I'll just leave this here....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

"Man, you DON'T fuck with the United Way.  They are the most vicious of all the charities."
- From Death to Smoochie

[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.

But are his neighbor's kids car-proof?

Given that there's a 90% chance his neighbors' kids are French-Canadian and covered in enough hair to stop a bullet, I'd say yes.

[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?

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

Has he? In between defending them and saying that people deserve what they get because they knew it was illegal? It's a little hard to tell what he's saying when he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

Except in the case of distribution, which currently includes possessing weed in two different containers.

[AFK]

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.

Well I think that is something that supports government action, yes.  My belief as to why marijuana should remain illegal doesn't solely rest on that fact.  But given the number of questions being hurled my way, you might understand why it is difficult to write a definitive tome.  

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

Uhh, sorry, I'm not following this part.  Could you please rephrase?  

ETA:  HOLY SHIT 14 NEW REPLIES!!!! WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO DRIVE ME TO DRUGS!?!?!?!

ETA II:  Fuck two more?  Jesus guys, you might want to try using the brake every once in awhile.  

OMFG ANOTHER ONE????  

[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.

Yep.  Loads of replies.

But this is the only one I have.

[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.  

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

They are outside of using them for medical purposes. 

But it certainly is a serious problem. 

[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.

[AFK]

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!

When looking at the structures of policy making in the name of public safety and addressing public health issues, yes, yes it is.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

They are outside of using them for medical purposes. 

But it certainly is a serious problem. 

So is the fact that you make children drink alcohol.

[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.  

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

It certainly should be locked up.  

[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!

When looking at the structures of policy making in the name of public safety and addressing public health issues, yes, yes it is.  

But booze and pot are different. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

It certainly should be locked up.  

Which totally doesn't work for weed, right?   

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

It certainly should be locked up.  

So, in a theoretical world, if Marijuana and Alcohol were handled identically in a responsible fashion (ie, you don't give/sell it to kids, you keep it locked up in your home, you don't drive while intoxicated)... is there some other reason to support continued prohibition?

[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.  

a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV

Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana.  (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here.  Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse.  YOU DECIDE!!!)

b) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?

Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!