I'll just leave this here....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You drink.  By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.

Stop making kids drink, RWHN.

Oh, okay I understand now.  Technically, you are correct.  Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway. 

Now 3 year olds can operate a bong.

This thread is absolutely fascinating.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Well, at least not with the rationale that adult users == minor abusers. Certainly there are credible arguments that "It's illegal, you'll go to jail".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

You drink.  By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.

Stop making kids drink, RWHN.

Oh, okay I understand now.  Technically, you are correct.  Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway. 

Now 3 year olds can operate a bong.

This thread is absolutely fascinating.

[trippinprincezz13]

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

Don't you remember that time that those kids drank 10 beers and a bottle of vodka smoked some joints at a party and totally died of alcohol weed poisoning?

Thank god there's no legal substances that can cause that

[AFK]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Well, at least not with the rationale that adult users == minor abusers. Certainly there are credible arguments that "It's illegal, you'll go to jail".

I don't smoke pot because I'm not really wild about it.

Not because the government tells me I can't, for two reasons:

1.  They're not the boss of me, and

2.  If I get caught by the kind of cops I've known, then I'm TOO FUCKING HIGH.  Seriously.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Well, at least not with the rationale that adult users == minor abusers. Certainly there are credible arguments that "It's illegal, you'll go to jail".

I don't smoke pot because I'm not really wild about it.

Not because the government tells me I can't, for two reasons:

1.  They're not the boss of me, and

2.  If I get caught by the kind of cops I've known, then I'm TOO FUCKING HIGH.  Seriously.  

[AFK]

You drink.  By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.

Stop making kids drink, RWHN.

Oh, okay I understand now.  Technically, you are correct.  Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway. 

Or, you know, you could teach him yourself that he's not allowed to open it until he's 21.

My son has all he can do to say the word "duck" at his very young age (less than 2 years old).  You might understand why that's probably not going to be a very productive discussion right now.  Oh, I suppose I could role play it with Thomas the Tank Engine.  

[AFK]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.  

ETA:  Yes, I know you have kids TGRR. 

[Kai]

So, in summary:

Keeping Cannabis sativa illegal as opposed to EtOH is an arbitrary position.

and

The justification for this arbitrary position is a belief it will lower the incidence of use in people under the age of 18.


That's it. Now, whether it actually does lower the incidence of use in people under 18 (my thought is, yes, it probably does) and whether this justifies the criminalization of users is a completely new topic.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.  

ETA:  Yes, I know you have kids TGRR. 

I'm childless.

I'm also the brother of a 15 year old.

And an uncle to a 6 and a 1 year old.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

Speaking as a Discordian, as I define it, I don't allow arbitrary, senseless laws to govern my behavior any more than I have to.  Currently, I have to get groped at the airport (fuck their pervert machine, they can do it the old-fashioned way), and file my taxes.  That's about it.

Right now, in my state, I could legally smoke pot if I wanted to.  It would probably be better for me than the pills I take to go to sleep, which it turns out are probably spiked with something fucking awful.

But it seems that you'd rather people take atropine - a strychnine related drug¹,because smoking pot might lead kids to smoke pot.  Somehow this doesn't apply to booze.


¹  Whoops. Got confused with brucine, which is added to industrial alcohol to make it poisonous.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Let me get this straight-

You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.

Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.

[Kai]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.