Paid to smoke Pot

[AFK]

Whoops, sorry Kai, I was referring to the bit in the first sentence of that post that I bolded.  Not the bit that you bolded. 

[Kai]

Again, I agree with what you said. Was my fault for not understanding your reference.

And to clarify, I'm asking so I can be informed and support beneficial legislation rather than stuff which would be to our collective detriment.

[AFK]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

[Kai]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

Ah, so less, say, arresting people for smoking pot, and more advocating to adolescents the dangers of abuse and addiction. Sort of like teaching proper sexual safety rather than promoting ignorant abstinence.

[Adios]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

Please say it ain't DARE!

[Kai]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

Please say it ain't DARE!

I don't think the Reverend is talking about failed approaches.

[AFK]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

Ah, so less, say, arresting people for smoking pot, and more advocating to adolescents the dangers of abuse and addiction. Sort of like teaching proper sexual safety rather than promoting ignorant abstinence.

That's the spirit of it.  I'd focus more on corrections reform and find viable alternatives for non-violent, non-dealing offenders that keep them out of jail.  So there should be much less incarceration for these types of offenders and more efforts to link them with services.  And I know, not everyone caught with pot is necessarily addicted to it.  I think in those cases you could find some innovative approaches be it some kind of educational program, community service, or, just limit the consequence to a fine and send them on their way.  

And for education we really don't do zero tolerance anymore.  Some religious-based programs probably still do it.  But it really wouldn't be a parallel to safe sex either.  I think the proper approach is to really address the underlying issues and contributing factors that get kids to start in the first place.  Now, most kids become risk takers and rebellious when they become pre-teens and teens, so you can't do anything about that.  But, you can address their decision making process and help them to understand how those energies can be misdirected, and how the results can have serious and significant impacts on their future, their friends, and even their loved ones.  

Another important area of focus is parents.  There need to be more programs to help parents understand how they influence their children and how they can send the wrong messages or how the extent to which they monitor (or don't monitor) their children has an impact.  

[AFK]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

Please say it ain't DARE!

No, it isn't DARE! 

[Jenne]

RWHN, that's the problem I have with the current measure on the ballot for CA this fall.  Not enough measures that ensure education is a component of this new law.  So while the pro-lil-businessman people are anti-this law because it leaves it up to individual locales to follow it, so the big pot companies (wut?) can come in and swoop up all the profits away from the lil-man-pot-farmer, there's an anti-legalization front that has a valid point as well vis a vis how to clean up the "ok, folks, it's legal now!" mess that will ensue when people start using it and not being responsible about it.

[AFK]

RWHN, that's the problem I have with the current measure on the ballot for CA this fall.  Not enough measures that ensure education is a component of this new law.  So while the pro-lil-businessman people are anti-this law because it leaves it up to individual locales to follow it, so the big pot companies (wut?) can come in and swoop up all the profits away from the lil-man-pot-farmer, there's an anti-legalization front that has a valid point as well vis a vis how to clean up the "ok, folks, it's legal now!" mess that will ensue when people start using it and not being responsible about it.

Well, if it makes you feel any better about it, if it passes, you'll at least be a great case study for the rest of us.  For better or worse. 

[Jenne]

RWHN, that's the problem I have with the current measure on the ballot for CA this fall.  Not enough measures that ensure education is a component of this new law.  So while the pro-lil-businessman people are anti-this law because it leaves it up to individual locales to follow it, so the big pot companies (wut?) can come in and swoop up all the profits away from the lil-man-pot-farmer, there's an anti-legalization front that has a valid point as well vis a vis how to clean up the "ok, folks, it's legal now!" mess that will ensue when people start using it and not being responsible about it.

Well, if it makes you feel any better about it, if it passes, you'll at least be a great case study for the rest of us.  For better or worse. 

You know what they say--we herald what's to come in most of the other states...so yeah, stay tuned.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Here's an interesting piece from the RAND Corporation about the potential impact of legalization on the price of pot in California:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/legalization-would-cut.html

They think it could fall as much as 80 percent if the measure goes through which would put the price at roughly $1.50 per joint. 

Oh man, that's the best news I've heard today! 

[Kai]

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.

I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention.  Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work.  But it's drops in the bucket.  You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are.  If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads.  Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.  

Ah, so less, say, arresting people for smoking pot, and more advocating to adolescents the dangers of abuse and addiction. Sort of like teaching proper sexual safety rather than promoting ignorant abstinence.

That's the spirit of it.  I'd focus more on corrections reform and find viable alternatives for non-violent, non-dealing offenders that keep them out of jail.  So there should be much less incarceration for these types of offenders and more efforts to link them with services.  And I know, not everyone caught with pot is necessarily addicted to it.  I think in those cases you could find some innovative approaches be it some kind of educational program, community service, or, just limit the consequence to a fine and send them on their way.  

And for education we really don't do zero tolerance anymore.  Some religious-based programs probably still do it.  But it really wouldn't be a parallel to safe sex either.  I think the proper approach is to really address the underlying issues and contributing factors that get kids to start in the first place.  Now, most kids become risk takers and rebellious when they become pre-teens and teens, so you can't do anything about that.  But, you can address their decision making process and help them to understand how those energies can be misdirected, and how the results can have serious and significant impacts on their future, their friends, and even their loved ones.  

Another important area of focus is parents.  There need to be more programs to help parents understand how they influence their children and how they can send the wrong messages or how the extent to which they monitor (or don't monitor) their children has an impact.  

As I understand, a large proportion of the population either regularly smokes marijuana or has smoked at one time, and this is despite the illegalization. I like your ideas on enforcement; it makes it clear the point is to find and eliminate addiction and abuse rather than demonize the addicts, or even non-addicts who are occasional users. It gets to the heart of the problem: there are people who are addicted to various substances or who may become addicted, and we want to find and help them, and the other mild consequences are one tool in prevention and finding people who need help.

I bring up sexual education because the way it was treated in the past is very similar to the DARE program: misinformation, demonization, scare tactics, and ignorance that lead to poor choices. Abstinence only education doesn't work, because A) people will go ahead and do things anyway and because they're ignorant about the reality they end up being incredibly unsafe and B) When they get to a point in their life when they can finally let loose and explore those boundaries they are incredibly naive and dangerous. Whereas if they receive proper information and not exaggerated scare tactics, as well as information on safety and help if they do get in a bad situation, they are much more likely to make informed and safe decisions. Maybe "safe use" is a less optimal way of going about preventing addiction and it should be abstinence education, but this should be associated with correct and not exaggerated information and definitely no demonization or scare tactics which would prevent people from going for help when they really need it. You may not see drug use go down to zero, but it is so much more likely to decrease drug abuse and addiction, just like teenagers will have sex regardless of what you tell them, but there are lower rates of teen pregnancy and std's from people who receive proper education without demonization. But you know all this. I'm just clarifying for myself.

[Cain]

20+ pages, easy

[Adios]

20+ pages, easy

I actually posted this as a tongue in cheek because a guy is being paid to be a critic by legal growers and to write reports on it.

Of course,as is typical with this board it has been sidetracked into a thread with real content that has me interested as hell.

I HATE YOU ALL!