I'll just leave this here....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.  

ETA:  Yes, I know you have kids TGRR. 

What?  Who told you to leave?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.

Arbitrary public policy has gotten us into quite a few messes.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.  

ETA:  Yes, I know you have kids TGRR. 

What?  Who told you to leave?

Apparently you did.

Also, apparently my opinion doesn't count because I'm responsible enough to not reproduce when I don't have a proper job or a house.

[BabylonHoruv]

Arguing purely from a potential harm to children perspective current policies cause children to lose their parents to the prison system, to have their education options curtailed, opens a gateway to hard drugs because if someone can get marijuana chances are they can get something else, and brings violence into children's neighborhoods through the influence of organized crime.

Seems like a pretty good reason to legalize.  Do it for the children.

I'd much rather more kids smoke pot and less get shot.

I have a daughter,  if I find out she's smoking weed I'll be less upset than if I find out she's drinking alcohol.  She's only ten so I'll be pretty upset about either at the moment.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.  

ETA:  Yes, I know you have kids TGRR. 

What?  Who told you to leave?

Apparently you did.

Also, apparently my opinion doesn't count because I'm responsible enough to not reproduce when I don't have a proper job or a house.

I have NO idea where the hell THAT came from.  

[Kai]

Let me get this straight-

You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.

Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.

I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.

[East Coast Hustle]

Because doctors are saying it is okay, it must be okay.  That's why kids abuse rx drugs.

Are you serious?

If you are, you're an idiot. Kids abuse RX drugs because it gets them high. by your logic, no kids would ever do a line of cocaine because doctors aren't OK with that.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Unnnggg.  You don't get it.  The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.  

Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.

As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.

FACT:  If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants.  Period.

Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.  

ETA:  Yes, I know you have kids TGRR. 

What?  Who told you to leave?

Apparently you did.

Also, apparently my opinion doesn't count because I'm responsible enough to not reproduce when I don't have a proper job or a house.

I have NO idea where the hell THAT came from.  

Yeah, I'm scratching my head with that one too.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Let me get this straight-

You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.

Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.

I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.

Ok, that makes more sense.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because doctors are saying it is okay, it must be okay.  That's why kids abuse rx drugs.

[AFK]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.

In a sense yes.  My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective.  Youth use is linked to access.  Youth use is linked to perception of harm.  Youth use is linked to community norms.  Youth use is linked to family norms.  This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Youth use is linked to family norms.  

Like watching old dad crack a beer.   

[AFK]

Let me get this straight-

You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.

Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.

I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.

BINGO! 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Let me get this straight-

You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.

Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.

I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.

BINGO! 

Yep.  If all the kids stop smoking shit, you're out of work.

Makes sense.

[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