REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

But if you are saying it is all up to us, the public, by definition you are involving the Government.  Government exists to deal with the issues that are in the public sphere.  So you just made an excellent argument for legislation and policy. 

[Adios]

No I don't think you understand at all what I do.  I work in schools, with the entire school population.  I can assure you my perspective on this as it relates to kids is very broad.  We focus on ALL four stages of drug use from experimentation up to dependency.  I'm sure there are kids who perceive benefits to using pot, but they are just that, perceived.

I still haven't seen any of you address the link I posted to the article in Pediatrics which lays out why legalizing marijuana will be bad for youth.  If y'all disagree that the impact will be bad, please read that article and tell me what is wrong with it.  Please counter it with counter evidence.  Can we stop focusing on my vision, whether I'm seeing the whole picture, yadda, yadda, yadda, and actually address the substantive evidence which supports my position? 

Maybe?

Okay, I read the report, even though it is from 2004 and is likely outdated. What I found was a lot of 'maybe', 'possibly' and so forth. It openly admitted that 3 reports out of 50 something indicated what you propose could happen.

The report, to me, was openly indecisive about the effects of legalization, while doing its best to come down on the side against legalization.

In the 7 years that has passed since the article was written many things have changed, such as we now should have plenty of data available, not only from the U.S., but internationally as well that could include impact studies on the states that have legalized it as opposed to the states that haven't, an openly admitted flaw in the report you provided.

Your report also seemed to put a lot of focus on advertisements if it were legalized, an issue that is without merit as those could be outright banned or regulated. It tried to compare tobacco and alcohol advertising focusing on youth to what would happen with pot.

Your report also claimed that pot is addictive, without any supporting evidence, unless I missed the supporting evidence. Even if it did supply supporting evidence I could counter with many reports to the contrary.

In short, what I got out of the report was, "We don't know, but this is what we think."

Another thing that has happened since that report is that we've gained an even better and clearer understanding of how the brain develops in adolescence and have a clearer understanding of how substance abuse at an early age can be very detrimental the the brain development of a child.  Which, in my mind, ups the stakes even more.  Another thing to consider and perhaps research. 

I think I'm done here.

[trix]

It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance.  I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do.  Period.  WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up.  But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child. 

You reference my point without addressing the substance of it.  Selective reading FTW.

How is it irresponsible for a father to unwind via puffing a bowl after his kid went to bed, if the worst that could (theoretically) happen is only a ticket?  How (again) is that worse than speeding on the highway?

If you are going to call him an irresponsible parent you have to, you know, explain why you believe so.

I could go with the lesser evil point that tons of parents unwind with alcohol after a long day at work, and substituting a joint for a few beers is clearly a more responsible option, but even without looking at that, if the child is in bed, away from it, the substance is beyond the ability of the child to acquire, and the penalty if caught is equivalent to speeding, I fail to see why you find it so irresponsible.  You are really starting to come off as biased.

And before you bring up the obvious "well it's not equiv to speeding is it!!?", you'll have to convince me that it's reasonable to assume he should've been aware that he can be arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime he did not commit.

[BabylonHoruv]

Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality.  In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously.  They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.

And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you.  I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do.  Certainly not for a recreational activity. 

So in other words drug laws are more absurd than traffic laws on another level.

Someone with 4 oz of pot is absolutely not "clearly distributing" weed, and yet they still get charged with distribution.  The metaphor that trix made was accurate.

This father was willing to risk a hefty fine and not being able to get financial aid (he probably doesn't need it anyways" for a posession charge.  His assumption that he would be hit with a posession charge seems pretty reasonable, since he was not distributing, and aside from the quantity posessed there was no reason to think that he was.

He wasn't aware that he was facing prison time (and presumably things like the confiscation of his vehicle and perhaps even his home) so he wasn't choosing to risk that.

It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance.  I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do.  Period.  WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up.  But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child. 

I agree with that.  Doing illegal things of any sort, as a parent, is a bad idea, it not only risks resources that are really not just yours anymore, it also sets a bad example for your children.

That doesn't change the fact that he was punished disproportionately for his mistake, and that innocent children were hurt by the unfair laws. (or possibly just one innocent child, Trix didn't say how many kids the guy has)

[BabylonHoruv]

It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance.  I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do.  Period.  WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up.  But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child. 

You reference my point without addressing the substance of it.  Selective reading FTW.

How is it irresponsible for a father to unwind via puffing a bowl after his kid went to bed, if the worst that could (theoretically) happen is only a ticket?  How (again) is that worse than speeding on the highway?

