I'll just leave this here....

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In theory yes.  But it's still too big of a gamble from where I'm sitting.  I'm looking currently at a medical marijuana program in my state that is being weakened and that will make it easier for medical marijuana to be diverted, DESPITE, the information the government gets from folks in my field.

So you can understand my reluctance, given my professional duty, to sign on. 

So then no matter what data we discuss, that's gonna be your position? I'm not really sure that we can actually have a productive discussion then. I mean, honest debate is where both sides can give in based on the arguments and evidence of the other side. If thats something you can't do based on your job, then why enter the discussion? It seems as productive as Monty Python's argument clinic

[AFK]

What do you want me to give?  That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization?  Yeah, sure.  I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.

But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans. 

I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that.  But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground. 

So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in.  Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation? 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What do you want me to give?  That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization?  Yeah, sure.  I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.

But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans. 

People from the Netherlands, of course, not being humans.

[AFK]

Yep, that's exactly what I was driving at.  Good observation!!!!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yep, that's exactly what I was driving at.  Good observation!!!!

It's what you said.

[East Coast Hustle]

Just to clarify MY position, I could give a shit if marijuana is legal for recreational purposes. But I adamantly oppose ANY attempts to restrict the ability of sick people to use it legally if it provides them a measure of relief and I think anyone who does try to restrict that or even agrees with trying to restrict that should be hung up by their toenails and switched with barbed wire.

[East Coast Hustle]

Actually, I think they should be forced to take heavy doses of chemotherapy even if they're completely healthy.

[Kai]

In theory yes.  But it's still too big of a gamble from where I'm sitting.  I'm looking currently at a medical marijuana program in my state that is being weakened and that will make it easier for medical marijuana to be diverted, DESPITE, the information the government gets from folks in my field.

So you can understand my reluctance, given my professional duty, to sign on. 

So then no matter what data we discuss, that's gonna be your position? I'm not really sure that we can actually have a productive discussion then. I mean, honest debate is where both sides can give in based on the arguments and evidence of the other side. If thats something you can't do based on your job, then why enter the discussion? It seems as productive as Monty Python's argument clinic

Yep.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

What do you want me to give?  That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization?  Yeah, sure.  I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.

But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans. 

I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that.  But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground. 

So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in.  Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation? 

Except the data we've been linking to seems to support that legalization, nuanced or more broad based (Amsterdam, South Australia, Portugal etc) STILL has less impact on youth compared to countries where prohibition exists. However, your responses seem to be to question the data, question the nuance of the data and then dismiss it based on your job.

Actual implementation in The Netherlands has not resulted in the concerns you've raised. Actual implementation in Australia and Portugal have not resulted in the concerns you've raised. In fact, data in the report I just linked to included evidence that usage didn't explode, that enforcement of the laws surrounding legalization caused drops in teen usage, that usage among teens didn't result in progression to harder drugs, including ironically lower alcohol and tobacco usage than among teens in the US.

Arguing "BUT ITS HUMANS" doesn't seem all that useful here either. After all, its HUMANS that are manning the current prohibition. It's HUMANS that implemented various forms of decriminalization. Its HUMANS that are on the anti-drug and pro-drug side of the argument.

As for what's happening on the ground in Maine... its not germane to what most of us are discussing. It's still illegal for recreational usage, thus its only sold on the black market where the dealer doesn't care who buys it and is more than happy to sell whatever else the person may want.

Your argument was legalization = more usage by kids based on anecdote and scenarios that none of us have argued for.  When provided data that indicates otherwise, you've dismissed it.

What do I want you to give? How about admitting that MAYBE the evidence disagrees with your previous assumptions. Hell, I don't expect you to join NORML... I don't expect you to quit your job (cause educating kids about the dangers of drugs is important IMO). However, a number of the arguments you've made don't seem to agree with the evidence from 'practice', if you can't give over on that, then why bother to be a part of the discussion?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Humans must be protected.

