So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[AFK]

This is from the journal Pediatrics.  This is peer reviewed research.  Here is what it says about the potential impact of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.  I've bolded items for emphasis particularly items I've mentioned in this thread:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS

Although efforts to legalize marijuana are focused solely on adults (no one is proposing that use or possession of marijuana by adolescents should be legalized), any change in its legal status could nonetheless have an effect on adolescents. Alcohol (illegal for those under 21 years of age) and tobacco products (illegal under 18 years of age) are nonetheless the psychoactive substances most widely abused by adolescents. During 2003, 47.5% of 12th graders reported using alcohol in the past 30 days and 24.4% reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days.31

Legalization of marijuana could result in advertising campaigns for its use, some of which might be directed toward adolescents. Control measures to prevent advertising to young people, as recent experience demonstrates, may be difficult to implement. As revealed during the course of the Comprehensive Tobacco Settlement negotiations, tobacco companies systematically have marketed their products to young people even while disavowing any efforts to do so. Even after the Comprehensive Tobacco Settlement was implemented (which prohibited any youth-oriented advertising), tobacco companies continued marketing to young people. A recent study noted that cigarette advertising in youth-oriented magazines increased by $54 million after the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.32 Another study showed that advertising of youth brands of cigarettes (defined as those smoked by >5% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in 1998) in youth-oriented magazines increased from 1995 to 2000, as did expenditures for adult brands in youth-oriented magazines.33 The Supreme Court recently struck down several Massachusetts regulations aimed at protecting schoolchildren from tobacco advertising (including bans on tobacco ads within 1000 feet of a school or playground). "The state's interest in preventing underage tobacco use is substantial and even compelling, but it is no less true that the sale and use of tobacco by adults is a legal activity," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the majority. She continued, "... tobacco retailers and manufacturers have an interest in conveying truthful information about their products to adults, and adults have a corresponding interest in receiving truthful information about tobacco products."34 Presumably, these same interests in regard to advertising for marijuana products also would be protected.

DiFranza35 has demonstrated that both the states and the federal government are poorly enforcing the Synar Amendment, which requires states to control the sale of tobacco products to those younger than 18 years. Legalization of marijuana for adults but not adolescents would necessitate additional law enforcement burdens on a system that currently is not meeting its regulatory obligations.

Similarly, the alcoholic-beverage industry continues to portray drinking in terms that clearly appeal to young people. Drinking is associated with being sexy, popular, and fun and as an ideal means to "break the ice" in social settings.36 These portrayals are extremely enticing to adolescents, who are in the process of developing their own identities as well as refining their social skills. One can speculate that distributors of marijuana quickly would recognize the profitability of portraying marijuana in a similar manner (thereby maximizing sales), all the while protesting that their marketing attempts seek only to induce adults to change brands.

How adolescents would perceive a change in the legal status of marijuana, even if only for adults, also is difficult to determine. However, recent studies have shown that prevalence of adolescent marijuana use is inversely proportional to the perceived risk associated with use (Fig 1).37 The proportion of 12th graders who reported using marijuana in the past 30 days peaked in 1978 and again in 1997, exactly the years in which the perceived risk of regular use was at its lowest.

Some research suggests that legal sanctions may influence the initial decision to use drugs and that this influence diminishes as drug use by individuals progresses.38 If so, it is the youngest adolescents (those who have not yet tried marijuana or are in the experimentation phase) who would be affected most by changes in marijuana laws. Age at first use is, in turn, a risk factor for problem use in the future.39

Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

Parental drug use is an important influence on adolescents' drug use.40 Recent data indicate that easy household access to illicit substances is associated with greater risk of marijuana use among both younger and older adolescents.41 Some adults may choose not to use marijuana (however they may feel about the law), because the potential risk of criminal sanctions outweighs any perceived benefit from using the drug. With the demise of legal sanctions against use, some parents may choose to begin using marijuana, acting as an important new source of exposure for their adolescents. Parental use of marijuana in the last year is associated with their adolescent's use during the same period.42

Availability of marijuana, which might increase if the drug were legalized, clearly has been shown to affect adolescents' use. Adolescents who have been offered marijuana are 7 times more likely to use it than are those who have not been offered marijuana. Similarly, those who report that marijuana is easy to get are approximately 2.5 times more likely to use it than those who consider it hard to get.43

Marijuana is cheap and easy to produce; if it were legalized, its price likely would decrease below current levels. Work by Pacula et al44 in the United States and Williams45 in Australia demonstrates clearly that a decrease in the price of marijuana is associated with a significant increase in the prevalence of use among adolescents.

