In the past few years, Colorado-based activist Mason Tvert has taken the notion of comparing marijuana to alcohol and used it to great success, first in organizing college students around equalizing campus penalties for marijuana and underage drinking infractions (marijuana offenses are typically punished more severely), then in running a successful legalization initiative in Denver in 2005. Tvert and his organization, SAFER (Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation), continue to hammer away at marijuana prohibition, and now, in collaboration with NORML analyst Paul Armentano and MPP director for state campaigns Steve Fox, he has taken his "marijuana is safer" campaign to a new level -- and, hopefully, to a new and broader audience.

Regular readers of the Chronicle may not expect to learn a lot that they didn't know already, but they will likely be surprised, especially when it comes to the deleterious effects of alcohol. Did you know about the nasty effects of acetaldehyde? I didn't. It's what you get when you metabolize ethanol (alcohol), and it's carcinogenic and damages internal organs. Because it is so damaging, the body breaks it down into acetate, but if you're drinking at the rate of more than a drink an hour, you're body starts lagging behind. Something to keep in mind the next time someone invites you to join a drinking contest.

Similarly, you may share the general conviction that alcohol use can lead to violence, disease, crime, and accidents, but "Marijuana Is Safer" offers up the hard numbers -- complete with footnotes. Here's just one hard number: 35,000. That's the number of deaths each year attributed to chronic alcohol consumption. We all know what the number of deaths attributed to chronic use of the chronic is, don't we? That's right, zero.

Armentano, Fox and Tvert offer a mix of history, science, medicine, media critique, and just plain straight talk as they survey the history of alcohol and marijuana use in America, discuss the differing attitudes toward the two drugs, explain the rise of marijuana prohibition, and, most centrally, compare and contrast the effects of the two drugs on individual consumers and society as a whole.

They also dissect the arguments that legalizers have used -- so far, unsuccessfully -- to try to end marijuana prohibition. While those arguments are perfectly valid, the coauthors argue that they cannot counter the objection of people who might otherwise be persuaded: Why should we legalize another vice?

Naturally enough, Armentano, Fox and Tvert have the answer: "We would not be adding a vice; we would be allowing adults the option to choose a less harmful alternative for relaxation and recreation," they write.

They also provide the "money quotes" for several other skeptical responses to a legalization pitch, all designed to highlight the comparison of alcohol and marijuana. And these three are extremely well-positioned to know what to say; all three have been engaging in this conversation for years.

The coauthors also make a compelling argument that the "marijuana is safer" approach is a winner precisely because it forces listeners to think about alcohol and what it does -- something that all Americans know quite a bit about even if they don't drink. The comparison of marijuana and alcohol brings the discussion down from lofty abstractions about freedom and liberty to real world experiences with America's most popular drugs.

The "marijuana is safer" approach works just fine for marijuana, but potentially subverts broader anti-prohibitionist politics. It is difficult to imagine an argument for drug legalization based on "methamphetamine is safer" or "heroin is safer." It also effectively throws up a wall between "soft" marijuana and "hard" other drugs, abandoning broader drug legalization for freeing the weed alone. But perhaps "abandoning" is the wrong word. After all, Armentano and Fox work for marijuana reform organizations -- not drug reform organizations -- and Tvert's work all along has been about marijuana.

But possible unhelpful side-effects for broader anti-prohibitionism aside, "Marijuana Is Safer" is extremely worthwhile. This is a book you can hand to your mother or your teacher or your preacher and provide him or her with a nice framework for looking at marijuana -- one that by its inexorable comparative logic leads to the inescapable conclusion that marijuana should be legalized.

And for those readers with an interest in activism, this book needs to be on your bookshelf. It's full of handy, well-documented facts, it's got the answers to the questions you're likely to hear, and it's even got a how-to activism section at the back. I guarantee that if you own this book, it's going to be very well-thumbed before very long.

