REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.

So, you were saying?

[trix]

I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible.  I just can't fathom how it is THAT important.  I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes?  I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family.  If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it.  But to take that risk for drugs?  I just can't understand how it is THAT important.  

Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.

Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.  

Name calling?  I don't think that assuming the laws on distribution make SOME sort of sense makes him an idiot.  He was not distributing.  He was not dealing drugs.  Had I not been told by someone else, I don't think it would have ever occurred to me you could be successfully charged with something you clearly did not do.  But of course, he didn't spend tons of time looking up and deciphering every applicable law on everything he did, and went by the experience and knowledge he and everyone around him had in that area, and that makes him stupid.

Or was that an attempt at trolling?

It's not exactly news that marijuana is illegal.  And again, speaking as a father, I think when you are a father you kind of have to think a little more about what you do and how it will impact your child.  As I said, breaking a law to feed or clothe your child is one thing.  Breaking a law to engage in a recreational activity is quite another. 

Are you skimming my posts?
I didn't say he was unaware that it was illegal.

It's like driving down the highway going five over the speed limit, you know you're breaking the law, but it's not a big deal because the worst that can happen is a ticket.  Suddenly, you get pulled over and arrested for felony Endangering the life of a minor and spend a year in prison.  You find out that apparently, if you're going five over in a heavier vehicle, like the minivan you happen to be driving, it's considered endangering the life of everyone on the road.  You let down your wife and child, are irresponsible, and fucking stupid for not knowing every nuance of every driving code before going above the speed limit.

Except, unlike the analogy, getting arrested for dealing drugs when the person was clearly not dealing drugs, is a bigger leap than endangering the life of a minor.

[AFK]

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. 

[AFK]

Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.

So, you were saying?

Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread.  Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions.  Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic.  It's a waste of my time.  The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith. 

Have a nice day!

[Adios]

Is it possible, RWHN, that because of your position that all you see is the downside, and none of the benefits?
As a kid I was a pothead, and far from being a gateway drug, those other drugs scared the hell out of me. I tried acid about 4 times, then got the hell away from that as well. Never went anywhere near speed, coke or heroin.

Possibly unlikely, if pot were legalized, perhaps some of the money used to fight it, and some of the money used to keep offenders in prison, could be diverted to operations like yours. As well as a part of the tax revenue generated.

I can see your position against meth, and other addictives clearly, add in alcohol and illegal use of prescription drugs and I could see where you could actually stand to make progress, instead of backed up against the wall by its legalization.

I know you are intelligent enough to know that kids are going to drink and smoke pot, and I know you are intelligent to know the percentage of those who require services like yours is small in comparison. Some people are far more prone to addiction than others.

I don't know enough about what you do to know if your beam is narrowed down to those who really need the help, or if your focus is so broad as to include casual users as well, or if you even differentiate between them.

[AFK]

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?

[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."

[BabylonHoruv]

You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.



That's pretty rich. 

It did.  Gangs no longer run Chicago.

[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.

[trix]

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.

Ok change 5 over to 10 over.  Cops often let a casual smoker go with a warning, the analogy is not that off.

Also, "they are going to pick..."  Uh yeah if both are evident at the same time.  But, at least where I'm from, cops often sit on the side of the road semi-hidden behind a bridge or something with radar gun pointed at traffic.  First person to cross the gun going over the limit gets the cop after them.

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.  

I did not ignore the main thrust of your point, in fact I addressed it rather directly.  Both with the speeding analogy and the pot vs alcohol part.
As BH said above me, the only risk this father thought he was exposing his family to, was a ticket for possession.  Whoopdie fuckin doo.  Much like the traffic speeder, who thought he could only get a speeding ticket, at the worst.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.

So, you were saying?

Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread.  Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions.  Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic.  It's a waste of my time.  The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith. 

Have a nice day!

This is exactly the tactic you use to evade every point you can't refute. I can't tell whether you're actually malicious, but you don't seem to be stupid so it boils down to either malice or cowardice. As a mother, it frightens me that you have any influence on the future of anyone's children.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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. 

Are you sincerely unaware that you just reinforced his point?

Jesus.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.



That's pretty rich. 

It did.  Gangs no longer run Chicago.

RWHN is apparently unaware of history.

[AFK]

Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.

So, you were saying?

Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread.  Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions.  Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic.  It's a waste of my time.  The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith. 

Have a nice day!

This is exactly the tactic you use to evade every point you can't refute. I can't tell whether you're actually malicious, but you don't seem to be stupid so it boils down to either malice or cowardice. As a mother, it frightens me that you have any influence on the future of anyone's children.

You don't make any points to refute.  You only toss out hyperbole and lazy generalizations.  It's what you do best. 

[AFK]

You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.



That's pretty rich. 

It did.  Gangs no longer run Chicago.

RWHN is apparently unaware of history.

YOu are apparently unaware of the present.