REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Placid Dingo]

I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits.  Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread.  That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization.  Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons.  (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)

I think it should be totally legal to sell and own fully automatic weapons. This is, however, a whole different issue that I don't think really has much correlation with the current discussion.

And this is part if why I'm happy to live in Australia.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

IMO the legalization issue is far less pertinent to keeping kids off drugs than repairing the social, emotional, and economic damage that leads to kids who want to use drugs.

I agree that this is a more fundamental issue, but IMO changing marijuana laws is a smaller step in that process, and therefore relevant.

Social, emotional and economic damage is only exacerbated by absurdly disproportionate punishments related to growing, selling and using marijuana.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, this has been one of the most sane discussions on the topic yet...

That being said, I'm not sure I find any of the arguments presented here to support the current state of prohibition at all convincing, or based on any sort of objective view. I respect RWHN and his work to fix kids that are broken (not to mention that I like the damned punner)... so I am gonna step out of the discussion before I say something that offends him.


ETA: Well fuck, I was wrong... one more question:

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-04-06-synthetic-drugs_N.htm

How many people get this ill on pot, and would there be a market for "legal synthetics" if actual pot were legal?

To me this seems like the "bathtub gin" issue of Prohibition days.

[AFK]

I am now going to stay out of the debate, as I'm not going to change my opinion (because I've had too many good times on weed, and all the people I have seen that were really fucked up on pot would have been that way whether or not it was illegal), and you are also not going to change your opinion.

I am still curious on what exactly you mean with gateway drug, though. Could you phrase it as a definition? For example:

Definition: A drug is a gateway drug if and only if it's effects and social status cause users to start using other drugs.

A gateway drug is when you put your drugs on the gate, and open it, and then it becomes a jar.

I dunno man, I've been pretty thorough explaining what a gateway drug is.  Are you having trouble with it because it isn't fitting your perception of the issues?  I really don't know how else to put it out there. 

[AFK]

When pot was legalized in the Netherlands, the rate of usage fell, then rose above previous levels, then returned to about the same rate.

The people who studied this said, IIRC, that the drop was due to people not knowing where to go to get their weed as legit businesses replaced the black market dealers. They can't compete with a nice reliable, respectable business.

The temporary rise was associated with people who decided to experiment with it who weren't curious enough to try it when it was illegal. If you're aware that this was temporary, RWHN, then it seems dishonest to leave out that crucial fact.

But after this temporary rise it returned to the same levels before it was legalized (rates in line with regional trends, regardless of legalization status), which is usually left out as a lie by omission by anti-drug types. That increase that you're harping on is temporary and arguably offset by the preceding transition period where people use it less because it is harder to find. People who don't like pot aren't going to suddenly like pot when it becomes legal. People with no interest aren't going to suddenly decide to do it because the laws changed.

And why would they? If pot was made legal tomorrow, would you go out and try some?

Furthermore, the drug war harms entire families more than marijuana is ever capable of. How are taking parent's houses, locking up parents, putting parent's deep into debt, and preventing kids from receiving financial aid not severe costs? These things effect children in much more profound ways since it disrupts their family's ability to provide for them as well as putting higher education farther out of reach.

When kids are getting high, it doesn't prevent them from having a roof over their heads, it doesn't prevent them from affording medical care, it doesn't place their parent behind bars, it doesn't remove food from their mouths, it doesn't place their family in suffocating debt. It can damage them for sure, but let's compare the actual damage done by the drug to the actual damage done to entire families by the drug laws.

First off, I'm not really cool with even a temporary increase in usage.  That means more kids who weren't using marijuana would now be using marijuana.  I personally don't believe that gamble is an appropriate trade-off for making it legal for adults to use. 

Secondly, we have to consider a considerable difference between the Netherlands and America.  Culture.  The most immediate of which is the advertising culture.  The Netherlands were successful in banning advertising.  You try to do that in America, you've got a Freedom of Speech battle on your hands that will most likely be won by the advertisers.  And then all bets are off.  Based on that alone, it's difficult to accept the Dutch model as a one-to-one comparison to what would happen in the U.S. if we followed the same policy.

I should also note from what I've read, the Dutch are starting to become a bit jaded and upset with the marijuana policy.  Mostly because it is inviting "drug tourists" to their country from neighboring European countries.  I've also read that quite a few municipalities in the Netherlands have refused to allow their coffeeshops to supply marijuana.  So it seems like the jury is still out in some respects. 

[AFK]

Well, this has been one of the most sane discussions on the topic yet...

That being said, I'm not sure I find any of the arguments presented here to support the current state of prohibition at all convincing, or based on any sort of objective view. I respect RWHN and his work to fix kids that are broken (not to mention that I like the damned punner)... so I am gonna step out of the discussion before I say something that offends him.

First, I need to clarify, again, that I don't "fix kids".  I am not treatment, I am prevention.  I work on the issue in a broader context, focusing on programming and policies.  I suspect this is why, not that you've done this, others in this thread keep talking about "profit."  I make no profit from what I do.  Hell, I'm definitely not going to be acquiring any yachts with my salary.  I'd probably have to take out a loan just to buy a fucking row boat. 

And it wasn't even a job I had planned for my career.  In a way I kind of fell into it.  But I definitely believe in the work and believe in the cause.  But I also pride myself in making sure that everything I do is based upon evidence.  Not just a blind acceptance of information, but information that I gather and that I consider and process using my own thought process.  If something doesn't make sense to me, I don't use it.  When someone is selling a bad bill of goods, I reject them, even when the State says I should.  I'm nobody's puppet, despite where my funding comes from.  I'm fortunate in that I have a Director who works the same way and allows me that breathing space. 

So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective.  It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective.  It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research. 

I think it seems that way to you.

[AFK]

No, it IS that way.  I mean, I DO have a Master's Degree in Public Policy.  I was trained and taught by some of the best minds in the country when it comes to research and public policy.  I do know what I'm doing. 

[AFK]

And with that I'm out of this thread for now.  I can see where it's going as my credibility is starting to be questioned.  So I'll leave you all at it while I get back to my work.  I have to go to my regularly scheduled brainwashing at the DEA office. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

And with that I'm out of this thread for now.  I can see where it's going as my credibility is starting to be questioned.  So I'll leave you all at it while I get back to my work.  I have to go to my regularly scheduled brainwashing at the DEA office. 

Its not an issue of credibility... its an issue of the BiP. Unless you're telling me that the BiP doesn't apply to you on this topic. I mean, come on RWHN, you've made statements in the past as fact, which were in the end not fact. You're quoting "deaths due to pot" as numbers with no idea whats actually behind the numbers. How is that objective?

[AFK]

I actually pretty thoroughly laid out my idea of what is behind the numbers, including that which I learned from my training by the Chief ME of Maine. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Annnnnnd this thread is a toolbox again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective.  It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research. 

I think it seems that way to you.

That was pretty fucked up.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Your idea of what is behind the numbers... is an idea, based on what an ME in Maine taught you (where zero deaths were reported). How is that objective?

So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective.  It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research. 

I think it seems that way to you.

That was pretty fucked up.

Yes, it why I should have stuck with my previous comment and left the discussion then. In fact, I should take that advice now.

[LMNO]

Having this thread end amicably was too much to hope for.