

Was probably more expensive, in relative terms, as well.

"Was probably".

You have anything beyond opinion on this matter?

Have you continued smoking between then and now, or have you tried it over the last 5 years after not having any since the 80s? Also, have you gained significant weight since then? Tolerance, the gradual nature of the potency increase, and increased body mass, are all likely to stop you noticing the difference. I was talking about people who suddenly try it now after not having any since their youth. 

And when we're talking about the appeal that any particular drug holds over other drugs to the majority of people, the quantity required to get you high does matter enormously. If all alcoholic beverages were as weak as shandies, yet cost the same as spirits (the average price of weed does not increase just because the average potency increases), alcohol would be much less popular, at least for the purposes of getting high. This is even more true of drugs that are smoked because many people who would happily smoke one or two, wouldn't have the patience to smoke their way through seven joints at once for the same effect. 

I have no clue where to look for information about the typical price of weed back then. I'm merely suggesting a possible explanation for why weed wasn't satisfactory to people, to counter your claim that what happened during prohibition is evidence that what I'm suggesting would not work today. I see no reason to assume, and many reasons to doubt, that the contexts are similar enough to draw such conclusions. I'm open to the possibility, but without more details, I'm unconvinced.

It seems highly probable that it would have been more expensive then because imported goods in general were more expensive, and combined with the lower quality (which would have been compounded by the longer time in transit) it seems reasonable to wonder how much more you'd have to spend to get reasonably high, compared with today.

[Joods]

Aside from recreational or medicinal use, there is another aspect we should think about. Commercial farming. Did you know that back during WW2 that Hemp products were widely used and accepted by the US Navy? There are currently over 25,000 different products that can be made from hemp. Nearly 30 countries allow for commercial hemp farming because it not only creates jobs, but it helps the economy, provides material for clothing and other goods, its fibers are some of the strongest natural fibers grown and it is obviously eco-friendly. Why the US won't allow this sort of production is beyond me, but since it is a natural plant, I personally don't think the government has the right to regulate it. Especially since the Native American Indians used it for many things long before this country was settled by outsiders. It is an excellent renewable resource, the worlds leading renewable resource according to Canada.



Government of Canada: Industrial Hemp article  

As the world's premier renewable resource, hemp has been the source of food and fibre for the past 10,000 years. Hemp fibre has been used to make clothing, ropes, and paper; the grain has been stewed, roasted, and milled for food; and the oil derived from the grain has been used for cosmetics, lighting, paints, varnishes, and medicinal preparations.

Here's an interesting article from Forbes.com.

Industrial hemp was once a dominant crop on the American landscape. This hardy and renewable resource (one of the earliest domesticated plants known, with roots dating back to the Neolothic Age in China) was refined for various industrial applications, including paper, textiles, and cordage.

You can read the rest of the articles via the links.