If you are going to call him an irresponsible parent you have to, you know, explain why you believe so.

I could go with the lesser evil point that tons of parents unwind with alcohol after a long day at work, and substituting a joint for a few beers is clearly a more responsible option, but even without looking at that, if the child is in bed, away from it, the substance is beyond the ability of the child to acquire, and the penalty if caught is equivalent to speeding, I fail to see why you find it so irresponsible.  You are really starting to come off as biased.

And before you bring up the obvious "well it's not equiv to speeding is it!!?", you'll have to convince me that it's reasonable to assume he should've been aware that he can be arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime he did not commit.

speeding is also irresponsible, especcially as a father.  I'd say it's far more irresponsible than smoking a bowl since it puts your life and the life of others on the road at risk.

[trix]

I agree with that.  Doing illegal things of any sort, as a parent, is a bad idea, it not only risks resources that are really not just yours anymore, it also sets a bad example for your children.

Except, his child was completely unaware of his activities.  As far as examples being set, well, that depends on the parent and his/her beliefs on parenting.

That doesn't change the fact that he was punished disproportionately for his mistake, and that innocent children were hurt by the unfair laws. (or possibly just one innocent child, Trix didn't say how many kids the guy has)

Not to mention the fact that his punishment is ENDLESS.  He is now a felon drug dealer.  Every job he tries to apply for, he has to tell him he's a felon drug dealer.  He can't offset the impact of his felony through school, because they don't give Financial Aid to felon drug dealers.  Even shit jobs are turning him down because they don't want to hire a felon drug dealer.  He only gets visitation of his child when he kisses his ex-wife's ass because he's a felon drug dealer, and she automatically wins any court appearance.  Funny, since she smoked pot WITH him back then.  The endless punishment for being a felony drug dealer, when the fact remains that he still never dealt any drugs.

Ok, I've harped on this point enough.  But it's the clearest example I can think of to show why draconian drug laws are harmful to upstanding citizens AND their families.  The example of my friend isn't solitary, when trying to appeal his judgement in court, we all did a lot of researching into comparable cases, and we found a LOT.  It's amazingly common how often this happens.  It makes one wonder how many people sitting in jail or prison for dealing marijuana weren't just holding a bag bigger than an oz.  Unfortunately, our research also led us to conclude that almost every time, getting caught with a QP is guaranteed distribution felony charges, and almost everyone (except a couple rich people we found) was found guilty of the full felony.

But fuck my friend.  He sparked a bowl, WHILE HAVING A KID!  That automatically makes him a Bad Guy and who the fuck cares what happens to him.  Hell even without a kid the same thing would've happened to him, it's not like the judge gave him a harsher sentence because he was a father.  So the family isn't even relevant, he sparked a bowl PERIOD so who cares whether he gets a ticket or locked up or whatever.

This is where I see bias, you seem to believe that he deserves what he got.  That because he broke the law, period, the severity of his punishment isn't relevant.  As soon as he crossed the line over into illegal, ticket, fine, jail time, same difference, he's a Criminal so who cares.

[BabylonHoruv]

I agree with that.  Doing illegal things of any sort, as a parent, is a bad idea, it not only risks resources that are really not just yours anymore, it also sets a bad example for your children.

Except, his child was completely unaware of his activities.  As far as examples being set, well, that depends on the parent and his/her beliefs on parenting.

That doesn't change the fact that he was punished disproportionately for his mistake, and that innocent children were hurt by the unfair laws. (or possibly just one innocent child, Trix didn't say how many kids the guy has)

Not to mention the fact that his punishment is ENDLESS.  He is now a felon drug dealer.  Every job he tries to apply for, he has to tell him he's a felon drug dealer.  He can't offset the impact of his felony through school, because they don't give Financial Aid to felon drug dealers.  Even shit jobs are turning him down because they don't want to hire a felon drug dealer.  He only gets visitation of his child when he kisses his ex-wife's ass because he's a felon drug dealer, and she automatically wins any court appearance.  Funny, since she smoked pot WITH him back then.  The endless punishment for being a felony drug dealer, when the fact remains that he still never dealt any drugs.

The fact that he is now having so much trouble finding employment also means punishment for the child.  Whether he has custody or not.  If he does he can't afford to care for the child at the same level. If he does not he isn't going to be paying the same amount of child support.

This is one case where the prohibition of marijuana, not marijuana itself, has negatively impacted the life of a child in a strong and measurable way, and it is not the only one.

