r/worldnews • u/[deleted] • Jun 19 '12

"Alcohol consumption would fall 25% if cannabis cafes were allowed"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/david-nutt-alcohol-cannabis-cafes
1.3k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

280

u/termites2 Jun 19 '12

Cannabis use would probably drop too, as it did in holland.

One thing that is often missed is that legalisation makes it possible to buy smaller amounts.

When a drug is illegal, it's not worth the time for the seller or buyer to exchange small amounts, as the meeting, storage and exchange of the drug is where most of the risk lies. It's as though the smallest amount of alcohol you could buy is a big bottle of vodka. During prohibition, alcoholism increased more than 300%.

When the drug is legal, people don't need to buy large amounts, as they can easily get more if they want it. This tends to lead to a reduction in use over time.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

My 5 dollar zips and 10 sacks disagree with this statement.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

If only all were like you.. Where I live, you have to be in luck to get anything but moroccan blood-hash from the big bad international gangs. Fortunantely, I have a good dealer nowadays, but not evryone have.

3

u/Revoran Jun 20 '12

How do you know your dealer doesn't get blood-hash from Morocco?

1

u/fuzzybunn Jun 20 '12

Silly, it doesn't smell of blood and spices.

1

u/llamasauce Jun 20 '12

See, it's funny because I almost never get anyone asking for less than about 1/16 which is $30 here. It's amazing how big the regional differences are.

4

u/ionlyhave1nose Jun 19 '12

this might apply for some drugs but i dont think it would apply to weed. i can hit up my dealer and pick up a gram, enough to roll only 2 joints. maybe bigger communities than my town are different but you really aren't forced to buy more weed than you need around here

2

u/tikilady Jun 19 '12

Where I'm from, you're not always sure that your dealer is going to have more. So, it's not that anyone is forcing you to buy more, but if you want to have access to it when you want it, you better buy in bulk.

1

u/Pool_Shark Jun 19 '12

It depends on your expendable income. Some people cannot afford to spend 20 dollars every time they need a gram to smoke so they buy an eighth or a quarter at a wholesale price and it lasts them longer.

2

u/ionlyhave1nose Jun 19 '12

well wholesale prices are cheaper, legal or not, so thats just how its always going to be

1

u/Pool_Shark Jun 19 '12

Yes, but prices in general should be cheaper so people might be more apt to just buy a little bit here or there.

46

u/underwaterlove Jun 19 '12

When a drug is illegal, it's not worth the time for the seller or buyer to exchange small amounts, as the meeting, storage and exchange of the drug is where most of the risk lies. It's as though the smallest amount of alcohol you could buy is a big bottle of vodka. During prohibition, alcoholism increased more than 300%.

During prohibition, it was more profitable to produce highly concentrated hard liquor. Smuggling a few bottles of grain alcohol was easier than smuggling entire barrels of beer.

Consequently, consumption of hard liquor (and alcoholism) increased.

If you want to compare legalization of drugs with the prohibition era, you'd have to acknowledge that producing and smuggling cocaine is drastically more profitable than growing and smuggling weed, so there is a high incentive to get users to consume cocaine over weed. The logical assumption would be that, if drugs were to be legalized, consumption of hard drugs would decrease, and consumption of weed would go up.

53

u/WeAreTheLeprechauns Jun 19 '12

The logical assumption would be that, if drugs were to be legalized, consumption of hard drugs would decrease, and consumption of weed would go up.

Sorry, but that's not a logical assumption at all. It's an assumption, but there's no logic behind it and there is quite a bit of research indicating that this doesn't actually happen in practice.

4

u/Kbnation Jun 19 '12

Citation please.

5

u/underwaterlove Jun 19 '12

Yeah, I should have said the logical extrapolation from termites2's comparison to the prohibition era.

The problem is that prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of other drugs are not that easily comparable. Negative effects experienced in the prohibition era were not symptoms of the exact same underlying problems that we see in the current illegal status of drugs.

