I'll just leave this here....

[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.

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

a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
b) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?

[East Coast Hustle]

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.  

Do you have a logical explanation for that, or are you just taking "how you feel" and running with it? Because it seems to me that saying "well, we've decided that substance A is legal for adults to use responsibly provided they don't engage in these specific behaviors while doing so, and substance B is accepted by the scientific community as being less harmful to the individual than substance A, therefore substance B should also be legal for adults to use responsibly with the same restrictions on behavior that substance A has" is a very reasonable model for making policy.

[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?

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.  
[/quote]

So your example is:

There is an unlikely scenario that X could cause an effect.
There is a likely scenario that A, B, C, F, Q and Z could cause the same effect.

A, B, C, F, Q and Z are currently legal, but X should remain illegal.

This may not be a good model for Public Policy, but its a really terrible model for a honest debate.

[BabylonHoruv]

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.  

By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

An aspect of this discussion that came up in the other epic thread that I find fascinating is how a person whose stated goal is to reduce juvenile drug use can support penalties and punishments that have the effect of destabilizing families and increasing poverty, which puts kids at higher risk for drug use.

Hmmm, gosh, I wonder what an effective way of breaking that cycle might be?

[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.

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?  

HE's pointing out that it's the same thing. It seems like your whole disagreement on cannabis is due to the fact that the infallible US government decided to make it illegal (which it also did with booze), whereas, all scientific evidence that I've encountered, plus annecdotal evidence seems to indicate that cannabis is less harmful than booze in all categories. If you choose to go after cannabis like this, then you also support Prohibition for alcohol. Otherwise you are either misinformed, or a hypocrite.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm gonna go with C: All of the above.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?

Occasionally yes.  

So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

That was exactly the issue I was having with him in the other thread about the criminal penalties for pot. His rationale is that it's OK for it to ruin someone's life, because it's illegal, and so it should stay illegal because it's illegal and if people choose to use it, it's not wrong to ruin their lives and destroy their families because they knew it was illegal when they decided to use it. It's a completely circular argument.

The bizarre comparisons of pot to DDT, and then declaring that you can't compare pot and alcohol, is another one of those mental roads to nowhere.

[East Coast Hustle]

Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?

Occasionally yes. 

So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.

It's OK because RWHN's kids are car-proof.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The bizarre comparisons of pot to DDT, and then declaring that you can't compare pot and alcohol, is another one of those mental roads to nowhere.

That's a rather polite way of saying "AS HYPOCRITICAL AS RICK WARREN".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?

Occasionally yes. 

So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.

It's OK because RWHN's kids are car-proof.

But are his neighbor's kids car-proof?

[East Coast Hustle]

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.  

Do you have a logical explanation for that, or are you just taking "how you feel" and running with it? Because it seems to me that saying "well, we've decided that substance A is legal for adults to use responsibly provided they don't engage in these specific behaviors while doing so, and substance B is accepted by the scientific community as being less harmful to the individual than substance A, therefore substance B should also be legal for adults to use responsibly with the same restrictions on behavior that substance A has" is a very reasonable model for making policy.

Still waiting for a reply to this.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

An aspect of this discussion that came up in the other epic thread that I find fascinating is how a person whose stated goal is to reduce juvenile drug use can support penalties and punishments that have the effect of destabilizing families and increasing poverty, which puts kids at higher risk for drug use.

Hmmm, gosh, I wonder what an effective way of breaking that cycle might be?

To be fair, he has on several occasions said that he doesn't support the current penalties and punishments.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's almost like he's got a brain chip that makes it so that he cannot criticize the government, even if it forces him to directly contradict himself.

Also, the "powerful" marijuana lobbies.