I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

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.

But I don't agree with your supposition that marijuana fits the criteria for X. 

[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.

Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.  

Then what you propose is an arbitrary double standard.

[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.  

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.

I've never said it wasn't arbitrary. 

[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.  

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!!!)

So the cops have a way of identifying people driving under the influence... gosh, maybe they could treat them the same way that they do with people under the influence of alcohol (I bet more Mainers got pulled over under the influence of alcohol in the past couple weeks).

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.

But I don't agree with your supposition that marijuana fits the criteria for X.  

Can you expand on that a bit?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've never said it wasn't arbitrary. 

Yeah.  YOUR chosen intoxicant is just dandy.  Nobody else's is.

This is a GREAT way to decide what peoples' rights are.

PS:  Stop making kids drink.  Think of the children.

[BabylonHoruv]

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!!!  

200 out of 1.3 million.

That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent.  Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.

And that is in a couple years.  I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.

[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

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!!!)

Numbers on Mainers who were pulled over for driving while drunk?

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

Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!  

Or... you know breaking the law and trespassing.

[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.

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!!!  

200 out of 1.3 million.

That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent.  Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.

And that is in a couple years.  I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.

I wonder what the incidence rate of drunk driving is?

[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.

I've never said it wasn't arbitrary. 

Then why do you support alcohol by consuming it, if it is arbitrary?

Why not support marijuana if it is also arbitrary? You don't have to smoke it, just consider that, you know, your line should probably be drawn elsewhere.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.  

I can't believe you drink with children in the house. Do you know the statistics for teen alcoholism?

[AFK]

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.

According to the law, yes it is okay for me to drink a beer and not okay for that guy over there to smoke a joint.  Philosophically, sure, I have no moral issues with an adult drinking a beer, smoking a joint, injecting heroin into their arms, whatever floats their boat.  But, the real world also has these pesky little non-adults running around.  And they're not quite ready to make the big grown-up decisions, and quite often will make stupid, bone-headed decisions.  Communities with lots of sick, drug addicted drop outs tend to suck.  

ETA:  JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???

[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

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!!!  

200 out of 1.3 million.

That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent.  Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.

And that is in a couple years.  I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.

I wonder what the incidence rate of drunk driving is?

Considering that it's Maine we're talking about....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

According to the law, yes it is okay for me to drink a beer and not okay for that guy over there to smoke a joint.  Philosophically, sure, I have no moral issues with an adult drinking a beer, smoking a joint, injecting heroin into their arms, whatever floats their boat.  But, the real world also has these pesky little non-adults running around.  And they're not quite ready to make the big grown-up decisions, and quite often will make stupid, bone-headed decisions.  Communities with lots of sick, drug addicted drop outs tend to suck.  

ETA:  JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???

But having the little bastards drinking beer is JUST FINE.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

According to the law, yes it is okay for me to drink a beer and not okay for that guy over there to smoke a joint.  Philosophically, sure, I have no moral issues with an adult drinking a beer, smoking a joint, injecting heroin into their arms, whatever floats their boat.  But, the real world also has these pesky little non-adults running around.  And they're not quite ready to make the big grown-up decisions, and quite often will make stupid, bone-headed decisions.  Communities with lots of sick, drug addicted drop outs tend to suck.  

ETA:  JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???

Or, you know, you can lock the bong up with the brandy.

Just saying.

So, do you support legalization of cannabis or no?
If no, then why not support prohibition of alcohol? It's the same argument.

[East Coast Hustle]

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!!!  

How many Maine drivers were pulled over in that same time span and found to be driving under the influence of alcohol?