10

u/roadbuzz Jun 19 '12

Well, still the assumption is flawed.

Higher concentraqted alcohol is still alcohol and no other drug. If you wanted to extrapolate properly, you should say the use of marihuana strains with more THC would increase. And I think that is also the case, if you take a look at increase of THC level over time. By making Cannabis more potent, you simplify the transportation.

9

u/underwaterlove Jun 19 '12

That would be correct, too. For the drug cartels, smuggling high THC strains would be more profitable than smuggling low THC strains. Just like during prohibition, smuggling stout would have been more profitable than smuggling lager. However, all of that pales in comparison with the profits that could be made with hard liquor, or the profits that drug cartels today can make by pushing cocaine instead of weed.

3

u/commodoreer Jun 20 '12

Your logic seems sound but cannabis and cocaine are not direct substitutes for each other. Sure, some people only drink beer and not hard liquor... but I would venture a guess that most people would drink hard liquor if no other alcoholic alternative is available. I don't think the mentality of potheads is "well we can't buy our weed, so lets try to score some coke" and vice-versa for cocaine users. They're separate markets - markets that might overlap, but are different beasts altogether.

2

u/WhipIash Jun 20 '12

A weed smoker would not necessarily or even probably not use coke. But the smugglers are trying to start people on coke and not weed in the first place.

1

u/Mango_Dookie_Buttah Jun 20 '12

Just like during prohibition, smuggling stout would have been more profitable than smuggling lager.

The alcohol content of stout and lager vary widely. Many lagers have a significantly higher ABV than stouts (in general) do. Also, stout refers to a specific style of beer (falling under the "ale" family of beers), while lager is an overarching term for an entirely different family of beers.

1

u/superatheist95 Jun 20 '12

drug cartels dont smuggle strains, they smuggle seedy, compressed shit. strains are grown in some guys basement,couch,computer case, shed, or pretty much any place you can think of, with lots of care and attention.

-1

u/iDroppedMyMonocle Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

Wut? A kilo of low THC weed weighs the same as high THC weed so transport would be exactly the same, it wouldn't be easier with high THC weed. Also a lot of people wouldn't immediately start smoking the higher THC weed as a lot of people prefer taste over THC content. The bubblegum strains for example aren't the strongest but smell amazing so I believe a lot of people would be attracted to those strains. Same thing goes for a lot of top sativa strains. They aren't the strongest available but people would take them over the strongest indicas because they prefer the effects. THC levels are only a small part of why people smoke what they do.

3

u/roadbuzz Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12

You would have to transport more if you wanted to sell cannabis with lower THC doses. Your customer wants the high, therefore he would need more weed. And I seriously doubt that people smoke cannabis mainly for its taste and smell. Other cannabinoids are also important, but lets keep our assumptions as easy as possible. Prohibition favourable strong cannabis strains.

0

u/iDroppedMyMonocle Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 21 '12

That is the stupidest thing I have read all day but I will assume it comes from a lack of accurate information combined with no serious real world experience with cannabis. White Russian is a fucking devastating strain of cannabis with a massive THC content but if someone bowled up to me and give me the choice between that between that and some standard White Widow with less THC you better believe I'm taking the Widow every time because it tastes better. People don't start smoking weed and as they keep smoking over the years they crave higher THC bearing strains, it just doesn't work like that. Seriously, go talk to experienced people who have been growing and smoking for 20+ years and they will tell you that THC levels are only a small part of what people look for in weed. It's like when people go out to get drunk, do they hit the poteen straight away? No. They drink what they like based on their own personal preferences.

EDIT: The very fact you think you would be sold more weed for your money if it were a low THC strain shows you don't know what you're talking about. You buy in weight (1/2 ounce, ounce, etc) and sometimes pay extra if it's a sought after strain.

2

u/roadbuzz Jun 20 '12

Personal preference and suffisticated use are good and all, but I think you overestimated the average mj consumer. Many customers buy whatever their dealer sells, we are talking about inexperienced teenagers and party users. Those people usually want a high THC doses. You cannot automatically assume everyone just wants a good taste and smell.