Some advocates for the legalization of marijuana argue that it is safer than alcohol. They suggest that increased use of marijuana by young people might have a positive effect if some adolescents switched from alcohol to marijuana (a substitution effect). This theory cannot be supported by recent studies on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use that incorporated the price of marijuana into the analysis. These studies conclude that an increase in use of marijuana by adolescents would result in an increased use of alcohol (ie, that the 2 drugs are economic complements).46

From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

I don't know how more clearer it can be what the ramifications of legalizing marijuana would be for a sizable amount of our youth.  Maybe some of you are fine with that outcome and willing to take that roll of the die.  Knowing this information, seeing this first hand in real people, it just simply is not an option for me.  

[P3nT4gR4m]

I don't care if it's peer reviewed research or not. It's abject bullshit based on speculation, opinion and the fear of the cannabis boogeyman.

This especially caught my eye

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS
Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

I call bullshit. As an adolescent laws were broken for status. I shit you not - if hash had been legal when I was in school most if not all of my peers would never have considered taking it. It was the fact that it was illegal that appealed to us.

But fair enough. You've stated you're happy enough trading some rights for some shiny, happy, plucked out a beurocrats ass - statistics. I'll agree to differ. Given that I don't rely on the legislation to tablecrumb me my liberty, it matters not a jot to me anyway. Good luck with whatever the next piece of "peer reviewed research" comes up with. I believe it's war with Iran next - enjoy your safety^tm

[East Coast Hustle]

This is from the journal Pediatrics.  This is peer reviewed research.  Here is what it says about the potential impact of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.  I've bolded items for emphasis particularly items I've mentioned in this thread:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS

Although efforts to legalize marijuana are focused solely on adults (no one is proposing that use or possession of marijuana by adolescents should be legalized), any change in its legal status could nonetheless have an effect on adolescents. Alcohol (illegal for those under 21 years of age) and tobacco products (illegal under 18 years of age) are nonetheless the psychoactive substances most widely abused by adolescents. During 2003, 47.5% of 12th graders reported using alcohol in the past 30 days and 24.4% reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days.31

Legalization of marijuana could result in advertising campaigns for its use, some of which might be directed toward adolescents. Control measures to prevent advertising to young people, as recent experience demonstrates, may be difficult to implement. As revealed during the course of the Comprehensive Tobacco Settlement negotiations, tobacco companies systematically have marketed their products to young people even while disavowing any efforts to do so. Even after the Comprehensive Tobacco Settlement was implemented (which prohibited any youth-oriented advertising), tobacco companies continued marketing to young people. A recent study noted that cigarette advertising in youth-oriented magazines increased by $54 million after the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.32 Another study showed that advertising of youth brands of cigarettes (defined as those smoked by >5% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in 1998) in youth-oriented magazines increased from 1995 to 2000, as did expenditures for adult brands in youth-oriented magazines.33 The Supreme Court recently struck down several Massachusetts regulations aimed at protecting schoolchildren from tobacco advertising (including bans on tobacco ads within 1000 feet of a school or playground). "The state's interest in preventing underage tobacco use is substantial and even compelling, but it is no less true that the sale and use of tobacco by adults is a legal activity," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the majority. She continued, "... tobacco retailers and manufacturers have an interest in conveying truthful information about their products to adults, and adults have a corresponding interest in receiving truthful information about tobacco products."34 Presumably, these same interests in regard to advertising for marijuana products also would be protected.

DiFranza35 has demonstrated that both the states and the federal government are poorly enforcing the Synar Amendment, which requires states to control the sale of tobacco products to those younger than 18 years. Legalization of marijuana for adults but not adolescents would necessitate additional law enforcement burdens on a system that currently is not meeting its regulatory obligations.

Similarly, the alcoholic-beverage industry continues to portray drinking in terms that clearly appeal to young people. Drinking is associated with being sexy, popular, and fun and as an ideal means to "break the ice" in social settings.36 These portrayals are extremely enticing to adolescents, who are in the process of developing their own identities as well as refining their social skills. One can speculate that distributors of marijuana quickly would recognize the profitability of portraying marijuana in a similar manner (thereby maximizing sales), all the while protesting that their marketing attempts seek only to induce adults to change brands.