Last week, 136 people died in the Indian state of Gujarat after drinking tainted alcohol, and the incident has stirred debate over the state's alcohol prohibition policy, in existence since 1960. One of India's "liquor barons" has invited the state government to do away with prohibition, and the state government has invited him to shut up about it.

moonshine still (courtesy Hagley Library)

It's not the first time contaminated black market alcohol has killed people in Gujarat. And as Gujarat officials were quick to point out, moonshine deaths also occur in Indian states without alcohol prohibition. In a Monday statement, Gujarat government spokesperson Jaynarayan Vyas noted that tainted alcohol had killed 31 people in Kerala in October 2000, 10 were killed and four blinded by bad hooch in Bhubaneswar in February of this year, 13 people died in of bad booze in Kolkata in May 2008, and 142 people in Karnataka had died from illicit liquor over the course of last year.

[Ed: Deaths from tainted alcohol in states that don't have prohibition are comparable to those in Gujarat, only because people in those states have access to alcoholic beverages that were legally produced, then smuggled into their states. If alcohol prohibition were to become more widespread, or nationwide, legally produced alcohol would become a scarcer commodity, and tainted alcohol would likely cause proportionally many more deaths in places like Kerala or Kolkata or Karnataka than it does today.]

Still, Vijay Mallya, chairman of the UB Group, India's largest liquor conglomerate, couldn't resist taking the opportunity to jab at the state's political leadership for its adherence to prohibitionist policies. Mallya offered to help the state craft a "responsible alcoholic beverages policy" in a statement cited in the Hindustan Times. "The deaths are not only tragic but should serve as a wake-up call to our political hypocrites. [Gujarat Chief Minister] Narendra Modi knows full well that every brand of alcohol is available in Gujarat," Mallya said. "The farce of prohibition, which cannot be enforced, leads to illegal, unhygienic and unsupervised production of deadly cocktails which claim innocent lives. It is time that political masters face reality in the interests of people's health," he added.

Minister Modi was not amused. "Many elements are giving the tragic incident political color and are trying to ruin the peaceful atmosphere in Gujarat," he said. "My government is sincere about eliminating the vice of illicit liquor."

State Health Minister Jay Narayan Vyas also suggested that Mallya butt out. "This is an internal matter of the Gujarat government and Mr. Mallya should avoid making suggestions on what should be done in Gujarat," Vyas told reporters in Gandhinagar.

Early this week, the Gujarat government was standing firm. "There is no question of any rethink on easing or lifting the prohibition laws," Vyas said on Monday. "The government is committed to implementing the prohibition laws for the peace, prosperity and security of the people of Gujarat."

Indian Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss Wednesday called for alcohol prohibition, saying booze is the mother of all health problems. Ramadoss urged states to introduce prohibition and urged the creation of a national prohibitionist alcohol policy.

More young people are using alcohol, Ramadoss warned, citing statistics showing that the age of drinkers at the initiation of alcohol consumption had dropped from 28 to 13 ½ in recent years. He also blamed alcohol for rising death tolls from chronic disease.

"The four major risk factors which are directly or indirectly responsible for chronic non-communicable diseases are -- tobacco use, alcohol use, physical inactivity and unhealthy diet," Ramadoss said. "We need a national alcohol policy," Ramadoss said, urging states to introduce prohibition.

The minister added that so far only the states of Jammu & Kashmir and Gujarat had enforced prohibition. Gujarat, the birthplace of Gandhi, whose preaching of abstention continues to carry great weight, enforced alcohol prohibition as soon as Indian gained its independence from Britain in 1947.

Prohibitionist sentiment has historically been strongest in India's Northwest, where there are higher levels of alcohol and substance use and strong anti-liquor movements. States in other parts of India, such as the south, have since independence embraced partial prohibitions -- either days without drinking or banning of a particular beverage, usually arrack, a concoction made from sugar cane, fruit, or the sap of coconut palms.

Prohibitionist sentiment, however, has weakened in recent years, especially since India removed trade barriers in the early 1990s. Even in Gujarat, the state government now has crafted exemptions for economic development zones in an effort to boost foreign investment and job creation.

It looks like Mr. Ramadoss is fighting a losing battle.