I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Poisons that harm the environment or that harm individuals without consent (ie dumping toxic waste in the water supply) are vastly different that a plant that people must voluntarily inhale the smoke/vapor from or eat. That's a completely absurd comparison.

Not really.  An impaired person on marijuana can certainly impact the lives of other, innocent people.  If a person smokes in their home, and doesn't leave their home until the effects wear off, sure, it is completely harmless.  but as soon as they sit behind the wheel, or come into work to operate heavy machinery, or are in charge of a room full of 3rd graders....

As for the governments duty to protect children... its duty is to protect its citizens from infringement on their personal rights. If someone beats up a citizen, the government has a right to be involved. If someone slips a rape drug into a citizens drink, the government has a right to be involved. If a person chooses to smoke a plant that has been smoked and eaten for thousands of years (possibly including some of the guys that wrote the Constitution), then its not the governments business.

In theory, if they never leave the house, yes.  Otherwise, as I outlined above, no.  

So it falls into the same category as other LEGAL substances, from the recreational ones to the prescribed ones. Laws against driving intoxicated seem to fit your position above far more aptly than simple prohibition.

On the topic of RWHN's credentials... I know other people in similar lines of work and I find his views to be similar to theirs. So I don't really doubt what he says about himself. Of course, I know religious leaders that hold Doctorates and are heavily involved in Public Policy and think abortion is murder and should be as illegal as marijuana. Just because someone holds credentials and has experience in one side of a debate, doesn't in my opinion, automatically mean they're right or even anything close to it.

That cuts both ways my friend.  

Ummm, huh? I said it doesn't automatically mean that they're right. whats the 'other' way that it cuts?

I respect anyone that tries to help kids grow up without screwing themselves over. However, to restrict the rights of adults on the basis of "OMGZ TEH KIDZ" is simply not a position I can respect. I know that RWHN has said in the past that legalization would make his job harder.

No, that is not right.  I'm not worried about my job being harder.  I mean, we are perfectly capable of addressing legal alcohol and legal tobacco.  Medical Marijuana is another category because it is living in this nutty grey area that is causing all kinds of problems, the worst of which rest with law enforcement.  I'm perfectly capable of adapting my job as the environment changes.  My concern is with the kids, not my job.  Communities are only as healthy as their children are.  

Some people might argue that a nation is only as free as its people. Again, you are pointing to one aspect of a multifaceted issue and hanging everything on it. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. For example, most everyone here has clearly stated that they agree that kids shouldn't do drugs, that there should be controls in place to limit their exposure, education to provide facts about the dangers... ie most of us seem to be acknowledging your position, but we don't seem to get anything in return. That doesn't seem constructive to any debate.

If kids want to smoke pot, they will. Its easy to get, its easy to grow, it will always be easily available. Prohibition has not worked. Prohibition flies in the face of the Constitution. There is simply no argument that supports the continued public policy.

I disagree.  I think the documented costs to communities and society are more than enough reason to continue support of banning these substances.  That doesn't mean there aren't changes to be made with how laws are enforced, and as I've stated many times in previous discussions, there are obviously changes that can be made with respect to how we treat non-violent, non-trafficking marijuana offenders in some States.  

Documented costs... if we remove the costs associated with legal issues... exactly what are the documented costs? If we can agree that any legalization should come with strict laws regarding minors, if we can agree that educating children (as done with alochol and tobacco) should exist... if we can agree that laws against driving while intoxicated on any substance should exist... what are the costs?

Further, what are the costs to society if we continue to go down the path we're on?

However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)

It doesn't ignore that.  Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high.  However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.  

About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home.  (NSDUH, 2006)  If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.  

And yet, in Amsterdam the data seems to contradict your position.

[Kai]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

Which would indicate that alcohol needs to be banned as well, no?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

Don't you think such a scenario would be far more likely under the influence of alcohol or a number of prescription drugs?

[AFK]

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?  

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and /based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.

In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects, then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.

And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.

Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.  

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Poisons that harm the environment or that harm individuals without consent (ie dumping toxic waste in the water supply) are vastly different that a plant that people must voluntarily inhale the smoke/vapor from or eat. That's a completely absurd comparison.