How adolescents would perceive a change in the legal status of marijuana, even if only for adults, also is difficult to determine. However, recent studies have shown that prevalence of adolescent marijuana use is inversely proportional to the perceived risk associated with use (Fig 1).37 The proportion of 12th graders who reported using marijuana in the past 30 days peaked in 1978 and again in 1997, exactly the years in which the perceived risk of regular use was at its lowest.

Some research suggests that legal sanctions may influence the initial decision to use drugs and that this influence diminishes as drug use by individuals progresses.38 If so, it is the youngest adolescents (those who have not yet tried marijuana or are in the experimentation phase) who would be affected most by changes in marijuana laws. Age at first use is, in turn, a risk factor for problem use in the future.39

Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

Parental drug use is an important influence on adolescents' drug use.40 Recent data indicate that easy household access to illicit substances is associated with greater risk of marijuana use among both younger and older adolescents.41 Some adults may choose not to use marijuana (however they may feel about the law), because the potential risk of criminal sanctions outweighs any perceived benefit from using the drug. With the demise of legal sanctions against use, some parents may choose to begin using marijuana, acting as an important new source of exposure for their adolescents. Parental use of marijuana in the last year is associated with their adolescent's use during the same period.42

Availability of marijuana, which might increase if the drug were legalized, clearly has been shown to affect adolescents' use. Adolescents who have been offered marijuana are 7 times more likely to use it than are those who have not been offered marijuana. Similarly, those who report that marijuana is easy to get are approximately 2.5 times more likely to use it than those who consider it hard to get.43

Marijuana is cheap and easy to produce; if it were legalized, its price likely would decrease below current levels. Work by Pacula et al44 in the United States and Williams45 in Australia demonstrates clearly that a decrease in the price of marijuana is associated with a significant increase in the prevalence of use among adolescents.

Some advocates for the legalization of marijuana argue that it is safer than alcohol. They suggest that increased use of marijuana by young people might have a positive effect if some adolescents switched from alcohol to marijuana (a substitution effect). This theory cannot be supported by recent studies on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use that incorporated the price of marijuana into the analysis. These studies conclude that an increase in use of marijuana by adolescents would result in an increased use of alcohol (ie, that the 2 drugs are economic complements).46

From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

I don't know how more clearer it can be what the ramifications of legalizing marijuana would be for a sizable amount of our youth.  Maybe some of you are fine with that outcome and willing to take that roll of the die.  Knowing this information, seeing this first hand in real people, it just simply is not an option for me.  

that answered exactly none of the questions I directed at you.

here's another question: are you capable of viewing this issue outside of the very limited framework of your job? because this is an issue of personal liberty, and you seem to be saying that personal liberty isn't that important. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that's a frustrating attitude to see coming from someone here. Or, indeed, from anyone anywhere.

[Captain Utopia]

here's another question: are you capable of viewing this issue outside of the very limited framework of your job? because this is an issue of personal liberty, and you seem to be saying that personal liberty isn't that important. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that's a frustrating attitude to see coming from someone here. Or, indeed, from anyone anywhere.

Remember the Rx Pill Party thread? It went on for six pages before RWHN could step out of his framework even slightly. I assume this dedication to that reality tunnel is part of what makes RWHN effective at his job, but when you start discarding "facts" for "what seems most beneficial to communicate given the circumstances", then there is no longer a rational debate happening, just politics.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Availability of marijuana, which might increase if the drug were legalized, clearly has been shown to affect adolescents' use.

So we're going to ban it, because it MIGHT be more accessible to adolescents if the drug were legalized?

RWHN, you seem to be dogmatic about state policy influencing usage rates based on scant evidence.

Your other source on availability was highly suspect and contained basic failures in reasoning which you suggested were minor problems of interpretation. It doesn't seem like you are genuinely interested in an honest look at the information—more like you have made up your mind and no amount of evidence (or lack thereof) is going to make it past your preconceived conclusions.