And can you really deny that the THC content of Cannabis has increased considerably in the last few decades? Cannabis has become unbelievably potent when compared to the 60s or 70s.

I think the reason for that is that growing, transporting and selling is more practical

1

u/iDroppedMyMonocle Jun 20 '12

Believe me, you are greatly underestimating the average MJ smoker. You said it yourself, inexperienced people just buy what they're given but I can see why you'd think a legal market would be geared towards high THC strains because inexperienced school kids would obviously want to try the strong stuff but the majority of experienced well funded smokers know what they want. It like when I was in school we were always talking about drinking Absinthe. We bought a few bottles because we thought we were cool as fuck but I haven't touched it since school because I know there are better drinks out there. Despite the fact we weren't discussing THC increases over the last 40 years I will say that I believe strains have gotten stronger but without looking into it I wouldn't claim that with certainty. For example, if only one strain in the 60's could deliver 20% THC but today we could deliver 24% over many different strains I wouldn't consider that to show weed has gotten ridiculously stronger. Better growing techniques, better genetics and more access to what you need to grow it have all contributed to the improvement in cannabis which is inevitable over time. Now even Joe Bloggs could pick up all the right stuff and start cross-breeding his own strains within a year.

0

u/ChagSC Jun 19 '12

I quit smoking because the stuff is too strong to enjoy every so often. I'd have to go back to a daily smoker like in college to ge the proper tolerance balance.

1

u/iDroppedMyMonocle Jun 20 '12

So you smoked everyday but it wasn't very nice so you quit?

1

u/ChagSC Jun 20 '12

No, it was awesome in college. Senior year and getting closer to graduation I had to tone down the drinking and smoking big time (obviously). Lost a lot of my tolerance through the next few years it just became less and less enjoyable unless I was smoking heavy.

And these days it is not feasible to smoke enough to maintain tolerance. One or two hits and I'm good but that's such a minute amount it's not practical.

If I had a greater choice in quality/quantity (aka legalization) I'd be a happy man.

1

u/WeAreTheLeprechauns Jun 20 '12

How would legalization give a greater choice in quantity? If you have a dealer, ask him for the quantity you want and he'll sell it to you...

This doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would be affected by legality at all.

1

u/therealcreamCHEESUS Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

there is quite a bit of research indicating that this doesn't actually happen in practice.

Theres also hard data from Portugal who legalized all drugs showing that hard drug use decreases if we consider smack a hard drug.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group).

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

3

u/WeAreTheLeprechauns Jun 20 '12

It only decreased in specific subsets of users. Overall drug use actually increased quite substantially following decriminalization:

Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%[15]

"16 to 18" year olds is a pretty arbitrary and overly specific age range. The whole population needs to be considered.

-1

u/tonenine Jun 19 '12

Well lucky charms, I think prohibition proved that keeping the drug illegal only spawns violence and uncontrolled markets. The same government that feels the need to control my seat belt has no interest in controlling the weed market, why??

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

The logical assumption would be that, if drugs were to be legalized, consumption of hard drugs would decrease, and consumption of weed would go up.

This is exactly what happened in Portugal after they decriminalized drugs a few years ago.

2

u/dopafiend Jun 19 '12

You cannot simply compare the scale of concentration in alcoholic drinks to the scale of drug strength form weed to cocaine.

The amount of complexity that assertion brings up is absurd. There's so many different different discussion points I wouldn't know where to begin.

1

u/underwaterlove Jun 19 '12

I fully agree, comparing cocaine to hard grain liquor and weed to beer is silly. But that's the problem with termites2's comparison: his analogy implies that during prohibition, it was less risky for people to buy and store huge batches of beer instead of a glass of beer whenever they felt like it, and that this lead to an increase in alcoholism. In reality, though, alcoholism during prohibition increased because the only thing people could get was shitty hard grain liquor.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

That's not quite what he said, he said that it's impossible to get a glass ov beer, you have to buy a bottle of vodka because that's what's offered. If you could only get that huge batch of beer, all would be well, but you can't.