Not really.  An impaired person on marijuana can certainly impact the lives of other, innocent people.  If a person smokes in their home, and doesn't leave their home until the effects wear off, sure, it is completely harmless.  but as soon as they sit behind the wheel, or come into work to operate heavy machinery, or are in charge of a room full of 3rd graders....

I would say the vast majority of marijuana smokers I've encountered, including my own maybe twice a year indulgence, much prefer to stay indoors, or go for a walk in the Arboretum. They don't want to get behind the wheel, and they don't want to operate heavy machinery, or teach a 3rd grade English class. They want to eat some chips and play video games or listen to Electric Wizard.

As for the governments duty to protect children... its duty is to protect its citizens from infringement on their personal rights. If someone beats up a citizen, the government has a right to be involved. If someone slips a rape drug into a citizens drink, the government has a right to be involved. If a person chooses to smoke a plant that has been smoked and eaten for thousands of years (possibly including some of the guys that wrote the Constitution), then its not the governments business.

In theory, if they never leave the house, yes.  Otherwise, as I outlined above, no.

Please see my previous point and observe actual potheads.  

On the topic of RWHN's credentials... I know other people in similar lines of work and I find his views to be similar to theirs. So I don't really doubt what he says about himself. Of course, I know religious leaders that hold Doctorates and are heavily involved in Public Policy and think abortion is murder and should be as illegal as marijuana. Just because someone holds credentials and has experience in one side of a debate, doesn't in my opinion, automatically mean they're right or even anything close to it.

That cuts both ways my friend.

Quite right. It could very well be that you are the one who is misinformed.  

I respect anyone that tries to help kids grow up without screwing themselves over. However, to restrict the rights of adults on the basis of "OMGZ TEH KIDZ" is simply not a position I can respect. I know that RWHN has said in the past that legalization would make his job harder.

No, that is not right.  I'm not worried about my job being harder.  I mean, we are perfectly capable of addressing legal alcohol and legal tobacco.  Medical Marijuana is another category because it is living in this nutty grey area that is causing all kinds of problems, the worst of which rest with law enforcement.  I'm perfectly capable of adapting my job as the environment changes.  My concern is with the kids, not my job.  Communities are only as healthy as their children are.

Legalizing it will make it more difficult for minors to acquire it. Please see alcohol and tobacco.  

If kids want to smoke pot, they will. Its easy to get, its easy to grow, it will always be easily available. Prohibition has not worked. Prohibition flies in the face of the Constitution. There is simply no argument that supports the continued public policy.

I disagree.  I think the documented costs to communities and society are more than enough reason to continue support of banning these substances.  That doesn't mean there aren't changes to be made with how laws are enforced, and as I've stated many times in previous discussions, there are obviously changes that can be made with respect to how we treat non-violent, non-trafficking marijuana offenders in some States.  

I think that perhaps Trip can help out here, and describe what effect legalization actually has on a population.

And Prohibition is proven not to work. Look at booze. It's just that booze has stronger cultural and religious connotations than does marijuana, at least to modern people. It really is less harmful than booze. I imagine that any costs are actually due to enforcement of ill-informed policy.

[East Coast Hustle]

Hell, if we're going to criminalize things based on potential, I move that it be illegal to possess a penis because it might be used to rape someone.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?

Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.

But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context)

BUT COMPARING POT TO DDT IS JUST FINE.

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)

It doesn't ignore that.  Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high.  However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.  

About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home.  (NSDUH, 2006)  If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.  

Nope I gave up tobacco.

Also, that was a substance I started when I was 20. Not when I was 14 or some other such nonsense.

[AFK]

[/quote]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

Don't you think such a scenario would be far more likely under the influence of alcohol or a number of prescription drugs?

Yes, but I also happen to believe that an "it's not as likely as...." model for making public policy is a very good one.  

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.

Yes, I know.  But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.  

So.... keep booze out of the house too, right?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

It's already illegal to drive while intoxicated. On any substance. It would not stop being illegal if marijuana was legalized.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!



You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.

What goalposts have I moved? 

Well, first you said that we have to keep pot outlawed for the children, because their abuse of drugs effects everyone.

Then, when I pointed out that other things you do affect everyone, you then said the first case was okay because pot is illegal.

You're not even making any sense.  I am now buying into the theory that you've been trolling all this time.

[AFK]

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.

In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.

Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.  

Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?

Occasionally yes.  

Do you ever perform the Cha-Cha?