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

[East Coast Hustle]

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

I, too, am curious about this.  I see no reason why an adult should not be able to use weed under the same conditions that they are allowed to use alcohol.

[Fuquad]

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

I, too, am curious about this.  I see no reason why an adult should not be able to use weed under the same conditions that they are allowed to use alcohol.

Well, he didn't exactly answer the question as presented. he added qualifiers and answered that instead.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

I, too, am curious about this.  I see no reason why an adult should not be able to use weed under the same conditions that they are allowed to use alcohol.

Well, he didn't exactly answer the question as presented. he added qualifiers and answered that instead.

There's no crime in restating a question.

I just want to know why the law should have any say in whether or not an adult should be allowed to smoke weed in the same manner and conditions under which they can use alcohol.

[fomenter]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

[LMNO]

Oh, come on.  Leave what RWHN believes to RWHN.  Don't put leading words in his mouth.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

Aw, fer chrissakes, let's let him answer for himself.

[fomenter]

the biggest point of contention so far seem to be if and by how much kids are protected by prohibition laws, and if the amount of protection they provide for kids out-ways the amount of harm that is done to others by prohibition..


(if this attempt to sum it up is leading or wrong my apology he can certainly correct me if i am wrong)

and he can and does speak for him self i am saying how i see his argument

[East Coast Hustle]

as I said earlier, I see it as basically being a "trading liberty for security" issue.

and the potential impact of drug use on children, while undeniable, should be more of an issue of parenting than state involvement.

IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

as I said earlier, I see it as basically being a "trading liberty for security" issue.

and the potential impact of drug use on children, while undeniable, should be more of an issue of parenting than state involvement.

IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

This.

[Cramulus]

IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

how do you get parents to do that?



I think you're right, I think this country's drug problems (mostly) emerge from our attitudes about drugs, substances, responsibility, whatever. And that starts at home. But do you think that parents can be educated to raise more responsible kids? Because if drugs were decriminalized / legalized without there being a widespread adjustment in how people relate to drugs, I can see things getting very grim very quickly.

I would be more in favor of legalization if there were a program which demonstrated that it can reliably prevent youth addiction. D.A.R.E. certainly didn't work. And you can't make parents take parenting classes unless they fucked up already...

[AFK]

IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

how do you get parents to do that?



I think you're right, I think this country's drug problems (mostly) emerge from our attitudes about drugs, substances, responsibility, whatever. And that starts at home. But do you think that parents can be educated to raise more responsible kids? Because if drugs were decriminalized / legalized without there being a widespread adjustment in how people relate to drugs, I can see things getting very grim very quickly.

I would be more in favor of legalization if there were a program which demonstrated that it can reliably prevent youth addiction. D.A.R.E. certainly didn't work. And you can't make parents take parenting classes unless they fucked up already...

There actually is one.  Mine.  My program essentially builds community in schools.  The kids in my program go into their schools and act as peer support.  They are trained how to be good listeners, how to refer urgent issues like substance abuse, risk of suicide, eating disorders, etc.  They also develop action plans to address key issues they identify during the training session.  Through these activities they build connectedness in school, they build feelings of support, they build feelings of safety.  The research shows that when you build these things in schools, kids are less likely to engage in risky behaviors like using substances. 

Currently, my program isn't officially recognized as an evidence-based, or model program.  This is something I've been working on for the past couple of years and I just got a sweet opportunity to work with the RAND Corp to do some rigorous data analysis to show that it is having these positive impacts.  I will also be writing an article to submit for publication in a scholarly journal.  With the backing of RAND I will be in decent shape to get published.  If I can get it to model status, my agency can sell it to other agencies or other states to implement in their schools.  The problem right now is what little funding is available for prevention is only being targetted on programs already listed by NREPP as model programs. 

There is stuff out there that works, unfotunately there are a lot of obstacles right now that make it hard to implement them in a broader fashion. 

[East Coast Hustle]

and just to clarify, RWHN, I think that your program and what you do are both awesome, and one of the best and most realistic examples of such a program that I've ever heard of.

I just haven't seen any evidence that your program would be less effective if marijuana were legal and regulated the same as alcohol, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.

[AFK]

It wouldn't be less effective.  It's just, that the goal posts would be farther away. 

[East Coast Hustle]

fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not that would be worth the increased personal liberty for adults.

not being snarky either, if you're going to take the position that anything is worth decreasing the personal liberty of adults, protection of children is about the only reason I can think of that has any merit whatsoever.