This pediatrics source sounds alarmist and doesn't even take a strong stance on the most fundamental issue: the relationship between policy and prevalence. It's basically fear-mongering without addressing the key point of the argument. There is more evidence that rates of drug use are independent of state policy than of the connection you argue for.^1,2

1-http://www.springerlink.com/content/uwux360459204413/
2-http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/5/836

[BabylonHoruv]

This is from the journal Pediatrics.  This is peer reviewed research.  Here is what it says about the potential impact of decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana.  I've bolded items for emphasis particularly items I've mentioned in this thread:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS

Although efforts to legalize marijuana are focused solely on adults (no one is proposing that use or possession of marijuana by adolescents should be legalized), any change in its legal status could nonetheless have an effect on adolescents. Alcohol (illegal for those under 21 years of age) and tobacco products (illegal under 18 years of age) are nonetheless the psychoactive substances most widely abused by adolescents. During 2003, 47.5% of 12th graders reported using alcohol in the past 30 days and 24.4% reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days.31

Legalization of marijuana could result in advertising campaigns for its use, some of which might be directed toward adolescents. Control measures to prevent advertising to young people, as recent experience demonstrates, may be difficult to implement. As revealed during the course of the Comprehensive Tobacco Settlement negotiations, tobacco companies systematically have marketed their products to young people even while disavowing any efforts to do so. Even after the Comprehensive Tobacco Settlement was implemented (which prohibited any youth-oriented advertising), tobacco companies continued marketing to young people. A recent study noted that cigarette advertising in youth-oriented magazines increased by $54 million after the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.32 Another study showed that advertising of youth brands of cigarettes (defined as those smoked by >5% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in 1998) in youth-oriented magazines increased from 1995 to 2000, as did expenditures for adult brands in youth-oriented magazines.33 The Supreme Court recently struck down several Massachusetts regulations aimed at protecting schoolchildren from tobacco advertising (including bans on tobacco ads within 1000 feet of a school or playground). "The state's interest in preventing underage tobacco use is substantial and even compelling, but it is no less true that the sale and use of tobacco by adults is a legal activity," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the majority. She continued, "... tobacco retailers and manufacturers have an interest in conveying truthful information about their products to adults, and adults have a corresponding interest in receiving truthful information about tobacco products."34 Presumably, these same interests in regard to advertising for marijuana products also would be protected.

DiFranza35 has demonstrated that both the states and the federal government are poorly enforcing the Synar Amendment, which requires states to control the sale of tobacco products to those younger than 18 years. Legalization of marijuana for adults but not adolescents would necessitate additional law enforcement burdens on a system that currently is not meeting its regulatory obligations.

Similarly, the alcoholic-beverage industry continues to portray drinking in terms that clearly appeal to young people. Drinking is associated with being sexy, popular, and fun and as an ideal means to "break the ice" in social settings.36 These portrayals are extremely enticing to adolescents, who are in the process of developing their own identities as well as refining their social skills. One can speculate that distributors of marijuana quickly would recognize the profitability of portraying marijuana in a similar manner (thereby maximizing sales), all the while protesting that their marketing attempts seek only to induce adults to change brands.

How adolescents would perceive a change in the legal status of marijuana, even if only for adults, also is difficult to determine. However, recent studies have shown that prevalence of adolescent marijuana use is inversely proportional to the perceived risk associated with use (Fig 1).37 The proportion of 12th graders who reported using marijuana in the past 30 days peaked in 1978 and again in 1997, exactly the years in which the perceived risk of regular use was at its lowest.

Some research suggests that legal sanctions may influence the initial decision to use drugs and that this influence diminishes as drug use by individuals progresses.38 If so, it is the youngest adolescents (those who have not yet tried marijuana or are in the experimentation phase) who would be affected most by changes in marijuana laws. Age at first use is, in turn, a risk factor for problem use in the future.39

Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

Parental drug use is an important influence on adolescents' drug use.40 Recent data indicate that easy household access to illicit substances is associated with greater risk of marijuana use among both younger and older adolescents.41 Some adults may choose not to use marijuana (however they may feel about the law), because the potential risk of criminal sanctions outweighs any perceived benefit from using the drug. With the demise of legal sanctions against use, some parents may choose to begin using marijuana, acting as an important new source of exposure for their adolescents. Parental use of marijuana in the last year is associated with their adolescent's use during the same period.42

Availability of marijuana, which might increase if the drug were legalized, clearly has been shown to affect adolescents' use. Adolescents who have been offered marijuana are 7 times more likely to use it than are those who have not been offered marijuana. Similarly, those who report that marijuana is easy to get are approximately 2.5 times more likely to use it than those who consider it hard to get.43

Marijuana is cheap and easy to produce; if it were legalized, its price likely would decrease below current levels. Work by Pacula et al44 in the United States and Williams45 in Australia demonstrates clearly that a decrease in the price of marijuana is associated with a significant increase in the prevalence of use among adolescents.

