ATTN: Ratatosk, and assorted others

[Requia ☣]

I'm gonna jump in and add some unsupported conjecture to the economy boost thing.  Don't ask for citations because I'm talking out my ass.

I can't see it contributing to the economy directly.  People already have jobs involving selling weed and weed accessories.  If anything the wages on those jobs will go down if the risk is removed and big corporations move in, or more people just grow it in the back yard,.

The only monetary gain I can see to it is A) The gov will save money on enforcement and B) Vice Tax revenue.  This might improve the economy to the extent that a solvent government is a good thing economically.  (and on the one in a thousand chance the government doesn't respond by increasing spending elsewhere).

[P3nT4gR4m]

Unhealthy use of drugs = badwrong ergo drugs=badwrong therefore drugs are hit with banhammer

Unhealthy sexual practice = badwrong ergo sexual practice=badwrong therefore sexcrime

Driving cars too fast with your eyes shut = badwrong ergo driving cars=badwrong therefore we ban cars

______ = badwrong - ________ should be banned



If there's any single phenomenon left when we're finished I'm pretty sure we can can nip it in the bud by applying the - children will do it - logic

Liberty is an either or scenario - there is NO in between. Luckily for me I'm a criminal so I can pretty much do whatever the fuck I please. I wouldn't trade my place for your idea of freedom in a million years.

[AFK]

The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13.  Your brain simply is not properly wired yet to make those kinds of adult decisions.  Sure, they may start out making the "right" decisions, but eventually they are going to want more, harder, faster, weirder, and kids simply are not equipped to handle the outcomes of those decisions.  (I would argue there are many adults not ready for the outcomes of those decisions as well, but I digress)

In a perfect world, yes, adults should be able to make adult decisions.  But when those decisions impact the youth, that is where the line must be drawn, IF, we value the overall health of our youth.  In America, that seems to be the cultural norm right now.  That we want our youth to be healthy so they can thrive and succeed.  It's very difficult for them to do that if they are addicted to drugs or having a baby at 14.  I don't do what I do because I want to take away fun from adults.  I do what I do because I want to help keep our youth, including my own kids, healthy so they can thrive and live to their fullest potential and so they can make the most of things as they follow their paths.  I want to minimize the shrapnel that gets embedded in their skin and throws them off their paths. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13. 

I wasn't talking about children but thanks for bringing that up cos it illustrates my point fucking beautifully. One of your main arguments for not allowing adults to take drugs is because it'll be easier for children to get them then, right? Same goes for fucking - if adults are allowed to do it then children will want to as well. Your logic dictates we have to ban fucking immediately - for the sake of the younger generation. Anything that kids aren't meant to do will be easier for them to do if adults are allowed. Porn, horror movies, subversive literature, music with swear words in... Where do you draw the line? I'll guarantee it comes down to opinion and that's where my whole fucking problem lies. Think of the most conservative morally uptight whining bastard you ever met, then assume there's someone out there who's much worse and then imagine living your life by a set of rules dictated by them because that's what lies at the bottom of this slippery prohibition slope. Little by little the fences get moved back and I for one aint fucking having it.

By all means raise awareness, treat the ones who need it but we're innocent until proven guilty. Just because, in your opinion, there's no healthy way to use drugs doesn't mean the rest of us necessarily feel the same way. Why should you be the one who gets to decide?

[AFK]

It isn't just according to my opinion or the opinions of my colleagues in the field.  It is also according to brain science and the research behind adolescent development.  It is more than how one feels, it is also about the evidence.  The current brain research suggests that adolescents simply do not have the capacity to make adult decisions.  They are irrational and are all about testing their boundaries.  And that is natural, and we should encourage opportunities for testing those boundaries, but they should be opportunities we know are healthy. 

But of course, societies evolve.  Perhaps decades from now, or sooner, the prevailing wisdom and opinion will be that drugs are fine and dandy for 13 and 14 year olds.  And the laws will eventually follow that mindset.  I think that would be a harmful and very negative evolution myself, but, it could happen. 

[AFK]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:  http://pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu/dahl/Dahl_Adolescent_brain_development.pdf

If you read the first couple of pages you'll see the impacts of their brain development.  On the one hand, their reasoning skills and intelligence is increasing.  However, when you pair that up with their penchant to take risks, and their inclination to make irrational, emotional decisions, the results can be fairly catastrophic.  Morbidity and mortality increases 200% during this developmental state.  Adding drugs into the equation isn't going to hep that at all. 

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Also prohibition = violence.

Prohibition of alcohol in the US caused a hell of an organised crime problem.

Would the social problems with gangs and drugs be lessened by legalisation?

[P3nT4gR4m]

The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13. 

