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

[Cait M. R.]

That might be what America's all about, but I never much liked America. It always reminded me of those loud car sales commercials, with the president being the guy in the snazzy suit yelling catchphrases into your ears.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That might be what America's all about, but I never much liked America. It always reminded me of those loud car sales commercials, with the president being the guy in the snazzy suit yelling catchphrases into your ears.

GET OUT YOUR FUCKING CHECKBOOK!

"You never hear a REAL American talking about 'rights'.  Whenever I hear someone talk about rights, I think 'that man is a red, that man is a communist'."
- A former mayor of Boston (1950s era), whose name escapes me.

[The Johnny]

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market...They are worth tons of money

I think (as shittily "oh noes conspiracy" it may sound) that the War On Drugs^tm is merely a way to cut down on the competition from non "sponsoring" cartels. If transnational and "big business" has so much juice and power while only speaking on money terms, imagine how much more "seductive" and "persuasive" groups that wouldnt hessitate to assasinate anyone...

Here in Mexico theres a certain tradition of "jailbreaks" and "captures" that switch each time theres a new president. Theres usually important members of Cartel A or Cartel B in jail at a time, but "coincidentally" never of both at the same time.

Executive Power says: "Who has the highest bid?"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market...They are worth tons of money

I think (as shittily "oh noes conspiracy" it may sound) that the War On Drugs^tm is merely a way to cut down on the competition from non "sponsoring" cartels. If transnational and "big business" has so much juice and power while only speaking on money terms, imagine how much more "seductive" and "persuasive" groups that wouldnt hessitate to assasinate anyone...

Here in Mexico theres a certain tradition of "jailbreaks" and "captures" that switch each time theres a new president. Theres usually important members of Cartel A or Cartel B in jail at a time, but "coincidentally" never of both at the same time.

Executive Power says: "Who has the highest bid?"

We have the same thing, only with banks and oil companies (not that I have to tell a Mexican about oil company shennanigans).

TGRR,
Remembers Huerta. 

[Requia ☣]

RWHN: Hypothetical

How would you feel about legalizing pot if the money currently used to fight pot went into prevention and treatment programs instead?

[AFK]

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.

Except that you haven't established, factually, that this particular individual in question actually lied.  You have an opinion that he lied, but it isn't one you've substantiated with facts.  I looked at the particular statements that were being contested and I've read research that would substantiate all of them.  So that isn't lying.  Perhaps you or someone else has conducted studies that have different outcomes.  If so publish them.  But that is fundamentally different then creating information with the expressed intent to mislead.  

IOW, I don't agree with your interpretation of this particular document.  I think you are incorrect.  

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

Yes.  Complete with the evidence that proves, definitively, that the lies were indeed lies.  

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.

Then present it.  Put up or shut up.  So far you've posted a lot of broad generalizations and little fact to prove lies as lies.  

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?

Bearing in mind that I believe you are incorrect with your interpretation of the above document, you do realize there are more players in this than just the ONDCP, right?  There is also SAMHSA, NIDA, the CDC, NIAA, are they all liars too?  Can you prove with documented evidence that they are all liars too?  

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.

Bullshit.  You have questioned my validity.  You've claimed that I am naive and misinformed.  

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.

Cut the generalities and give specifics.  

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.

Yes, believe, believe they are unlikely.  Believe is decidedly different from know.  Yet, how can you evaluate my level of knowledge when you are operating from a belief and an opinion and not hard knowledge and fact.  

[AFK]

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..

Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to one of these kids talk about how their brother became a completely different person after he started smoking pot, maybe you'd have a different view.  Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to another kid talk about how her Dad completely tuned out after he started smoking and doing drugs.  Maybe, then, you'd at least have more of a window into why increasing access to pot, or any drug, is a bad, bad idea.  These are real people  Real kids whose lives are being turned inside out.  The adults you are all so concerned about had a chance to have a childhood.  And you guys want to accept some casualties so adults can light up?  Really?  Is it that fucking important???  People have choices to make.  They know what laws are there.  If it is THAT important to smoke, if it is THAT important to sell, then they know what consequences await them.  A 14 year old kid doesn't have that decision making capacity.  But fuck, we need to make sure the adults get to have their jollies, unimpeded.  Fuck a few kids!  What the fuck does that matter, right?

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..

