I'll just leave this here....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.  

But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.

[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! 

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

Makes sense.

I could think of worse ways to lose a job.  

[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.  

But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.

I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same. 

[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.

I could think of worse ways to lose a job.  

Well, it's not likely, is it?  We can keep tossing 17 year olds in prison indefinitely.  Helps you AND the fine folks at Wackenhutt.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.  

But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.

I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same. 

Because you're better than they are.

[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.

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.  

Responsible use is also tied in with this. Just saying.

It's culturally acceptable to drink. It's not culturally acceptable to be a wino.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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! 

So then why aren't the people in your line of work focusing on how to get to the eventual endgame in the safest way possible? I think most of the groups trying to legalize for medical or recreational would welcome 'experts' in your field because most of them are likely to agree with your position on children usage being bad. If voters continue to pass legalization in one form or another, it seems better for the kids if the experts are providing as much guidance as possible. Just say "NOOOOO" doesn't seem likely to work, it seems likely to reduce credibility.

IMO.

[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! 

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

Makes sense.

I could think of worse ways to lose a job.  

Well, it's not likely, is it?  We can keep tossing 17 year olds in prison indefinitely.  Helps you AND the fine folks at Wackenhutt.

Maybe if I were a prison guard. 

[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.

I could think of worse ways to lose a job.  

Well, it's not likely, is it?  We can keep tossing 17 year olds in prison indefinitely.  Helps you AND the fine folks at Wackenhutt.

Maybe if I were a prison guard. 

Naw.  You just support them.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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

This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.

[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.  

But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.

I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same. 

Because you're better than they are.

No, because reality shows there are some shitty parents in America who make shitty decisions.  Which means government is going to have to step in at some point.  I'd rather have them on the front end before the kids life is ruined.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.

He only drinks once in a while.  Which is totally different than similar moderation with pot.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.  

But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.

I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same. 

I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.

[East Coast Hustle]

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

but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.

[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! 

So then why aren't the people in your line of work focusing on how to get to the eventual endgame in the safest way possible? I think most of the groups trying to legalize for medical or recreational would welcome 'experts' in your field because most of them are likely to agree with your position on children usage being bad. If voters continue to pass legalization in one form or another, it seems better for the kids if the experts are providing as much guidance as possible. Just say "NOOOOO" doesn't seem likely to work, it seems likely to reduce credibility.

IMO.

Well, we provide guidance to the legislators that first entertain the notion of passing medical marijuana.  And in Maine it wasn't approved by the legislature, it went to the voters.  So then there definitely were efforts to educate voters.  But it's hard to argue with a dying grandma with cancer.  I certainly wouldn't charge that windmill.