Some advocates for the legalization of marijuana argue that it is safer than alcohol. They suggest that increased use of marijuana by young people might have a positive effect if some adolescents switched from alcohol to marijuana (a substitution effect). This theory cannot be supported by recent studies on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use that incorporated the price of marijuana into the analysis. These studies conclude that an increase in use of marijuana by adolescents would result in an increased use of alcohol (ie, that the 2 drugs are economic complements).46

From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

I don't know how more clearer it can be what the ramifications of legalizing marijuana would be for a sizable amount of our youth.  Maybe some of you are fine with that outcome and willing to take that roll of the die.  Knowing this information, seeing this first hand in real people, it just simply is not an option for me.  

Looks to me like you are kinda talking past RCH, who can't wrap his mind around the idea that the safety of children could be worth restricting personal freedom for.  Meanwhile I seem to be talking past you, since I haven't seen you say anything about the secondary effects of the drug war aside from what strike me as  ideas that roughly equate to decriminalization of small amounts that would not in any way address the way in which traffic in marijuana funds criminal gangs, or the way prohibition makes it into a gateway drug (since dealers would still be considered fully criminal) or the way our jails are being filled, as your own sources state that the majority of inmates incarcerated for marijuana offenses are there for dealing or growing, rather than for small scale possession.

[Thurnez Isa]

alcohol is by far far far the biggest gateway drug

2) Maybe cause I was raised french and been drinking wine since I was like 8 I have no problem with teenagers smoking up just as I have no problem with young kids having a drink or two.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I have a problem with the whole "gateway drug" thing anyway. It's a crock of shit for one thing. To say one psychoactive or stimulant chemical leads to another is the most blatant shite anyone ever tried to sell me. Some people who try one drug will try anything so they try other drugs. Fair enough but it's not the first drug that is making them take the next one, it's curiosity, peer pressure, financial incentive or whatever else. By "gateway drug" logic being born of a woman would be the initial "gateway" for drug taking (since all teenage druggies started on that path), followed by education, sesame street and burger king. Do we ban those? Just in case? To save teh children?

[AFK]

I don't care if it's peer reviewed research or not. It's abject bullshit based on speculation, opinion and the fear of the cannabis boogeyman.

Well, no, it is based on data analysis and qualitative research. 

This especially caught my eye

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS
Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

I call bullshit. As an adolescent laws were broken for status. I shit you not - if hash had been legal when I was in school most if not all of my peers would never have considered taking it. It was the fact that it was illegal that appealed to us.

Well, there are citations throughout the piece so I welcome you to find the source for that piece and counter it with your own research. 

But fair enough. You've stated you're happy enough trading some rights for some shiny, happy, plucked out a beurocrats ass - statistics. I'll agree to differ. Given that I don't rely on the legislation to tablecrumb me my liberty, it matters not a jot to me anyway. Good luck with whatever the next piece of "peer reviewed research" comes up with. I believe it's war with Iran next - enjoy your safety^tm

I'm sorry the research is counter to your belief, and you of course are invited and welcome to find research that supports your beliefs and offer it up.  But you see I've been badgered about "my opinion", I've stated some of these very points and have been accused of being "naive" and other descriptors, I simply wanted to show that where I am coming from isn't simply a belief, it is a position backed by empirical research by professional researchers. 

[AFK]

that answered exactly none of the questions I directed at you.

You asked me about the impact of an adult legally being able to enjoy marijuana and this research is a window into the potential impacts if that came to be.  So, I think I actually did answer your question. 

here's another question: are you capable of viewing this issue outside of the very limited framework of your job?

How do you come to the conclusion that the framework of my job is "very limited"? 

because this is an issue of personal liberty, and you seem to be saying that personal liberty isn't that important.

It is.  I especially value the personal liberty of the youth in our country who aren't capable of making the same adult decisions that we are.  We live in a society and that society, like every society, needs to have a healthy and flourishing youth to continue.  We also do need laws to maintain the peace.  It is why we can't drive 85 even though that is something many adults would enjoy doing and would be able to do without harming anyone else.  It is why we regulate gun ownership.  And those aren't analogies, they are examples of restrictions on our personal liberty in the interest of public safety.  My argument is that the prohibition of all illicit drugs, not just marijuana, is in the best interest of public safety because of the impacts on the youth as explained in the research I quoted. 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that's a frustrating attitude to see coming from someone here. Or, indeed, from anyone anywhere.