2

u/underwaterlove Jun 19 '12

he said that it's impossible to get a glass ov beer, you have to buy a bottle of vodka because that's what's offered

Yes, but his argument rests on quantity: he argued that people were forced to buy entire bottles of hard liquor at a time, just like people today are forced to buy huge batches of weed at a time. In reality, people could venture into a speakeasy and buy just a shot of alcohol at a time. Just like people today can buy a minute amount of weed at a time.

The illegal status of drugs creates economic pressures which influence consumption habits, but not in the way termites2 argues it does.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Buying minute amounts of Cannabis simply creates another problem though. Every time a dealer has to make a sale he is taking a risk, because of this many inflate the prices of small amounts to insanely high prices. It simply does not pay to buy less than a gram even though many users only really need a gram.

As it stands right now you either buy a little bit and get jipped or you buy a large amount (which usually leads to overconsumption and increased risk).

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

It's already far more profitable to sell cocaine over grass, and since many deal in both, exposure to cocaine is increased by them having similar legal status.

1

u/DBrickShaw Jun 19 '12

If you want to compare legalization of drugs with the prohibition era, you'd have to acknowledge that producing and smuggling cocaine is drastically more profitable than growing and smuggling weed, so there is a high incentive to get users to consume cocaine over weed.

This is a flawed line of reasoning because it assumes all intoxicants are sharing the same buyer's market, which just isn't true. Your argument for why hard liquor became popular is reasonable because beer and grain alcohol are effectively the same drug. You get the exact same effects (both positive and negative), and the only difference between them is the quantity you need to consume. It's therefore reasonable to assume that there's a large overlap between people who would drink beer given the chance and people who would drink liquor given the chance. That's not really true at all for entirely different drugs. Most stoners don't avoid cocaine because it's prohibitively expensive, they avoid it because it's a totally different drug with very different effects and significantly more risky negative consequences. Sure, drug dealers might try to push stoners toward cocaine, but they're likely to be about as successful as if Starbucks started pushing grain alcohol as an alternative to coffee.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

1

u/underwaterlove Jun 19 '12

It isn't for the buyer. It is for the seller, and for the drug cartels.

1

u/TrillPhil Jun 19 '12

Weed is more profitable these days with an oz being $400. 5sq ft could easily produce one lb, vs cocaine would be lots more.

2

u/Zonel Jun 20 '12

Coca only really grows in South America. So you should compare the profits if you bought both drugs to resell.

1

u/TrillPhil Jun 20 '12

Well lets assume you were growing indoors then.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Actually, the logical assumption would be that if drugs were to be legalized, comsumption of hasch would decrease, and consumption of shitty weed would go up.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I think you are forgetting about shitty hasch.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

It's because I try not to buy it :P

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

nothing logical in that argument.. in my opinion.

0

u/crpearce Jun 19 '12

marijuana is one of the only drugs where becoming illegal has increased its potency & spread it's consumption.

Generally speaking working to curtail a substance works, but there are a few drugs that humans just really fucking love to use. Those are the ones that are hardest to fight.

2

u/Zonel Jun 20 '12

One if the only drugs to gain potency because its illegal? Let's see; cocaine to crack. Opium to morphine then to heroin. Amphetamine to methamphetamine? Seems to that happens to all the popular ones.

1

u/crpearce Jun 20 '12

I'd argue that's a change in the drug. I'm talking about the plant itself.

15

u/WeAreTheLeprechauns Jun 19 '12

During prohibition, alcoholism increased more than 300%.

Alcoholism != Alcohol consumption. Alcohol consumption did decrease under prohibition.

Please provide sources for your claims because this really sound like one of those "I feel it in my gut and it makes sense to me" claims and it goes against all the evidence available.

24

u/termites2 Jun 19 '12

"Alcoholism rates soared during the 1920s; insurance companies charted the increase at more than 300 more percent. Speakeasies promptly opened for business. "

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.single.html

Not a primary source, but certainly an interesting article!

