I'll just leave this here....

[East Coast Hustle]

Fair enough. And the carrying concealed charge (while in my case it was only a pocket knife and the cop obviously just felt like being a dick given I told him I had a pocket knife before he started the search) seems like a much more serious crime and yet it has carried literally no repercussions whatsoever on the rest of my life.

[Phox]

On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf

[BabylonHoruv]

Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. 

I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.

Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?

Not at all.  Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education.  Though it's not a direct one to one.  The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated.  For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely.  So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth. 

It becomes hypocritical when mom or dad get charged with corruption of a minor or some other fun crime if it is discovered that the kid called for a ride and mom or dad didn't refer the child for drug counseling.  I'm not saying you advocate this but I am saying that there are plenty of places in which if a parent knows their child is using drugs and does not seek intervention they are considered an unfit parent.

Harm reduction is way bigger for IV drugs than pot as far as education is concerned (at least from what I have seen) largely just because the decision to use a clean needle and basic needle safety can reduce a lot of health harm while most of the harm surrounding marijuana is legal, rather than health harm and an educator receiving government funds can't exactly go and tell kids the best way to minimize legal penalties. 

[trix]

On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf

I have an armed burglary felony conviction and had no trouble getting FAFSA.  But had I been caught with an oz of pot, goddamn better not let me become educated!

[AFK]

On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf

I have an armed burglary felony conviction and had no trouble getting FAFSA.  But had I been caught with an oz of pot, goddamn better not let me become educated!

Well, technically, (not stating I condone or endorse this), it just means the government isn't going to help you pay for that education.  It doesn't keep you from applying.  (Again, I'm not supporting that but it isn't precisely the same thing as being completely shut out of further education)  Though, I'm sure many colleges would look at that as a black mark, whether or not you are going to apply for financial aid.  Though, if you can slam dunk a basketball I bet they'd look the other way AND find a way for your education to be paid. 

[AFK]

It becomes hypocritical when mom or dad get charged with corruption of a minor or some other fun crime if it is discovered that the kid called for a ride and mom or dad didn't refer the child for drug counseling.

How often does that happen?  Mom and Dad will get the book thrown at them if they host a party where drugs are involved, but if they are going to pick up a child because they've been smoking marijuana, drinking, they aren't going to get arrested for that.  Indeed, the police should be thanking them for keeping them off the road and out of trouble. 

I'm not saying you advocate this but I am saying that there are plenty of places in which if a parent knows their child is using drugs and does not seek intervention they are considered an unfit parent.

Can you cite some examples?  I can see parents who are actively using in front of their children and neglecting their children being deemed unfit but I'd like to see some examples of where regualr parents were deemed unfit parents simply because a child was using drugs.  Kids can be very difficult to get into treatment, so I really don't see how anyone is going to deem them unfit just because a kid won't go to treatment. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf

I have an armed burglary felony conviction and had no trouble getting FAFSA.  But had I been caught with an oz of pot, goddamn better not let me become educated!

Well, technically, (not stating I condone or endorse this), it just means the government isn't going to help you pay for that education.  It doesn't keep you from applying.  (Again, I'm not supporting that but it isn't precisely the same thing as being completely shut out of further education)  Though, I'm sure many colleges would look at that as a black mark, whether or not you are going to apply for financial aid.  Though, if you can slam dunk a basketball I bet they'd look the other way AND find a way for your education to be paid.  

For the most part, rich kids aren't the ones getting drug convictions. So, sure, if you're wealthy enough you can pay for your own education. That doesn't really address the problem, which is that functionally speaking, drug convictions are preventing people from reasonable, practical, affordable access to education and betterment.

[The Rev]

The entire argument of pot being so harmful on a developing brain bit leaves me scratching my head. I remember when I was in school they used to show us movies about the side effects of pot on the unborn. The old "making their faces slide off" bit.

Some pretty intelligent and highly functional people inhabit this board and my guess is that more than a few have and still do smoke pot. I wonder how often when experts are looking for a "reason" for a mental disorder they simply stop thinking when they discover drug use. I wonder how many times early childhood environment, (drinking water, blunt head trauma, etc) are ignored because drug use was discovered.

Experts are commonly proven to be wrong in practically all fields. I am certainly no expert, but I can think, and I was thinking about this topic last night as I was drinking myself silly enough to go to bed and sleep. See, my alcohol use has been described by my doctor as self medicating, it is better for me than the Ambien, which I had to take myself off of. It also masks the side effects of my other meds to allow me to sleep, and it's even much cheaper than many of my other drugs.