I wasn't talking about children but thanks for bringing that up cos it illustrates my point fucking beautifully. One of your main arguments for not allowing adults to take drugs is because it'll be easier for children to get them then, right? Same goes for fucking - if adults are allowed to do it then children will want to as well. Your logic dictates we have to ban fucking immediately - for the sake of the younger generation. Anything that kids aren't meant to do will be easier for them to do if adults are allowed. Porn, horror movies, subversive literature, music with swear words in... Where do you draw the line? I'll guarantee it comes down to opinion and that's where my whole fucking problem lies. Think of the most conservative morally uptight whining bastard you ever met, then assume there's someone out there who's much worse and then imagine living your life by a set of rules dictated by them because that's what lies at the bottom of this slippery prohibition slope. Little by little the fences get moved back and I for one aint fucking having it.

By all means raise awareness, treat the ones who need it but we're innocent until proven guilty. Just because, in your opinion, there's no healthy way to use drugs doesn't mean the rest of us necessarily feel the same way. Why should you be the one who gets to decide?

Still not.

[Adios]

RWHN, I understand that you work with children. But. As a child of the late '60's and early 70's drug and sexual revolution I have to disagree with you. We didn't run around all fucking "I'm going to kill myself" emo. A hell of a lot of very intelligent people are from the era. Oh, and most of us stopped doing the hard shit decades ago. I stopped doing all of it in '72.

Just had a visit with a shrink and guess what? He suggested that I switch from alcohol to pot at night to sleep. But what the hell does he know.

I am irked by so many people trying to decide how I should live my life because they have an opinion. Hey, I have one too.

Oh, we have fat kids so let's ban fast food. How utterly fucking stupid. Take the damn video games away from the fat little bastard and kick his outside.

So your fat kid is all emo and throwing a fit? Paddle his fat ass.

Kids need a little less fucking pampering and a little more real fucking world.

[LMNO]

Charley, perhaps you're having a bit of Survivorship Bias.  The very fact you're here means that your drug experiences were not overly damaging.  There will be no posts in this thread from people who were overly damaged by them, because, well... anyone who was damaged won't be here.

Sure, there were intelligent people in the 60s and 70s.  And in the 80s, the 50s, and the 90s.  But as each decade had its share of intelligent people who did the drug of their era, there are many more* who became opium junkies, acid casualties, alcoholics, crackheads, or tweakers (pick your decade's favorite drug).

What I'm hearing from RWHN is that while it isn't possible to keep all kids away from all drugs, the more kids you can keep away from most drugs will result in fewer casualties.

The intelligent kids will always be intelligent kids, but there will be fewer burnouts.  And isn't that a good thing?










*Unverified statistic - Conclusion reached due to the general principle of the long tail.

[Adios]

Charley, perhaps you're having a bit of Survivorship Bias.  The very fact you're here means that your drug experiences were not overly damaging.  There will be no posts in this thread from people who were overly damaged by them, because, well... anyone who was damaged won't be here.

Sure, there were intelligent people in the 60s and 70s.  And in the 80s, the 50s, and the 90s.  But as each decade had its share of intelligent people who did the drug of their era, there are many more* who became opium junkies, acid casualties, alcoholics, crackheads, or tweakers (pick your decade's favorite drug).

What I'm hearing from RWHN is that while it isn't possible to keep all kids away from all drugs, the more kids you can keep away from most drugs will result in fewer casualties.

The intelligent kids will always be intelligent kids, but there will be fewer burnouts.  And isn't that a good thing?










*Unverified statistic - Conclusion reached due to the general principle of the long tail.

Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.

And, since I did live through those times, there were VERY few who are they way you are saying and oddly enough a lot of the rest of us tried to help them.

But carry on with deciding how I should live.

[Cain]

RWHN, what credence do you give to the sociological theory that if certain drugs, like pot, are legalized, the social pressure to do them will actually drop, as there is no longer an illicit association with the act, thus lowering it's value in terms of in-group/out-group teenage peer distrinctions?

I can certainly see something like Rx drugs taking the place of pot if this theory holds true, but I wondered what your thoughts were on it as a whole.  Not entirely your area, I know, but I picked it up while doing some criminological research and found the idea compelling, in the context of costly signalling and mutual guilt to build trust and bind groups together.

Well, the thing is, even if it ever becomes legalized here in the states, there most certainly would be an age limit ala tobacco and alcohol.  I don't know if it would be 18 or 21.  So, no matter what happens, it will still be illegal for teenagers to use.  For adults, I don't think there would be much change.  If that theory did have any weight I would suspect you would see that shift in the 21-25 yo population.  But I don't know, I don't really think too much thought goes into that.  It doesn't seem to impact alcohol consumption amongst young adults, which is legal.  But, if it were to be legalized, it certainly would be something to study.  And I don't think Rx drugs really taking the place of any kind of other drug.  The rise in abuse of Rx has a lot to do with availability.  Kids are doing them for the same reason they are huffing or doing inhalants.  Because they're their and nobody is paying attention to them. 