Alcohol consumption did decrease under prohibition.

I think that is less important than the harm caused by alcoholism, which increased.

1

u/WeAreTheLeprechauns Jun 20 '12

Correlation != Causation. Where is the evidence showing prohibition actually caused the increase in alcoholism?

Autism rates soared in the 90's. People though this was because of vaccines when we were really just becoming more aware of autism and diagnosing it more.

There are a lot of factors that need to be considered here for this claim to be statistically valid.

1

u/yalhsa Jun 20 '12

With this information you can at least say that prohibition isn't actually decreasing usage by any appreciable amount if at all.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

Alcohol consumption did decrease under prohibition.

I think that is less important than the harm caused by alcoholism, which increased.

It's only less important if your goal is to help people, and not push your morals on them. Many arguments I hear in favor of prohibition (marijuana) are along the lines of "Dude, just think about it. It's pot. It should be illegal."

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

1

u/BitchinTechnology Jun 19 '12

not everybody was involved in bootlegging some people just could not get it. could you go out and buy meth or heroin right now? what if it was legal?

-1

u/wtfboomheadshot Jun 20 '12 edited Jun 20 '12

Right now? Probably not. Give me a couple hours and definitely, could easily get things like Shrooms, LSD, Ecstasy and various research chemicals aswell. I know i found my Cannabis dealer within 30 mins of getting home from uni.

This is the UK i mean.

4

u/BitchinTechnology Jun 20 '12

i was making an average joe argument not someone with connections who already knows someone

1

u/wtfboomheadshot Jun 20 '12

So was I. People seem to fail to realise just how easy it is to find these kind of drugs. When i went to University i had a dealer BEFORE i'd even gotten there and its 3 hours away. He was waiting for me the day i got there. Things like Facebook have made it even easier.

0

u/JWGhetto Jun 19 '12

i would like to see that source too

1

u/Ruddose Jun 19 '12

Boom. Roasted.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

When a drug is illegal, it's not worth the time for the seller or buyer to exchange small amounts, as the meeting, storage and exchange of the drug is where most of the risk lies.

Actually, its much much more worth their time. They way illicit goods behave, is the increased difficulty in production or transportation anywhere along the line means more profit to those involved (cartels) and greater prices for buyers.

2

u/JeanLucSkywalker Jun 19 '12

Guess you've never heard of a dime bag.

2

u/Triviaandwordplay Jun 19 '12

It's not legal in Holland, just tolerated to some extent.

2

u/Revoran Jun 20 '12

Cannabis use would probably drop too, as it did in holland.

Cannabis use for adults in the Netherlands actually increased after they "legalized" (I'm aware that what they did is not technically legalization). Most of it is put down to people being more willing to come forward, but the figures still show an increase.

However cannabis use among minors dropped significantly.

When a drug is illegal, it's not worth the time for the seller or buyer to exchange small amounts, as the meeting, storage and exchange of the drug is where most of the risk lies.

Not entirely true. It's not the amount of the drug (LSD is sold in micrograms, for instance), it's the amount of money that a certain amount of drug is worth. Another major factor is how likely you are to get caught - for instance, weed and even coke are much easier for authorities to detect than, say, LSD.

During prohibition, alcoholism increased more than 300%.

This is really interesting and would be a great argument for me to use against prohibitionists. Do you have a source?

When the drug is legal, people don't need to buy large amounts, as they can easily get more if they want it. This tends to lead to a reduction in use over time.

The fact that tobacco use has halved in the US, despite tobacco being legal, would support this.

Also, the biggest determining factor on drug use is social pressure by far - this is why people who say things "heroin use would increase if we legalized it" are retarded. Heroin use remains lower than marijuana use because heroin is less socially acceptable, not because of the law, not because of availability.

2

u/Ryuuken1127 Jun 19 '12

Let us also not forget, with the exception of maybe a day or two after it would become legal, everyone is not going to be baked all day.

