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

[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.  

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.

Yeah, I'd say that isn't an environment that is super conducive to building assets in young people. 

[Cramulus]

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.  

That's a really cool approach. I know in my hometown, drugs and alcohol were the most obvious solution to boredom. My group of friends probably started drinking / using a bit later than our peers because after school every day, we were in the woods pretending to be Elves and cranking each other in the face with PVC pipes.

This is a little off topic, but I'm intrigued by how the current anti-smoking campaign is handling this issue. The Truth campaign (as discussed in Christine Harold's Ourspace) has a very interesting approach - they're trying to frame being a nonsmoker as a form of rebellion against mainstream values. They're hoping that the kids who smoke because they think it's bad-ass-james-dean will actually find it much more punk rock to NOT act like their pack-a-day parents. The Truth website has all these materials to help you organize your own anti-smoking culture jams. Verrrry interesting approach. I don't have any data, but I imagine it has to be more effective than the sharply uncool Just Say No campaign.

[AFK]

Well, break time is over.  I'll catch up with this later.  Gotta go talk to the kiddos.    

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

Not by me.

I think you give a fuck, and I like that.

[fomenter]

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

Not by me.

I think you give a fuck, and I like that.

ditto
      i even "gack gag choke" like a pun some times

[Cait M. R.]

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

Not by me.

I think you give a fuck, and I like that.

This.

[Kai]

RWHN, I'm really starting to think we should illegal alcohol as well, because it causes even more problems than Canabis, and THAT'S illegal.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

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.

I agree that world will never exist, seeing as how we can't keep it out of kids' hands now while it's illegal.  I haven't smoked in 15 years, but when I was a teenager, I never had trouble finding pot.  In fact, it was easier for me to get pot than beer.  If the fact that it was illegal was making it harder for me to get, I didn't notice.  

Of course, that's only my personal experience.  I certainly don't mean it as a counterargument to your claim that increased access = increased use.

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.

I'm sorry, I meant for my question to sound more hypothetical.  I did not mean to sound like I was questioning you for not tilting at windmills trying to reinstate prohibition of alcohol, when obviously your time is better spent doing things that can actually make a difference.  

How about if I rephrase my question this way -- if, hypothetically, a resurgent temperance movement gained enough power that reinstating the prohibition of alcohol was on the table, would you be in favor of it?

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.

You could say the same thing about marijuana prohibition.  Actually, I think you already have said something to that effect somewhere ITT, so I think we're in agreement on that point.

You've done research that shows that marijuana prohibition is, to a measurable extent, keeping some kids away from it.  I have no reason not to trust your research, especially since I've done no research into the topic myself.  What I'm wondering is how much worse would it be than it already is?  If marijuana were legalized, but regulated in the same way that alcohol is now, with the same restrictions on use and penalties for misuse, how much does your research show that use among adolescents would increase?  Would it open the floodgates or are we talking about marginal increases?

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.

I agree with this 100%.  Again, thanks for doing the work that you do.

[BabylonHoruv]

No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.
























*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Not unprecedented.  Alcohol prohibition ended, illegal drugs used to be legal.  These are not vast changes, they are not making government honest and accountable, they are simple changes in a really relatively minor area.

It may be utopian to believe that ending prohibition would make everyuthing ok, it certainly wouldn't, but the basic arguement I am making, and that I see others making is that it would make things better more than it would make things worse.

Perhaps more people would use drugs, extant studies do not seem to indicate that in my mind, but I can accept that as a consequence, meanwhile the prisons would not be as full, criminal gangs would lose a huge source of funding, drugs would be of known purity and strength, marijuana would no longer be a gateway drug, AND I could imbite the substances i choose to imbibe.

Strikes me as a net gain.  Even if drug usage doubles.  Especcially if it is just marijuana that is legalized.

[BabylonHoruv]

No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Its hardly radical or unprecedented when its brought up by events that occur in the real world.
Are you suggesting that those in favor of legalization give up, and simply accept the status quo?

Also the A vs B dichotomy you use is an excellent way of portraying the different extremes, and arguing against one extreme while promoting the other. Sure, B may never exist, but it hardly makes A acceptable.

Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

And I never said that "A" was better than "B": I said that RWHN is the only one doing something to help those trapped in "A".

I have.  written letters, marched, researched for a performance art piece done to get information out there.  I'm not just sniping about it on the internet.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'd like to give RWHN some credit; as far as I know he's the only person on this board who works with chemically dependent and at-risk youths.  Because of this, he has very different experiences and opinions about drugs, and has seen far more cases and data regarding their use and effects.

While in my personal experience I have seen people react to drugs in both positive an negative ways, my sample size is extremely small.  Even if I can relate the personal drug histories of 100 people, that's still far too small to be accurate.  That's why anectdotal evidence is generally considered bullshit.