And there it is.  I knew someone would eventually go there.  I'm sad and disappointed that it is you.  So now I'm officially not Discordian enough because of my view.  Great. 

[AFK]

here's another question: are you capable of viewing this issue outside of the very limited framework of your job? because this is an issue of personal liberty, and you seem to be saying that personal liberty isn't that important. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but that's a frustrating attitude to see coming from someone here. Or, indeed, from anyone anywhere.

Remember the Rx Pill Party thread? It went on for six pages before RWHN could step out of his framework even slightly. I assume this dedication to that reality tunnel is part of what makes RWHN effective at his job, but when you start discarding "facts" for "what seems most beneficial to communicate given the circumstances", then there is no longer a rational debate happening, just politics.

Ooh, now we're getting passive aggressive with some backhanded insults thrown in.  Precious.  Get bent!

[Requia ☣]

I don't care if it's peer reviewed research or not. It's abject bullshit based on speculation, opinion and the fear of the cannabis boogeyman.

Well, no, it is based on data analysis and qualitative research. 

This especially caught my eye

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS
Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

I call bullshit. As an adolescent laws were broken for status. I shit you not - if hash had been legal when I was in school most if not all of my peers would never have considered taking it. It was the fact that it was illegal that appealed to us.

Well, there are citations throughout the piece so I welcome you to find the source for that piece and counter it with your own research. 

The part in question has no citation.

[AFK]

Availability of marijuana, which might increase if the drug were legalized, clearly has been shown to affect adolescents' use.

So we're going to ban it, because it MIGHT be more accessible to adolescents if the drug were legalized?

RWHN, you seem to be dogmatic about state policy influencing usage rates based on scant evidence.

It's not about state policy, it's about some very fundamental knowledge in the field around availability and parental modeling as extensively discussed in the article I cited.  If you have a disagreement with a counter argument from an empirical source I would love to read it and give my opinion on it.  

Your other source on availability was highly suspect and contained basic failures in reasoning which you suggested were minor problems of interpretation. It doesn't seem like you are genuinely interested in an honest look at the information—more like you have made up your mind and no amount of evidence (or lack thereof) is going to make it past your preconceived conclusions.

Okay, so instead of quibbling about the other source, why not tackle the one I just posted?  Which is a culmination of several empirical resources.  If you have counters, offer them up.  

This pediatrics source sounds alarmist and doesn't even take a strong stance on the most fundamental issue: the relationship between policy and prevalence. It's basically fear-mongering without addressing the key point of the argument. There is more evidence that rates of drug use are independent of state policy than of the connection you argue for.^1,2

1-http://www.springerlink.com/content/uwux360459204413/
2-http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/5/836

There is evidence that it is independent in other countries.  But the article I posted is solely looking at the American system, but it is also mixing in the American culture around substances, which was one of my criticisms of a piece you posted earlier in this thread.  Also, the first article you posted above only has the abstract.  Do you have the full version?  I'd be interested in examining their research and get a more detailed understanding of what they were studying.  The second article is about decriminalization, not legalization.  Minor but important difference, not that I'm all hot and bothered to support decriminalization either.  

[AFK]

I don't care if it's peer reviewed research or not. It's abject bullshit based on speculation, opinion and the fear of the cannabis boogeyman.

Well, no, it is based on data analysis and qualitative research. 

This especially caught my eye

POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DECRIMINALIZATION OR LEGALIZATION ON US ADOLESCENTS
Moral development in children and adolescents assumes a developmental trajectory. Early adolescents have a concrete approach to morality: laws are obeyed to avoid punishment. As such, young adolescents would be most susceptible to the deterrent effects of drug laws. This deterrent effect could disappear or lessen with legalization of marijuana. Once adolescents gain the ability to think abstractly, challenges to the apparent hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do" can be anticipated.

I call bullshit. As an adolescent laws were broken for status. I shit you not - if hash had been legal when I was in school most if not all of my peers would never have considered taking it. It was the fact that it was illegal that appealed to us.

Well, there are citations throughout the piece so I welcome you to find the source for that piece and counter it with your own research. 

The part in question has no citation.

That's because it is at the end of the first sentence in the next paragraph.  It's Hawkins and Catalano about risk and protective factors. 

[Requia ☣]

Question, about how many kids have tried/regularly use alcohol versus weed?  Are the weed numbers substantially lower?