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

[Requia ☣]

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.

That appears to be citing a completely different statement, checking it though.

[Requia ☣]

Ok, this is a fairly brief (ctrl + F) search of the source.  While it certainly supports RWHNs position, the bit quoted above is unrelated, nowhere that I can find does the source claim that kids have respect for laws or that they are more influenced by the deterrent effect of laws than adults.

[Kai]

also, in America we believe in being free to make our own choices and not being fucked with for them UNTIL they have a direct negative impact on another individual. Restricting our choices pre-emptively because they MIGHT turn out poorly is just fucking unamerican.

Well, actually, marijuana was scheduled after it was determined to have had direct negative impacts on other individuals.  

umm...how does me smoking marijuana have a direct negative impact on another individual?

also, no one's arguing that marijuana should be legal for kids or that providing it to kids shouldn't come with huge penalties and/or jail time. You still haven't explained how it is philosophically justifiable for the government to pre-emptively restrict my rights based on what might happen. It is the EXACT same thing as if the government decided to legislatively prohibit driving a car because I might allow that car to fall into the hands of an unlicensed minor.

I'm guessing (but I don't know for sure, I might be very wrong!) that his research tells him the benefits for minors outweighs the costs for adults. It seems to be very utilitarian, which would be a philosophical justification.

[Requia ☣]

umm...how does me smoking marijuana have a direct negative impact on another individual?

also, no one's arguing that marijuana should be legal for kids or that providing it to kids shouldn't come with huge penalties and/or jail time. You still haven't explained how it is philosophically justifiable for the government to pre-emptively restrict my rights based on what might happen. It is the EXACT same thing as if the government decided to legislatively prohibit driving a car because I might allow that car to fall into the hands of an unlicensed minor.

Not the exact same thing at all, for one cars kill or maim quite a bit more people than weed.

[AFK]

Ok, this is a fairly brief (ctrl + F) search of the source.  While it certainly supports RWHNs position, the bit quoted above is unrelated, nowhere that I can find does the source claim that kids have respect for laws or that they are more influenced by the deterrent effect of laws than adults.

Did you actually read the whole article cited?  Hawkins and Catalano have a whole body of work on risk and protective factors.  Views on laws around anti-social behavior certainly is a risk factor which anyone in the field will tell you. 

[Requia ☣]

No, no I did not read the whole article, I thought I was clear I only searched for key terms.  You didn't read it either (you haven't had time).  And while the researchers in question may well have addressed adolescent views compared to adult views on the law, and might (maybe) have mentioned said research, that was not the focus of the article cited.

[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.

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

Which parts are inaccurate? I haven't seen you take your job-hat off in these discussions, or express any doubts you have, and that's primarily why I've stayed frustrated but silent in this thread. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but you did put "message control" before "facts" in the Rx thread and if I'm wrong in using that as a basis to assume the same pattern is unfolding here, then I apologise fully.

[AFK]

No, no I did not read the whole article, I thought I was clear I only searched for key terms.  You didn't read it either (you haven't had time).  And while the researchers in question may well have addressed adolescent views compared to adult views on the law, and might (maybe) have mentioned said research, that was not the focus of the article cited.

Right, the focus of the cited article was risk-protective factors as relates to substance abuse prevention.  Laws and norms favorable to substance abuse is one of the risk factors.  I'm very familiar with the work of Hawkins and Catalano and have used them in previous research.  Further, I would also hazard a guess that the researcher who compiled the research also has a background in adolescent substance abuse.  So in my estimation the bases are adequately covered, and apparently the journal of Pediatrics agrees, because they published the research. 

[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!

Which parts are inaccurate? I haven't seen you take your job-hat off in these discussions, or express any doubts you have, and that's primarily why I've stayed frustrated but silent in this thread. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but you did put "message control" before "facts" in the Rx thread and if I'm wrong in using that as a basis to assume the same pattern is unfolding here, then I apologise fully.

I don't think you understand the nature of my job.  But let me try to explain.  In my work I wear many hats.  One is as a researcher, one is as a program evaluator, another is as a program coordinator, yet another is as technical assistance...  Now let's focus on the first one, researcher.

When you gather knowledge on a particular subject, it's not as simple as taking my job-hat off.  When I clock out for the day I don't suddenly un-know what I know.  What do you expect to be different between the on-duty and off-duty RWHN?  Besides, when I do relax and try to take a less knowledge-driven approach to the discussion I get hammered for not having my shit together.  So, you see I can't really win in this debate.  And now, because I have a different view than the majority, I'm not Discordian enough.  Which is awfully ironic if you ask me. 