I understand that due to his job, he sees far more negative cases than positive ones; but the point is that these "negative" cases are still fucking humans.  They aren't statistics, and they sure as fuck aren't "acceptable losses" so you can get high whenever you want to.  

You can argue about how "society" is screwed up, and if we ended the War on Drugs and we all were taught and teach "responsibility" to each other, we could eliminate drug abuse and addiction.  And if you believe that world will ever exist, then you probably believe in the model that all people make rational decisions when faced with economic decisions.

RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, 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.

What the fuck have any of you done?

Thanks.  And I just want to repeat what I've said several times now.  I DO think there are injustices carried out in the name of combating substance abuse.  Certainly a guy caught with a joint shouldn't be doing time in jail.  People who get in trouble with the law with personal amounts of substances should be hooked up with help, not jail.  And the thing is, we can address that and HAVE been addressing that.  Drug courts are one of those mechanisms.  Fuck, I sit on a committee, headed up by a Sgt in the State Police that is looking for alternatives for dealing with out of control kids.  Yeah, that's law enforcement heading this up.  And nowhere on the list of alternatives are we talking about incarceration.  We are talking about hooking them up with the resources they need to get help and to get clean.  I just sincerely don't see how legalization does anything to fix anything other than make it easier for adults to enjoy their marijuana without harrassment.  And that's fine and dandy if you can magically take kids out of the equation.  But you can't.  Nevermind that more adults will have marijuana making it more available.  You'll have more adults setting examples for their kids.  Parental modeling is already a huge issue in substance abuse.  Legalizing will only serve to further validate the behavior for children as parents are more free to light up. 

I hate to say it but your approach sounds way more utopian than legalization.  The idea that we can reform the drug war, turn something that is a giant, corrupt, money funnel for drug dealers and a way for the DEA and police forces to seize property and fill the jails into something that works and gets people off drugs seems to be a very pie in the sky vision to me.

The basic assumption that recreational intoxicants are bad left aside, I do not see that sort of reform as possible or viable.  I will support it if I see it, but I don't think it is going to happen.

[BabylonHoruv]

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

Nope, you're the hilarious punning killjoy.

[AFK]

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.

I agree that world will never exist, seeing as how we can't keep it out of kids' hands now while it's illegal.  I haven't smoked in 15 years, but when I was a teenager, I never had trouble finding pot.  In fact, it was easier for me to get pot than beer.  If the fact that it was illegal was making it harder for me to get, I didn't notice.  

Of course, that's only my personal experience.  I certainly don't mean it as a counterargument to your claim that increased access = increased use.

I recognize that it is already very easy to get access.  But the legal barrier IS a barrier for some kids.  There are a good number of kids who are concerned about being caught by the law and having that ruin college plans, career plans, etc., that it keeps them from experimenting and using.  Never mind wanting to avoid disappointment from their parents for not only using, but also getting in trouble with the law.  Though, in that regard I can't tell you how many times I've heard of kids getting in trouble with the law over drugs and the parents were more concerned with the kid having a record than attending to the kid's drug problem.  Kids are under a lot of fucking pressure from parents to succeed and follow in footsteps to attend that ivy league school or take over the family business. 

How about if I rephrase my question this way -- if, hypothetically, a resurgent temperance movement gained enough power that reinstating the prohibition of alcohol was on the table, would you be in favor of it?

Without seeing specific legislation I can't say for sure either way.  The devil is always in the details.  Meanwhile there is a movement brewing amongst some college and university Presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  Anyone want to guess why University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18?

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.

You could say the same thing about marijuana prohibition.  Actually, I think you already have said something to that effect somewhere ITT, so I think we're in agreement on that point.

Certainly.  There is always more work to be done.  And certainly marijuana is one of the more difficult substances to tackle because of the various perceptions about its impact on an individual. 

You've done research that shows that marijuana prohibition is, to a measurable extent, keeping some kids away from it.  I have no reason not to trust your research, especially since I've done no research into the topic myself.  What I'm wondering is how much worse would it be than it already is?  If marijuana were legalized, but regulated in the same way that alcohol is now, with the same restrictions on use and penalties for misuse, how much does your research show that use among adolescents would increase?  Would it open the floodgates or are we talking about marginal increases?

It may only rise 4 or 5%.  But when you multiply that by the number of young people in the US, that becomes a lot of kids.  Even a 3% increase would be a lot of kids.  So on a percentage basis it may seem marginal, but when you look at the raw number, it would impact many lives. 

[East Coast Hustle]

it still seems to me to basically be a "trading liberty for security" type of issue.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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. 

It does appear that they are lying about those figures, in that marijuana use apparently has little to do with whether there are repressive or liberal laws being enforced:

In conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband's earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a 'liberal' cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy. [Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use. 

- Dirk J. Korf from the University of Amsterdam (source).


It would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).