I'll just leave this here....

[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.

[BabylonHoruv]

Just wanted to drop in and thank everyone involved for this discussion.

Prior to PD, I used to be a High Times type thinker in that there was no good reason, whatsoever, for marijuana being illegal.

Since this thread, and the other, I can see that there are decent arguments on both sides of the issue, and that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut stupid-government as the NORML mentality had led me to believe.

I am still of the opinion that anyone who tries to tell me I cannot smoke a bowl on my own time in my own house can go fuck themselves, but otherwise these discussions give me much to think about, and I enjoy reading the course of the debate.

TL;DR: I have nothing intelligent to add, except a thank you to the participants for level-headed discussion on both sides of the issue.  It has given me much food for thought.

Understanding your opponents position and realizing that they are not stupid, just wrong, is the first step toward any sort of meaningful discussion, of any issue.

[AFK]

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

[Cain]

Just wanted to drop in and thank everyone involved for this discussion.

Prior to PD, I used to be a High Times type thinker in that there was no good reason, whatsoever, for marijuana being illegal.

Since this thread, and the other, I can see that there are decent arguments on both sides of the issue, and that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut stupid-government as the NORML mentality had led me to believe.

I am still of the opinion that anyone who tries to tell me I cannot smoke a bowl on my own time in my own house can go fuck themselves, but otherwise these discussions give me much to think about, and I enjoy reading the course of the debate.

TL;DR: I have nothing intelligent to add, except a thank you to the participants for level-headed discussion on both sides of the issue.  It has given me much food for thought.

Understanding your opponents position and realizing that they are not stupid, just wrong, is the first step toward any sort of meaningful discussion, of any issue.

That's retarded, and so are you.

[East Coast Hustle]

[AFK]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

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? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.

Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.

DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.

No, somethings are outlawed, others are regulated.  I happen to think that marijuana acceptably falls into the category of outlawed.  

[BabylonHoruv]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

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? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

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? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.

Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.

DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.

No, somethings are outlawed, others are regulated.  I happen to think that marijuana acceptably falls into the category of outlawed.  

LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!



You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

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? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

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

Not the point, BH.  We have to RUIN PEOPLES' LIVES FOREVER.  For the children.

[AFK]

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.  

[East Coast Hustle]

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) and/or saying things like "well you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube".

but nevermind all that, in a perfect theoretical world, what do YOU think? IF you could start from scratch right now, would you make alcohol or tobacco illegal? And if not, what is your argument for allowing them to be used responsibly by adults and only criminalizing any resultant behavior that incurs a heavily detrimental cost to society (drunk driving, smoking in cars with kids) while the act of using marijuana is, itself, criminalized?

Though I don't expect a straight answer from you, I feel compelled to point out the apparent ridiculous level of hypocrisy.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

Hmm.... what are the ratios of adults who use/abuse alcohol compared to minors who use/abuse alcohol?

What are the ratios of adults who use/abuse THC in comparison to minors who use/abuse THC?

[AFK]

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.  

[AFK]

LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!



You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.

What goalposts have I moved? 

[Kai]

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.