How the fuck would we have more money?  The government would have more money, but that doesn't mean it's coming to us.  My state gets money from the racino to fund gambling treatment.  Guess what, the State is taking that money for something else.  Legalization will NOT get us more money.  It's just more money to go somewhere else. 

[AFK]

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? 

Yes.  Because I know from my own research that increased access = increased use. If you could magically legalize it and magically keep it from getting into the hands of kids, I'm right there with you.  That world doesn't exist and will never exist.   

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

It's irrelevant because prohibition of alcohol doesn't exist today.  Prohibition of marijuana does.  The battle over alcohol was waged 80 odd years ago.  It's not worth my time to fight that fight.  What I would argue for is harsher penalties for parents or any adult who supplies a safe haven for a child to drink, or directly supplies alcohol to minors.  Clearly what we have in place now isn't enough of a deterrent. 

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.

It isn't THE way to solve the problem.  And nowhere have I made that statement.  The way to solve the problem is what I and my colleagues are doing day in and day out.  Educating and working on policy.  Educating kids, educating parents, educating law makers, educating servers, educating teachers, etc., etc.,  It's about envrionmental change, increasing developmental assets in kids, lots of things. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

[Requia ☣]

Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

This and then some.

[AFK]

Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

That's certainly a key point.  And one of the things we talk about with one of my programs is Natural Highs.  Helping kids find things they love to do that offers them emotional rewards.  Because in the long term drugs cannot offer that.  And I know there are several other programs that work to give alternatives.  A buddy of mine runs a non-profit that allows kids to get together and play rock music.  I have another friend who uses theater and dramatic arts.  Another who uses art.  It is a very key part of the equation.  

[AFK]

RWHN: Hypothetical

How would you feel about legalizing pot if the money currently used to fight pot went into prevention and treatment programs instead?

The same way I'd feel about someone drilling a hole in my boat and handing me a bigger oar. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

That's certainly a key point.  And one of the things we talk about with one of my programs is Natural Highs.  Helping kids find things they love to do that offers them emotional rewards.  Because in the long term drugs cannot offer that.  And I know there are several other programs that work to give alternatives.  A buddy of mine runs a non-profit that allows kids to get together and play rock music.  I have another friend who uses theater and dramatic arts.  Another who uses art.  It is a very key part of the equation.  

What we're dealing with here in AZ is the fact that it's a retirement state full of bitter old people that wish to punish kids for being young.  There is no real support system other than the Y.  It's even illegal to use the school's outdoor basketball court outside of school hours, can you fucking believe it.

[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..

Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to one of these kids talk about how their brother became a completely different person after he started smoking pot, maybe you'd have a different view.  Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to another kid talk about how her Dad completely tuned out after he started smoking and doing drugs.  Maybe, then, you'd at least have more of a window into why increasing access to pot, or any drug, is a bad, bad idea.  These are real people  Real kids whose lives are being turned inside out.  The adults you are all so concerned about had a chance to have a childhood.  And you guys want to accept some casualties so adults can light up?  Really?  Is it that fucking important???  People have choices to make.  They know what laws are there.  If it is THAT important to smoke, if it is THAT important to sell, then they know what consequences await them.  A 14 year old kid doesn't have that decision making capacity.  But fuck, we need to make sure the adults get to have their jollies, unimpeded.  Fuck a few kids!  What the fuck does that matter, right?

i don't smoke i wont benefit and i don't care about dam hippies and their every body must get stoned attitudes .. the people that get their doors kicked in in the middle of the night, the people that have property confiscated, the people thrown in jail, the corruption it breeds the harms and expense caused by prohibition happens to real people with real lives too..... giving up liberty for the safety of the children and ending up with neither is what we have got now "why does that idea sound familiar?"

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..

How the fuck would we have more money?  The government would have more money, but that doesn't mean it's coming to us.  My state gets money from the racino to fund gambling treatment.  Guess what, the State is taking that money for something else.  Legalization will NOT get us more money.  It's just more money to go somewhere else.  

if legislation is done right it would be..
i don't have much faith in government, it would need to be fought for but giving funds formerly used to prosecute a harmless pot head to someone doing drug use prevention for kids, makes more sense than prosecuting the pot head which doesn't have any benefit to anyone

[AFK]

So at this point I've probably pigeonholed myself into the Unfunny Punning Killjoy.  Right?