Of course, if pot were legal here, even medically, one or two hits would even allow me to stop drinking so heavily. But to some it is far better for me to have to do it the way that I am, simply because some kid may look at me and think, well, he can do it, why can't I? Gods forbid their parents be expected to explain the difference or to educate their spoiled brats. No, we must create a "system" designed to correct the "problem". We must ignore the facts, the real world facts, that kids experiment. They experiment with sex, adventure, mind altering substances, so many things. We must ignore that this is nothing new in the history of mankind.

As humans we need, in the opinion of some, to be taken care of because we have no idea of what is best for us, and we certainly do not have the ability to learn and grow from experiences. Therefore we must not have experiences, we should meekly accept what we are told and how we are told to act. We should at all costs be normal, fit in. We should never make ripples or question the experts, after all, they really do know what's best for all of us. A lot like religion.

Pot is often called a gateway drug. Now there's a real catchy phrase, isn't it? I smoked pot as a kid, a lot of it. I never tried cocaine, heroine or so many other drugs. Neither did most of my friends, in fact we often did our best to keep others from that poison. I suspect that cocaine is abused with alcohol far more often than it is with pot. At least in my real world experiences. I did try LSD 4 times, oddly I found that I hated it, being so badly out of control of myself like that.

Yes, having no child harmed by any of this is desirable, not very realistic though, and cruelly enforced laws to create that Utopia simply do not work. They have never worked, they will never work. At the foundation of every Utopia is a large pile of bones from the sacrificial lambs used to try to create that false illusion of the Utopia. A kid that smokes pot a couple of times a week doesn't need a "program", they need to be allowed to grow up.

A lot of the so called research from both sides of this issue is begun from a biased or emotional or both standpoint that leaves much of it suspect.

Horses, cats, dogs and cars hurt kids. Falling off of bicycles hurts kids, hell, falling off of the damn doorstep hurts kids. The food pyramid outline hurts kids. People cannot be protected from life, not even kids. I do not want to be drugged to the point of stupidity and kept in a nice soft room so I will be safe, in their heart of hearts, neither do the vast majority of people.

Sure, some kids (and adults as well) do need help for substance abuse, go help them. What we have to be careful of is not labeling a kid who looks at a joint or a bottle of booze as a substance abuser. Abusers normally exhibit plenty of signs and can be helped early on.

Back to your regularly scheduled dogpiling.

[Triple Zero]

Some pretty intelligent and highly functional people inhabit this board and my guess is that more than a few have and still do smoke pot.

They all probably cut down to a very reasonable level as they got older though.

I wonder how often when experts are looking for a "reason" for a mental disorder they simply stop thinking when they discover drug use. I wonder how many times early childhood environment, (drinking water, blunt head trauma, etc) are ignored because drug use was discovered.

Woww, what's with your drinking water then?

I was thinking about this topic last night as I was drinking myself silly enough to go to bed and sleep. See, my alcohol use has been described by my doctor as self medicating, it is better for me than the Ambien, which I had to take myself off of. It also masks the side effects of my other meds to allow me to sleep, and it's even much cheaper than many of my other drugs.

Of course, if pot were legal here, even medically, one or two hits would even allow me to stop drinking so heavily.

See that's just fucked up right there. Knowing about what you (and probably many others like you) must be going through, it almost makes me wonder whether it's worth the possible potential risk to children, maybe. Of course, children are the future and all, but still?

But to some it is far better for me to have to do it the way that I am, simply because some kid may look at me and think, well, he can do it, why can't I? Gods forbid their parents be expected to explain the difference or to educate their spoiled brats. No, we must create a "system" designed to correct the "problem". We must ignore the facts, the real world facts, that kids experiment. They experiment with sex, adventure, mind altering substances, so many things. We must ignore that this is nothing new in the history of mankind.

As humans we need, in the opinion of some, to be taken care of because we have no idea of what is best for us, and we certainly do not have the ability to learn and grow from experiences. Therefore we must not have experiences, we should meekly accept what we are told and how we are told to act. We should at all costs be normal, fit in. We should never make ripples or question the experts, after all, they really do know what's best for all of us. A lot like religion.

I suspect that cocaine is abused with alcohol far more often than it is with pot.

Which is weird, because it basically undoes the effect of alcohol, the one (single) time I tried it (ever--especially after Roger's story).

