REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

I will be honest and I really don't like the comparative argument.  The argument that since marijuana isn't as bad as heroin and cocaine, etc., etc., that it's crazy to make it illegal.  Imagine that same argument being made for pesticides, that a certain pesticide should be legal because, well, the health effects for humans isn't as bad as say, DDT.  I personally think it is a bit of obfuscation and conflation.  I think the effects of marijuana upon youth and society, on its own merits not compared to something else, are to the point that prohibition is warranted. 

Further, if you read the work of Hawkins and Catalano you will see that there is extensive evidence that communities that set clear standards and norms for alcohol and other drugs tend to have less issues with youth substance abuse, precisely because those standards and norms are huge protective factors.

I see this firsthand in my own community where through a variety of means it is established, overall, that underage drinking isn't something this community endorses or condones.  That is why the vast majority of our kids don't drink.  It's why the vast majority of our kids don't do pot.  The community norms are there, the school norms are there.  If you lift the legal barrier, you go in the other direction.  We don't want to go in the other direction with our youth. 

Next, when we talk to kids about drug and alcohol use, we don't beat them over the head with, "It's illegal and if you do it you'll go to jail."  That isn't part of our message at all.  We educate on the consequences as relates to health, brain development, biological development (for example the negative impact it can have on young males and they're anatomy.  That tends to be a show stopper.), etc.  It certainly is put out there that it is illegal and they are told it is ONE consequence to consider, but it isn't used as this big scary club. 

Actually, that talk, about the legal consequences, tends to be shifted more towards the parents.  There are a lot of parents out there who have a very permissive attitude when it comes to alcohol and marijuana.  I mean, there are parents who will smoke up with their kids.  Especially the parents of the "good kids".  The ones with the good grades, who are athletes, and looking to move on to college.  These are the parents who when their kids get caught violating the law, will try to persuade the police to just drop it.  Or when the kid gets caught at school with drugs, they'll ask the principal to not suspend them or write them up.  Because they are concerned about the college scholarship, etc.  They don't care about the fact that their kid likely has a substance use issue that needs to be addressed, they just don't want their son or daughter's chance to follow in their hallowed footsteps to be dashed.  Fucked up priorities. 


As for the arrest data, it really isn't all that surprising that a lot of the drug violation arrests are for possession and for marijuana possession.  Obviously marijuana is one of the more widespread substances as far as use amongst the population.  But that only tells you one part of the story.  How many of those caught for possession didn't also have other charges they were arrested for?  How many were non-violent?  And very important, how many of those actually wind up in jail or prison for any appreciable time?  Arrest data alone doesn't really give you that much of a picture. 

[Cain]

My problem is simple cost-benefits analysis.

I just don't believe the massive policing-intelligence-paramilitary effort focused on the vast majority of drugs is a sensible investment.  I think the treatment end requires more investment, and by freeing up the resources tied up in the "COIN effort on Restricted Narcotics" or whatever pseudonym they're using for the War on Drugs nowadays there would be an overall improvement general crime prevention, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and so on, and money saved at the same time.

[AFK]

The tricky part, however, is that the cartels are increasingly becoming involved in the prescription drug black market.  That's diverting legal prescription drugs to dealers AND flooding local markets with counterfeit prescription drugs.  And these counterfeits are making it into chain pharmacies like CVS, Walgreens, etc.  So this goes beyond impacting just the drug dealer and the drug abuser. 

I think we still want the DEA to be pursuing that and shutting those operations down.  But these are some of the same cartels involved in the illicit drug trade.  So it's a bit messy at this point because of how the cartels have diversified. 

[East Coast Hustle]

That is why the vast majority of our kids don't drink.  It's why the vast majority of our kids don't do pot.

This really isn't meant to be snarky, but are you talking about just the L/A area or Maine in general? I can't believe that a "vast majority" of kids in eastern Maine don't drink, unless you're tweaking the stats by including everyone under the age of 18 instead of just the age group where drinking is actually a concern (say, 10 years old and up). Do you have any published source for this? And if so, does it break down by county/region/town at all?

[AFK]

The latest data is available at this link:  http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=101987&an=1

According to this survey data, it is roughly 2 out of 3 kids in Maine that don't drink alcohol.  Drinking as in regular use.  If you ask the question about lifetime use it is obviously higher at 65% but that captures everything from the binge drinker to the kids who had one beer and that was it.  But the measure we tend to go by is the measure of drinking in the past 30 days.  That is the State's survey.

The grant that employs me did a survey of the schools in my region, and the number of kids who drank in the past 30 days was much lower.  So there is a little fuzziness to the numbers but I would wager that the actual number is somewhere in between, which means either way it is still the majority of kids in Maine, and in my area, that don't drink. 

The data is similar for marijuana. 