[Requia ☣]

No, no I did not read the whole article, I thought I was clear I only searched for key terms.  You didn't read it either (you haven't had time).  And while the researchers in question may well have addressed adolescent views compared to adult views on the law, and might (maybe) have mentioned said research, that was not the focus of the article cited.

Right, the focus of the cited article was risk-protective factors as relates to substance abuse prevention.  Laws and norms favorable to substance abuse is one of the risk factors.  I'm very familiar with the work of Hawkins and Catalano and have used them in previous research.  Further, I would also hazard a guess that the researcher who compiled the research also has a background in adolescent substance abuse.  So in my estimation the bases are adequately covered, and apparently the journal of Pediatrics agrees, because they published the research. 

I agree changes in the law present a risk factor, and the cited article does address that.  But the quoted section doesn't say that teens will smoke more weed after legalization.  It says that teens have more respect for the law, and will be even more likely to smoke more than adults on the basis of those risk factors.  *That* I take issue with.

Not to mention that citing a secondary source but not a primary one is bad form in the first place, especially a secondary source as broad as the one in question.

To be clear, I *would* expect higher use rates if it was legalized for adults, and increased access. I wouldn't be too surprised if teen use increased more than adult, but for entirely different reason.  Adults have more reasons not to use that have nothing to do with the law, dependency is more likely to occur in teens etc.

And you're appealing to the authority of a medical journal. on a sociology question.  How exactly does that work?

[East Coast Hustle]

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. 

you did NOT answer my question about how my use of marijuana has a direct negative impact on another individual.

and I did NOT say "oh, RWHN isn't discordian enough because of his views", that's utter horseshit. In general, the posters here seem to place a much higher premium on personal liberty than the general population and that's one of the things I've always been proud of about this site and that's the context in which my statement was made. It has fuck-all to do with anyone's personal level of discordianism, which I think we've all agreed countless times over the years is pretty much up to whoever decides they're a discordian to define.

and the framework of your job is limited (or limiting) because we're trying to discuss this in the context of risks/benefits to the entire human population (or at least the American population) and your focus seems to be strictly limited to a handful of children with addictive personalities.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Good point Hustle. To expand on it a tad, I'd just like to point out that the reason drugs are illegal has very little (if anything) to do with saving the children so the point really ought to be moot.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

and the framework of your job is limited (or limiting) because we're trying to discuss this in the context of risks/benefits to the entire human population (or at least the American population) and your focus seems to be strictly limited to a handful of children with addictive personalities.

We all do that.  We all look at things from a very limited view, because we are now all specialists.

[AFK]

No, no I did not read the whole article, I thought I was clear I only searched for key terms.  You didn't read it either (you haven't had time).  And while the researchers in question may well have addressed adolescent views compared to adult views on the law, and might (maybe) have mentioned said research, that was not the focus of the article cited.

Right, the focus of the cited article was risk-protective factors as relates to substance abuse prevention.  Laws and norms favorable to substance abuse is one of the risk factors.  I'm very familiar with the work of Hawkins and Catalano and have used them in previous research.  Further, I would also hazard a guess that the researcher who compiled the research also has a background in adolescent substance abuse.  So in my estimation the bases are adequately covered, and apparently the journal of Pediatrics agrees, because they published the research. 

I agree changes in the law present a risk factor, and the cited article does address that.  But the quoted section doesn't say that teens will smoke more weed after legalization.  It says that teens have more respect for the law, and will be even more likely to smoke more than adults on the basis of those risk factors.  *That* I take issue with.

Not to mention that citing a secondary source but not a primary one is bad form in the first place, especially a secondary source as broad as the one in question.

To be clear, I *would* expect higher use rates if it was legalized for adults, and increased access. I wouldn't be too surprised if teen use increased more than adult, but for entirely different reason.  Adults have more reasons not to use that have nothing to do with the law, dependency is more likely to occur in teens etc.

And you're appealing to the authority of a medical journal. on a sociology question.  How exactly does that work?

Because it isn't merely a sociology question maybe? 

[P3nT4gR4m]

and the framework of your job is limited (or limiting) because we're trying to discuss this in the context of risks/benefits to the entire human population (or at least the American population) and your focus seems to be strictly limited to a handful of children with addictive personalities.

We all do that.  We all look at things from a very limited view, because we are now all specialists.

It's natural and understandable. That's why I like this board - if and when I do it I get called on it.

Sometimes that can chafe like a motherfucker