I'll just leave this here....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Main thing is, we certainly can't trust people to use their own judgement.

That only lets the terrorists win.  So instead, we have a monstrous crime problem, Mexico has gone completely sideways, and we ruin our kids' lives.

But isn't that a small price to pay, to lessen the use of a drug that might have a harmful effect or two?

[AFK]

Youth use is linked to family norms. 

Like watching old dad crack a beer.   

Yep.  Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present. 

Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer.  (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)

And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.

RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire

but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.

If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes.  If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system. 

OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.

I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid. 

Actually, you've said before that they knew it was illegal when they did it and should have to live with the consequences of their actions, but I'll accept your seeming change of heart.

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  And certainly if there are guidelines with financial aid CURRENTLY IN PLACE that prohibit someone with a drug conviction from receiving financial aid, they should be aware of that.  HOWEVER, I believe that those guidelines should be amended and that kids should get a second chance.  If that means they have to write an essay, or some other condition so be it, but it shouldn't be a one strike and you're out policy.

BUT, kids still need to be educated and understand what is in place NOW.  It's not going to change at the snap of a finger.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.

Violent ones that run over trespassing children.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.

Violent ones that run over trespassing children.

Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.

How many warnings do the little fuckers need?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

So, capital punishment is also a deterrent to murder?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.

Violent ones that run over trespassing children.

Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.

How many warnings do the little fuckers need?

[AFK]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.

THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts

Well, and we are involved as per the current system.  The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax.  First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category.  The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.  

I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine.  Maybe it's different in other states.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

So, capital punishment is also a deterrent to murder?

I have never met a teenager that made the decision to smoke or not smoke pot based on potential consequences.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never met one, and I was a teenager during the fucking REAGAN YEARS.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.

THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts

Well, and we are involved as per the current system.  The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax.  First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category.  The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.  

I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine.  Maybe it's different in other states.  

Well, we certainly can't let states or individuals decide for themselves.

That would be irresponsible as all hell.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.

THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts

Well, and we are involved as per the current system.  The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax.  First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category.  The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.  

I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine.  Maybe it's different in other states.  

Honestly, I think the medical marijuana argument should be a moot point.

Weed should be legal because it's a less harmful intoxicant than alcohol, and if people want to get high, fine.

Even better, if someone has cancer and they think that it's going to help, they can run down to the convenience store and buy a dime bag to keep them from puking after chemo.

[AFK]

Okay spags, it's been a real hoot, but Imma gonna go exercise my civic duty and vote.  

Oh, and thank you for the warm gestures of flowers and honey in my PM box.  I will cherish them always!

[Cain]

I'm still only on page 29, but I have to say this:

80 pages.  By Friday.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.

THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts

Well, and we are involved as per the current system.  The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax.  First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category.  The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.  

I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine.  Maybe it's different in other states.  

I'd be interested to see how that involvement is happening... from the people I know who have worked on legalization in one form or another, they seem pretty interested in constructive input.

Personally, I don't think expanded ailments or a back door to legalization would change the recommendations on how to legislate protection for kids. I would think that Cancer Granny and Migraine Mommy... or even Legal Recreational Dad would need to exercise the same protections for their kids. Same for a medical depot or a state liquor/weed store.

If legalization is inevitable, what would the top five rules be that you'd like to see included to protect kids?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Okay spags, it's been a real hoot, but Imma gonna go exercise my civic duty and vote.  

Oh, and thank you for the warm gestures of flowers and honey in my PM box.  I will cherish them always!

TGRR,
Owes someone a nickle.