One thing though, I'm agreeing with you but saying things like:

Experts are commonly proven to be wrong in practically all fields.

Isn't going to score you much points. Especially when a bunch of people here are experts that have to deal with non-experts being wrong in very painful ways. Just sayin' as a friend

[The Rev]

Some pretty intelligent and highly functional people inhabit this board and my guess is that more than a few have and still do smoke pot.

They all probably cut down to a very reasonable level as they got older though.

I wonder how often when experts are looking for a "reason" for a mental disorder they simply stop thinking when they discover drug use. I wonder how many times early childhood environment, (drinking water, blunt head trauma, etc) are ignored because drug use was discovered.

Woww, what's with your drinking water then?

I was thinking about this topic last night as I was drinking myself silly enough to go to bed and sleep. See, my alcohol use has been described by my doctor as self medicating, it is better for me than the Ambien, which I had to take myself off of. It also masks the side effects of my other meds to allow me to sleep, and it's even much cheaper than many of my other drugs.

Of course, if pot were legal here, even medically, one or two hits would even allow me to stop drinking so heavily.

See that's just fucked up right there. Knowing about what you (and probably many others like you) must be going through, it almost makes me wonder whether it's worth the possible potential risk to children, maybe. Of course, children are the future and all, but still?

But to some it is far better for me to have to do it the way that I am, simply because some kid may look at me and think, well, he can do it, why can't I? Gods forbid their parents be expected to explain the difference or to educate their spoiled brats. No, we must create a "system" designed to correct the "problem". We must ignore the facts, the real world facts, that kids experiment. They experiment with sex, adventure, mind altering substances, so many things. We must ignore that this is nothing new in the history of mankind.

As humans we need, in the opinion of some, to be taken care of because we have no idea of what is best for us, and we certainly do not have the ability to learn and grow from experiences. Therefore we must not have experiences, we should meekly accept what we are told and how we are told to act. We should at all costs be normal, fit in. We should never make ripples or question the experts, after all, they really do know what's best for all of us. A lot like religion.

I suspect that cocaine is abused with alcohol far more often than it is with pot.

Which is weird, because it basically undoes the effect of alcohol, the one (single) time I tried it (ever--especially after Roger's story).

One thing though, I'm agreeing with you but saying things like:

Experts are commonly proven to be wrong in practically all fields.

Isn't going to score you much points. Especially when a bunch of people here are experts that have to deal with non-experts being wrong in very painful ways. Just sayin' as a friend

I would certainly agree that they have cut down to reasonable levels in most cases.

We have brain eating bugs in warm water in places out here. Signs warn against putting your head in the water, so swimming is advised against.

I suppose that children are indeed the future. I worry about the future if those children are so protected that they gain no real life experience to go along with a formal education.

I did not know that about cocaine.

Yeah, I suspect some experts will call me out on that, but the simple fact is they are just people, taught by other people, and so on. They collectively teach from others research, which if faulty only makes things worse.

[AFK]

Hmm, that's a rather general statement that you can apply to pretty much any area of science.  Global warming scientists teach other up and coming global warming scientists from research.  Same with astrophysicists, geneticists, doctors learn from evidence-based practices, etc., etc,.

So in the end where does that leave us?  I think there is merit in having a healthy skepticism in any body of information, but it would seem to me that it is more useful to offer specific refutations to that which we think may be wrong, otherwise, we don't really go anywhere do we? 

It's like the climate change deniers who say that's all a big fraud.  Okay, so you think it's wrong.  How do you know?  What is the counter evidence that climate change isn't real.  Or maybe they say it isn't man-made despite the science that suggests it is.  Okay, so what is the evidence that suggests it is just a natural cycle? 

Obviously, from my perspective, I think there is a healthy body of science behind substance abuse prevention and substance abuse treatment.  The DSM criteria for diagnosing mental health and other behavioral health disorders is all based on research.  The ASAM criteria for determining needed levels of treatment are science based.  The risk and protective ideas for preventing substance abuse are based on peer-reviewed science. 

It is certainly possible, nay likely, as the years go on and we do more research that science will be refined and modified.  But the science, thus far, has allowed us to implement strategies that have produced results.  The environmental work that is done in substance abuse prevention is science based and those strategies have lead to, until just recently, steady declines in youth substance abuse across the country.  It's hard for me to chalk that up to pure coincidence.  Indeed, we are now seeing upticks in use as the funding for substance abuse prevention has taken a nose-dive.  Programs have gone by the wayside.  Professionals have had jobs eliminated and forced to move into different fields.  It's getting tougher and tougher to make an impact because of the funding reality and I have no doubts whatsoever that is why, along with the shitty economy, why we are seeing rates start to go up again. 

