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

[rong]

although i believe i might live to see a day when weed is legal in the united states, it won't really matter (to me at least) because i'm certain employers will still be allowed to drug screen and random test - so, even though it's legal, many (myself included) would still have to risk losing their job.

[AFK]

For me personally, I have respect for RWHN's work. I don't think kids should use drugs, I think they should get useful information about drugs that explain the risks. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his view that an adult needs to pay a fine or go to treatment if they smoke some pot. He seems to argue from the assumption that Drugs ARE bad. I argue from the assumption that drugs are drugs and the good/bad label needs to be applied on a case by case basis... usually aimed far more at the person doing the drugs than the drug itself (with notable exceptions like PCP).

You keep saying you have respect for my work but then go on to say how naive I am and how everything I disseminate is false and incorrect.  I'm sorry but those two things are incongruous.

[AFK]

you still haven't addressed Portugal. their kids are doing less drugs now. What to make of that?

I would suggest that further information is required.  The thing is you can't simply compare statistics on whether a substance is legal or illegal.  There are other variables in the culture to consider.  What are the parental attitudes around substances?  What are parent-child relationships like?  Parental modeling.  Community norms.  Socio-economic. 

It's not as simple as saying "the drugs were made legal and thus substance abuse went down".  It may have been a factor, but without controlling for other factors you can't say for sure.  In other words, it isn't a universal that is going to have the same effects in every culture.  Remember different cultures have different reality grids and those are going to have huge impacts too.  Remember the BIP.  Different cultures and individuals in those cultures will have different bars exerting their influence. 

[AFK]

Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a false analogy. My lack of having children means I am lacking an insight into the physiology of children, but I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids.

No but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.  so that is where the analogy comes into play.  You don't have the experience of having children so you don't have the experiential background to decide what is justified or not when it comes to protecting kids.

To be clear, I think that line of thinking is invalid and don't agree with it in the way you posited it, nor the way I just posited it. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

I don't think I argued that at all.

People are dumb, they do dumb things. Kids are dumb they do dumb things. I don't ever see that changing.

The current drug policy is dumb it wastes money, puts people in jail, creates a black market, funds criminal activity and IT IS STILL EASY FOR KIDS TO GET DRUGS. The government's official position is to lie if the truth doesn't support the policy. The policy was originally based on lies and prejudice, particularly around pot.

Please provide evidence that shows where the government expressly mandates ALL gov't employees lie about and make up information about drugs.  Do you know how many governmental entities deal with substance abuse?  Are they all in on this deal?  Can you prove that?  

I don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

According to the General Accounting Office when askled about misleading statements (lies) stated by ONDCP:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/301022.pdf

Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana.

ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail.

Would you like direct quotes from the various heads of the ONDCP, past and present where obvious lies have been stated as fact?

Look, I understand you and I don't agree on the issue... but I really think there is a strong body of evidence to indicate that the US government is not particularly truthful or trustworthy, based on their past and present actions/statements.

If an entity makes claims that are known to be false... if they quash reports that do not agree with their claims. Why should I believe anything they say?

As for personally... I don't question the validity of your work. I question things you say here sometimes and since this is the only place I interact with you, I apologize if the RWHN here shades my view of the RWHN there.

You keep saying you have respect for my work but then go on to say how naive I am and how everything I disseminate is false and incorrect.  I'm sorry but those two things are incongruous.

I respect your work. However,  things you have said here seem to indicate that either you speculate beyond your level of knowledge, maybe you repeat things you have heard and not confirmed etc. If you don't say that kind of unconfirmed stuff to kids, then that's great... I'll continue to say something when you say things here that appear unlikely... and I'll try to give you good reasons for why I believe them to be unlikely. If you don't stalk about chemicals in hydro around the kids, then my comments have nothing to do with your work... just your post.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a false analogy. My lack of having children means I am lacking an insight into the physiology of children, but I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids.

No but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.  so that is where the analogy comes into play.  You don't have the experience of having children so you don't have the experiential background to decide what is justified or not when it comes to protecting kids.

To be clear, I think that line of thinking is invalid and don't agree with it in the way you posited it, nor the way I just posited it. 

I think that what you said is true. As a parent you have the experiential background to decide what is justified when it comes to protecting your kids in your life. As soon as you bring society into 'protection' game... we all get a say, kids or not.

[fomenter]

i just don't see how increased access for kids = large enough harm or insurmountable problem so large that it somehow outweighs the harm expense and injustice done by prohibition..

rwhn and others in the field would have more money to work with harder laws/penalty's to use against adults selling to kids, the extra resources to fight the increase in access should make the job easier not harder , it just doesn't make math sense.... i still think the benefits of legalization far out way the harm and i haven't seen anything in the debate to sway that impression..

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I have 3 kids..... so speaking as a parent, I still believe marijuana should be legalised.  Alcohol is illegal for those under 21.  Kids still drink.  Cigarettes (are dangerous so...) are illegal for those under 18 and I see more kids smoking recently than I have in a long time.

Legal or illegal, kids are going to try stuff.  Presuming the legality of something is what stops kids from trying it, while possible for some, is not something most think of before they try it.  The law doesn't have the stopping power/scare power it once had.  Kids aren't stupid or naive, they know how things really are most of the time.  Sometimes more than the adults do.  

I don't see drugs as the true evil of the youth of today, it's the issues that led them to the drugs that really need to be addressed.  The addictive personalities that need to be addressed.  Because until those issues are dealt with it won't matter what is legal or illegal, the one suffering is going to do whatever they feel they have to in order to deal with it.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

No but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.

Are you arguing that it is? 

Would you argue for reinstating prohibition on the grounds that preventing alcohol abuse in adolescents is a justification for banning alcohol altogether?

I appreciate the work you do and agree that preventing substance abuse in children and adolescents is something to strive for.  I only question whether prohibition is the way to solve the problem.

[The Johnny]

Strap on and get crazy.

I think I should make this my new catchphrase.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

[Cait M. R.]

Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Ditto.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Ditto.

But that's what America™ is all about.  Punish the guilty.  If there aren't enough guilty people, make more.  Hang 'em all, no need for a trial, some lawyer will just pull tricks and get them off what the fuck is up with that I need my goddamned self-righteousness fix and I need it NOW.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Ditto.

But that's what America™ is all about.  Punish the guilty.  If there aren't enough guilty people, make more.  Hang 'em all, no need for a trial, some lawyer will just pull tricks and get them off what the fuck is up with that I need my goddamned self-righteousness fix and I need it NOW.

The Puritans can fix it ALL!