[Don Coyote]

The latest data is available at this link:  http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=101987&an=1

According to this survey data, it is roughly 2 out of 3 kids in Maine that don't drink alcohol.  Drinking as in regular use.  If you ask the question about lifetime use it is obviously higher at 65% but that captures everything from the binge drinker to the kids who had one beer and that was it.  But the measure we tend to go by is the measure of drinking in the past 30 days.  That is the State's survey.

The grant that employs me did a survey of the schools in my region, and the number of kids who drank in the past 30 days was much lower.  So there is a little fuzziness to the numbers but I would wager that the actual number is somewhere in between, which means either way it is still the majority of kids in Maine, and in my area, that don't drink. 

The data is similar for marijuana. 

If the data for marijuana usage is similar to that of drinking, why is it a problem?

[AFK]

Because if you take that percentage, and take into account the population of the schools, you are talking about hundreds of kids.  Real kids, not robots.  I want to see that minority of kids drinking and using drugs get smaller, not bigger. 

[East Coast Hustle]

The latest data is available at this link:  http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=101987&an=1

According to this survey data, it is roughly 2 out of 3 kids in Maine that don't drink alcohol.  Drinking as in regular use.  If you ask the question about lifetime use it is obviously higher at 65% but that captures everything from the binge drinker to the kids who had one beer and that was it.  But the measure we tend to go by is the measure of drinking in the past 30 days.  That is the State's survey.

The grant that employs me did a survey of the schools in my region, and the number of kids who drank in the past 30 days was much lower.  So there is a little fuzziness to the numbers but I would wager that the actual number is somewhere in between, which means either way it is still the majority of kids in Maine, and in my area, that don't drink. 

The data is similar for marijuana. 

Cool, thanks! I'm always pleasantly surprised that a state as otherwise backwards as Maine has the best/most useful state government website of any state I've seen. I suppose that if you use the last 30 days as a qualifier and don't include the "kids" who are out of school but not old enough to drink yet it makes more sense.

Of course, kids will ALWAYS lie on surveys (especially those conducted in school), but you can't control for that so there's little point in getting hung up on it.

[AFK]

Actually, the survey instrument they use in the schools is pretty sophisticated and has built-in mechanisms that do a pretty good job of picking up when a student is lying or exaggerating.  So the results are pretty accurate.  Otherwise you would see huge fluctuations from year to year, which you don't, so the instrument has pretty reliable validity. 

[Jenne]

RWHN, you got a data system similar to http://www.kidsdata.org/ that we have in CA?  This place has been a godsend for those of us using the data for pro-kid leg and the like.

[BabylonHoruv]

I will be honest and I really don't like the comparative argument.  The argument that since marijuana isn't as bad as heroin and cocaine, etc., etc., that it's crazy to make it illegal.  Imagine that same argument being made for pesticides, that a certain pesticide should be legal because, well, the health effects for humans isn't as bad as say, DDT.  I personally think it is a bit of obfuscation and conflation.  I think the effects of marijuana upon youth and society, on its own merits not compared to something else, are to the point that prohibition is warranted. 

If a pesticide is less bad than a pesticide that is currently in use then the arguement makes perfect sense.

Comparing it to DDT doesn't work, because DDT is forbidden.  Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.

Actually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.

[East Coast Hustle]

Actually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.

Wait, so if weed is legal then people will stop drinking?
\

[AFK]

RWHN, you got a data system similar to http://www.kidsdata.org/ that we have in CA?  This place has been a godsend for those of us using the data for pro-kid leg and the like.

Yeah, we have a report that comes out every year called Kids Count that summarizes all sorts of data concerning youth, youth health, youth development, etc.  It's been pretty helpful for grants, reporting, and such. 

[AFK]

Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.

So?  It still has significant harmful impacts on youth.  I don't care if it isn't "as bad".  Bad is bad in my book when it comes to youth. 

Actually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.

You're kidding right?  Kids and adults, more and more, are becoming poly-drug users.  They don't approach substance use from a linear, rational, and mathematical perspective.  A kid that has been using alcohol regularly isn't going to see marijuana becoming legal and say, "Gee, I guess I'll put down the bottle and just smoke weed.  It's the same thing."

C'mon.  This is the real world we're talking about.  A lot of the kids who are smoking marijuana are also drinking, and vice versa.  That argument doesn't make any sense. 

[BabylonHoruv]

Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.

So?  It still has significant harmful impacts on youth.  I don't care if it isn't "as bad".  Bad is bad in my book when it comes to youth. 

Actually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.

You're kidding right?  Kids and adults, more and more, are becoming poly-drug users.  They don't approach substance use from a linear, rational, and mathematical perspective.  A kid that has been using alcohol regularly isn't going to see marijuana becoming legal and say, "Gee, I guess I'll put down the bottle and just smoke weed.  It's the same thing."

C'mon.  This is the real world we're talking about.  A lot of the kids who are smoking marijuana are also drinking, and vice versa.  That argument doesn't make any sense. 

Right,  I was arguing that a pesticide is a direct replacement, whereas weed may or may not be a replacement.  I was bashing your metaphor, not your arguement.