So I think the science is there and the science works.  But it can only work as well as we allow it to work.  We need more funding.  To quote some guy form Star Wars, "We need more men." 

[The Rev]

Hmm, that's a rather general statement that you can apply to pretty much any area of science.  Global warming scientists teach other up and coming global warming scientists from research.  Same with astrophysicists, geneticists, doctors learn from evidence-based practices, etc., etc,.

So in the end where does that leave us?  I think there is merit in having a healthy skepticism in any body of information, but it would seem to me that it is more useful to offer specific refutations to that which we think may be wrong, otherwise, we don't really go anywhere do we? 

It's like the climate change deniers who say that's all a big fraud.  Okay, so you think it's wrong.  How do you know?  What is the counter evidence that climate change isn't real.  Or maybe they say it isn't man-made despite the science that suggests it is.  Okay, so what is the evidence that suggests it is just a natural cycle? 

Obviously, from my perspective, I think there is a healthy body of science behind substance abuse prevention and substance abuse treatment.  The DSM criteria for diagnosing mental health and other behavioral health disorders is all based on research.  The ASAM criteria for determining needed levels of treatment are science based.  The risk and protective ideas for preventing substance abuse are based on peer-reviewed science. 

It is certainly possible, nay likely, as the years go on and we do more research that science will be refined and modified.  But the science, thus far, has allowed us to implement strategies that have produced results.  The environmental work that is done in substance abuse prevention is science based and those strategies have lead to, until just recently, steady declines in youth substance abuse across the country.  It's hard for me to chalk that up to pure coincidence.  Indeed, we are now seeing upticks in use as the funding for substance abuse prevention has taken a nose-dive.  Programs have gone by the wayside.  Professionals have had jobs eliminated and forced to move into different fields.  It's getting tougher and tougher to make an impact because of the funding reality and I have no doubts whatsoever that is why, along with the shitty economy, why we are seeing rates start to go up again. 

So I think the science is there and the science works.  But it can only work as well as we allow it to work.  We need more funding.  To quote some guy form Star Wars, "We need more men." 

Never said all research was wrong.

Care to address any of the other points I tried to make?

Everybody needs more funding. The money isn't there because all the kids you save from drugs are being fed to the Middle East.

[The Rev]

The "Just Say No" generation was often told by parents and teachers that intelligent people didn't use drugs.   Turns out, the adults may have been wrong.

A new British study finds children with high IQs are more likely to use drugs as adults than people who score low on IQ tests as children.  The data come from the 1970 British Cohort Study, which has been following thousands of people over decades.  The kids' IQs were tested at the ages of 5, 10 and 16.  The study also asked about drug use and looked at education and other socioeconomic factors.  Then when participants turned 30, they were asked whether they had used drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin in the past year.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/high-iq-linked-to-drug-use/?hpt=hp_t2

[AFK]

Yes, that has been a long and pervasive myth that only stupid poor people do drugs.  And of course it is patently false and one I certainly try to combat whenever I get a chance.  In fact, I did this focus group with some county jail inmates regarding substance abuse issues.  One of the questions I asked them was about the difference in drug use between poor and the rich.  Their response was essentially is that the rich kids will party just as hard but can afford better quality stuff. 

So yes, I definitely agree that there is no link between drug use and IQ.  More often than not I think it is linked to emotional qualities rather than intelligent qualities.  But the notion of EQ, is a bit newer and a harder thing to measure. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. 

I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.

Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?

Not at all.  Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education.  Though it's not a direct one to one.  The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated.  For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely.  So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth. 

Again, you evaded the question. I'll make your hypocrisy a little more clear, since you seem to have trouble noticing it:

Roger argued that encroaching on all adults' personal freedom is not justified merely because a minority of bad parents do not prevent their marijuana from ending up in their kids hands. You criticized him for holding an "all or nothing" model. But when it comes to your reasoning, you stated that, "I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse." You don't see this as deeply hypocritical?

Why is it unacceptable for your opponent to hold an "all or nothing" point of view in terms of violating the majority of responsible adults' personal freedom, but it is somehow perfectly fine for you to maintain a "zero-tolerance" model in terms of increases in pot use amongst youth?