[Bruno]

The idea that  the government should make anything illegal because, otherwise, it appears that the government is condoning it is asinine to the extreme, and everyone who buys or repeats that line of horseshit should just blow their brains out right now.


No offense.


eta:

[Cain]

To bring some fun back to this thread

http://exiledonline.com/two-things-to-say-about-ron-pauls-allegedly-awesome-position-on-drugs/

Some awesome quotes:

Since no one else in the pro-drug camp will say it, allow me: Ron Paul is a drug war asshole. He's a con artist playing a shell game with our liberties with his slippery proposal that the answer to this savage 40-year war on individual liberty is to transfer the power to destroy lives from one authority (federal) to another equally cruel authority (state). In doing so, Dr. Paul has shifted the moral debate about the drug war from one of barbarism and injustice to his crusty old Confederate gripe about states' rights versus federal authority.

Don't  cede the moral ground on the drug issue to the libertarians, because they've sucked the morality out of it by turning it into a States' Rights issue.

One more thing: This goes out to all of you Weed-Nazis out there. You better not be planning to do what I think you're going to do once you get your foot another inch or two inside the respectably-legal door: You better not turn around and slam that door on every other drug-user's face. Because I know that's what you filthy pot-heads are planning. As all drug users know, Weed-Nazis are the most duplicitous, moralizing blowhards of all drug users. They never shuttup about their idiotic moral categories, ranking marijuana as a "soft drug" as opposed to "bad" "hard" drugs like meth and opiates.

Marijuana is for dumbshits; it makes dumbshits feel creative. In a charitable moment, I'd be okay with giving dumbshits that chance to experience a false sense of purpose on this planet, but the thing is, those of us with more refined drug tastes, with more advanced cognitive powers, know that marijuana is one of GAIA's most terrifying booby-traps she ever set. THC equals pure terror and paranoia. Which is why I'm all for imposing a federal death penalty on anyone caught using marijuana or referring to it as a "soft drug" in public, or in the privacy of their own homes. That is, unless the Weed-Nazis are on board with an all-or-nothing drug decriminalization program.

[AFK]

 

I actually had a feeling that there were some in the anti drug-war community that weren't exactly enamored with Ron Paul. 

Also the bit on Weed-Nazis was hilarious. 

[trippinprincezz13]

I just don't buy into the slippery-slope argument that if pot is legalized that ALL THESE KIDS are just going to start smoking just because it's legal and EVERYONE'S going to have it all of a sudden, for some reason. I mean, I'm not here handing out nips of tequila and cigarettes to every kid I see just because I'm of age to legally possess them. Parents that condone underage drinking and/or smoking (weed or tobacco) are going to regardless of the law. And as has been stated several times over, drug dealers aren't there checking IDs and (depending on the person's own values) will sell to children since hey, it's illegal anyway, so why not. Regulating it like alcohol and tobacco would at least give responsible adults to opportunity to indulge with similar penalties for buying for/selling to minors.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that just because pot suddenly became legal, those who do not believe kids should smoke it would suddenly become ok with the idea. There are PLENTY of people who drink that aren't running to the store buying six-packs and bottles for kids, either due to personal morals or legal penalties or both. The people that are doing it are going to do it anyway and should be punished accordingly if caught rather than punishing everyone for something that may or may not happen. Parents who smoke should keep their weed locked/hidden away somewhere in the same manner they should have their alcohol/prescription pills/guns hidden away from their children. Not everyone is going to, which is unfortunate and that is why there should be educational resources and help for children. Unless of course, the government should just take EVERYONE's children and raise them until the age of 18 - that way, they'll be EXTRA SAFE until they reach adulthood.

Not that either option is good, but I would personally feel more comfortable with a kid sneaking away one their parents' joints rather than a bottle of vodka or a few oxycontin or Xanax, or "hey, what do those pills do? I don't know but let me pop a few and see what happens!" And going back to kids that may not be smoking pot because it's illegal - those that are seeking to get high are just going to find more easily accessible or "legal" alternatives. And so you have tampon margaritas, kids smoking bath salts, popping mom and dad's legal prescriptions. Kids that want to get fucked up are going to find a way to do so, usually one that ends up being more dangerous than smoking pot. So the safety of the children argument doesn't really hold up in the real world since kids are already finding much more fucked up ways of getting high than pot could ever be, because said methods are quasi-legal. Education and personal/parental responsibility are the key, not blanket prohibition.