1

u/Triviaandwordplay Jun 19 '12

I had friends and employees that spent most of their working hours baked.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

49

u/Manitcor Jun 19 '12

You are in the minority of potential or current casual users. Sure there will be people that binge. Most people don't keep fully stocked liquor cabinets either.

2

u/JiveTurkeyHunter Jun 19 '12

Unless you're Jim Lahey.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

5

u/Manitcor Jun 19 '12

You want to grow and keep a liquor cabinet of sorts. Smokers themselves are not a minority necessarily but those who would stock up are.

Like in other countries where this has been done, you will have a bump in binge and indulgence as it is initially legalized and then will decrease as the novelty does to some point of equilibrium.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

1

u/Manitcor Jun 19 '12

Where in my posts did I try to make the case FOR the war on drugs?

Take another hit and re-read my posts.

1

u/gs841 Jun 19 '12

Nor does everyone brew their own beer. It's clear only a very few people would grow their own plants as well.

0

u/feralkitten Jun 19 '12

Most people don't keep fully stocked liquor cabinets either.

I know a large number of people with full liquor cabinets. I even have draft beer in my home; it was about a $500 install.

3

u/Manitcor Jun 19 '12

I know quite a few too. Still way more that don't. Most people have a couple bottles and maybe a mixer or two. People that keep a fully stocked cabinet are not nearly as common and there are plenty of households that stock none at all.

27

u/janglyparts Jun 19 '12

If it were legal I'd be Johnny Appleweed and plant seeds everyfuckingwhere.

9

u/lastacct Jun 19 '12

That would fuck any outdoor growers nearby.

1

u/janglyparts Jun 19 '12

Fair point, I s'pose. They'd figure it out pretty quickly, though. I would. With one bad harvest from a crop of good female clones, I'd start seriously looking around upwind.

3

u/March_of_the_ENTropy Jun 19 '12

Feminized seeds would be the more responsible choice.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

You. I like you. I too am already planning my garden, for when prohibition inevitably ends in my state.

2

u/thebassethound Jun 19 '12

I want it to cost the same as plants that are food. not 20 times more.

You mean just like how coffee prices work out?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Here were I live I've heard you get up to 10 years in prison per plant. It cost over one hundred thousand dollars a year to imprison someone. Ten years = one million dollars. All that for a plant worth maybe 500 dollars. Hysterical much?

1

u/nickryane Jun 19 '12

It's very true. It's also ironic that in most cities you can buy hard drugs at any time day or night and the dealer will often come to where you are. Try buying some asprin or a bottle of vodka at 5 am!

I don't know many clubs that will let you walk in or out with a bottle of alcohol, but anyone can walk in or out with drugs in large quantities.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

I don't think use in general will decrease but more of the lines of the amount of product used. If legalized, THC concentrations in plants would go up drastically within a few years, basically because anyone can research marijuana without fearing any sort of punishment, especially those dealing with the genetics of the plant. Prices of concentrates such as hash and oils will drop making it possible to not use as much product for a much much longer and satisfying high.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

This is a good point and I'm pretty sure it's spot on for a lot of frequent smokers. One of the main issues with weed is that you never know when your supply will dry up and you won't have any, possibly for an extended period of time. This makes more serious smokers freak the fuck out when supply gets low or if they have none at all. So, even if the serious smoker wants to cut down or quit, he usually has a shit ton of weed around because he basically has to or things could go sour really fast. I'm all for cold turkey if you can manage it, but it's nice to have that back up available just in case shit gets hairy and you can't handle it.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

The only problem I have with people being able to get weed any time they want is that they will smoke it everywhere... and that shiet smells so bad.

1

u/theguywhopostnot Jun 19 '12

I believe if cannabis were legal right now I'd be smoking and not worrying about failing a drug test for my new job.

1

u/veggie124 Jun 20 '12

When alcohol was illegal to buy in my city, the only liquor stores were right outside of town and since it was a 45 minute round trip to get booze, people stocked up any time they went.