Hmm, yes, I see your point on the age thing.  I know that, for example, in Canton next to the one I'm currently staying in at Switzerland, pot can legally be bought, and the age is around 16, whereas of course the USA tends to be a little more strict with alcohol (I don't know about tobacco) and that could raise the age of legal use considerably.

I was just wondering because I was catching up on my criminology reading, and the author was talking about the use of law-breaking in order to build group cohesion and test individuals.  He gave the examples of boarding schools and how he, as a child, was pressured to steal food from the kitchen as it was something which could get you expelled.  He didn't want to do it, because he wasn't hungry, but was pressured into it regardless.  Earlier on in the book, it mentioned how undercover cops were allowed to break certain laws, such as using drugs, to maintain their cover, so tests for organized crime groups, like the Mafia, which had gotten lax, were replaced with the requirement to kill someone to be given entry.

Obviously teenage cliques are not criminal gangs, but their sociology will mirror it in some ways, and one of the best ways I could think of to see if someone could be assimilated into the group would be to give them something illegal to do and see if they wussed out or went for it.  In that sense, I could see the value of pot decreasing, depending on how legalised it was, the age at which smoking it was legal, the penalties associated with it etc.  At the same time, I can see something else then picking up speed to replace pot should that happen, and it could easily be something far more dangerous, like ecstasy or heroin.

Anyway, thanks for your answer.

[LMNO]

Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.

And, since I did live through those times, there were VERY few who are they way you are saying and oddly enough a lot of the rest of us tried to help them.

But carry on with deciding how I should live.

Parenting skills?  In an age where a mother will call the cops to taze her own child for misbehaving?


I understand your point about freedom to choose: Now, what do you do about kids who have no choices?

[Captain Utopia]

Here's the thing.  I've heard this argument that legalizing drugs will somehow be an adrenaline shot to the economy.  That it is going to be this big, boost.  And I've never seen any reasonable, legitimate proof to bolster that position.  So I'm asking BadBeast to simply provide the facts that supports his theory.

[...]

Oh, and FP, you're doing a great job Monday QBing this thread.  Anytime you want to actually add to the debate, go right ahead. 

You put a [citation needed] emote against his entire post, I guess I found that quite disrespectful, and significantly different in tone from how you intended it to come across (bolded above).  My bad.

Because I honestly don't see it from my understanding of economics and drugs.  Yes, certainly, there would be additional revenues coming into the state coiffers if you legalized marijuana.  But one thing that will happen is a good percentage of that will go to treatment and prevention funding.  That will undoubtedly be one of the compromises made to legalize the drug (if it ever happens).

Wouldn't that guarantee jobs, proportional to usage?

The prison industry creates jobs, but is a net loss to any governments budget.  I'm seeing estimates between $30k-$50k to house a prisoner per year, so even if the pot-heads who were no longer in jail were placed on welfare, you'd have a net-gain to the economy.  Bonus -- even in the worst case scenario, the pot-heads would be efficiently organising their minimal income to maximise how much they get to spend on weed, thereby stimulating the economy further.

The other revenues would also likely be marked for specific funds, most likely in the area of health care.  Maybe some of it goes into the general fund.  But, by that point, what you have left wouldn't actually be so significant that it would provide that much of a punch to an ailing economy.

Okay - if the money gets put into healthcare, prevention, general fund or WHATEVER... that aids the economy.  If the money disappears into Mexico... that hurts the economy.  It's been a while since I took my classes economics, but I'm pretty damn sure that's how it works.

It isn't just according to my opinion or the opinions of my colleagues in the field.  It is also according to brain science and the research behind adolescent development.  It is more than how one feels, it is also about the evidence.  The current brain research suggests that adolescents simply do not have the capacity to make adult decisions.  They are irrational and are all about testing their boundaries.  And that is natural, and we should encourage opportunities for testing those boundaries, but they should be opportunities we know are healthy.  

So following this logic, by reducing the appeal of pot as something that kids do to test their boundaries, we'd be reducing their overall usage?

[Adios]

Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.

And, since I did live through those times, there were VERY few who are they way you are saying and oddly enough a lot of the rest of us tried to help them.

But carry on with deciding how I should live.

Parenting skills?  In an age where a mother will call the cops to taze her own child for misbehaving?


I understand your point about freedom to choose: Now, what do you do about kids who have no choices?

Ok, so what are you suggesting? Wrap the world in bubble wrap?

Exactly what do you mean by 'have no choice'?

Want to change laws? Decriminalize spankings.
There are plenty of parents who DON'T call the cops to taze their kids.
So who get's to decide how I live? Who's hands should I turn myself over to?