[AFK]

The idea doesn't come from a thought that parents are all of a sudden going to be handing out pot to kids like candy.  But it does come out from the fact that if kids have more social access to a drug, or even if there is a perception of better social access to a drug, the consumption rate of that drug WILL go up.  This is a fundamental.  There is a direct relationship in the data between access and use. 

But you also have to consider that two more contributing factors to youth substance abuse are parental modeling and parental monitoring.  It stands to reason that if marijuana is legalized, more adults will have better access to marijuana and so it stands to reason there will be more of it in the home.  There will likely be more adults using it more openly at home, more chances for adults to model use to kids.  But even if you put that one aside, there is the issue of monitoring.  Even well meaning parents will not be completely tuned into their teens.  I'm sure everyone here has known those successful couples with kids who are workaholics who are always on their blackberries, checking their stock portfolios, busy, busy, busy.  It's very easy for kids to start falling off of their parents radars.  Or at least, certain behaviors.  Couple that with the increased social access and you have a recipe for increased rates of youth substance abuse. 

And I also have to point out again what I pointed out before.  It is fairly atypical for a drug user, much less a teen drug user, to make rational decisions.  You can say you would much rather your child take a joint instead of a pill or Vodka, but your typical kid doesn't think that way.  Indeed, more often than not these days, the kid is going to take all three.  Poly-drug use is much more common these days and that trend doesn't show any signs of reversing.  So that argument doesn't really hold up in my experience. 

Yes, definitely we need the education, and that stuff IS happening.  It's part of my job to organize and develop these kinds of educational programs and to work on strategies to get more parents to be more responsible and educate themselves as well as their children.  But if you legalize marijuana, it WILL make the already existent problem that much worse.  A problem for which we've actually made some headway and reduced usage rates over the past 10 years.  If you legalize, I guarantee you all of that goes away.  Not a doubt in my mind. 

[Thurnez Isa]

I just don't buy into the slippery-slope argument that if pot is legalized that ALL THESE KIDS are just going to start smoking just because it's legal and EVERYONE'S going to have it all of a sudden, for some reason. I mean, I'm not here handing out nips of tequila and cigarettes to every kid I see just because I'm of age to legally possess them. Parents that condone underage drinking and/or smoking (weed or tobacco) are going to regardless of the law. And as has been stated several times over, drug dealers aren't there checking IDs and (depending on the person's own values) will sell to children since hey, it's illegal anyway, so why not. Regulating it like alcohol and tobacco would at least give responsible adults to opportunity to indulge with similar penalties for buying for/selling to minors.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that just because pot suddenly became legal, those who do not believe kids should smoke it would suddenly become ok with the idea. There are PLENTY of people who drink that aren't running to the store buying six-packs and bottles for kids, either due to personal morals or legal penalties or both. The people that are doing it are going to do it anyway and should be punished accordingly if caught rather than punishing everyone for something that may or may not happen. Parents who smoke should keep their weed locked/hidden away somewhere in the same manner they should have their alcohol/prescription pills/guns hidden away from their children. Not everyone is going to, which is unfortunate and that is why there should be educational resources and help for children. Unless of course, the government should just take EVERYONE's children and raise them until the age of 18 - that way, they'll be EXTRA SAFE until they reach adulthood.

Not that either option is good, but I would personally feel more comfortable with a kid sneaking away one their parents' joints rather than a bottle of vodka or a few oxycontin or Xanax, or "hey, what do those pills do? I don't know but let me pop a few and see what happens!" And going back to kids that may not be smoking pot because it's illegal - those that are seeking to get high are just going to find more easily accessible or "legal" alternatives. And so you have tampon margaritas, kids smoking bath salts, popping mom and dad's legal prescriptions. Kids that want to get fucked up are going to find a way to do so, usually one that ends up being more dangerous than smoking pot. So the safety of the children argument doesn't really hold up in the real world since kids are already finding much more fucked up ways of getting high than pot could ever be, because said methods are quasi-legal. Education and personal/parental responsibility are the key, not blanket prohibition.

What your failing to understand is personal responsibility has been dead for a long time.


Also RWHN and anyone else with kids why I should I be involved in raising your kids in the first place?
Thats your job not mine.

[AFK]

Because a community with healthy and thriving youth is a community more likely to be healthy and thrive. 

[Thurnez Isa]

Maybe a community with more freedoms and choice would have a healthier respect for the consequences of those choices.

Plus you could easily make the same argument for violent movies, and in fact that "think of the children" argument has been made. So in places like Britain in the 80's, people had to suffer because some people needed the state to help raise their kids.