[AFK]

What do you want me to give?  That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization?  Yeah, sure.  I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.

But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans. 

I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that.  But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground. 

So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in.  Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation? 

Except the data we've been linking to seems to support that legalization, nuanced or more broad based (Amsterdam, South Australia, Portugal etc) STILL has less impact on youth compared to countries where prohibition exists. However, your responses seem to be to question the data, question the nuance of the data and then dismiss it based on your job.

Actual implementation in The Netherlands has not resulted in the concerns you've raised. Actual implementation in Australia and Portugal have not resulted in the concerns you've raised. In fact, data in the report I just linked to included evidence that usage didn't explode, that enforcement of the laws surrounding legalization caused drops in teen usage, that usage among teens didn't result in progression to harder drugs, including ironically lower alcohol and tobacco usage than among teens in the US.

Arguing "BUT ITS HUMANS" doesn't seem all that useful here either. After all, its HUMANS that are manning the current prohibition. It's HUMANS that implemented various forms of decriminalization. Its HUMANS that are on the anti-drug and pro-drug side of the argument.

As for what's happening on the ground in Maine... its not germane to what most of us are discussing. It's still illegal for recreational usage, thus its only sold on the black market where the dealer doesn't care who buys it and is more than happy to sell whatever else the person may want.

Your argument was legalization = more usage by kids based on anecdote and scenarios that none of us have argued for.  When provided data that indicates otherwise, you've dismissed it.

What do I want you to give? How about admitting that MAYBE the evidence disagrees with your previous assumptions. Hell, I don't expect you to join NORML... I don't expect you to quit your job (cause educating kids about the dangers of drugs is important IMO). However, a number of the arguments you've made don't seem to agree with the evidence from 'practice', if you can't give over on that, then why bother to be a part of the discussion?

Part of the problem is that there seems to be an attitude of, "well it goes up, but then it goes down, so that's okay".  Or, "well it hasn't exploded"

I'm for reducing youth substance abuse.  Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse.  An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans.  I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.  You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe. 

[Kai]

So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...

I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...

I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.

Humans need to be controlled, stamped into a jello-mold.  For their own good.  It is not enough that we protect them from each other - or at least from the more violent members of society - we must protect them from themselves, for they are like toddlers and need guidance.  Otherwise, they might make bad decisions, and then The Machine breaks down.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...

I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.

l agree Kai. I'm trying to maintain a civil discussion, but if its not a discussion, I feel like I've been wasting my time. Might as well just sit back and laugh at the dogpile.

[Scribbly]

What do you want me to give?  That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization?  Yeah, sure.  I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.

But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans. 

I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that.  But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground. 

So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in.  Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation? 

Except the data we've been linking to seems to support that legalization, nuanced or more broad based (Amsterdam, South Australia, Portugal etc) STILL has less impact on youth compared to countries where prohibition exists. However, your responses seem to be to question the data, question the nuance of the data and then dismiss it based on your job.

Actual implementation in The Netherlands has not resulted in the concerns you've raised. Actual implementation in Australia and Portugal have not resulted in the concerns you've raised. In fact, data in the report I just linked to included evidence that usage didn't explode, that enforcement of the laws surrounding legalization caused drops in teen usage, that usage among teens didn't result in progression to harder drugs, including ironically lower alcohol and tobacco usage than among teens in the US.

Arguing "BUT ITS HUMANS" doesn't seem all that useful here either. After all, its HUMANS that are manning the current prohibition. It's HUMANS that implemented various forms of decriminalization. Its HUMANS that are on the anti-drug and pro-drug side of the argument.

As for what's happening on the ground in Maine... its not germane to what most of us are discussing. It's still illegal for recreational usage, thus its only sold on the black market where the dealer doesn't care who buys it and is more than happy to sell whatever else the person may want.

Your argument was legalization = more usage by kids based on anecdote and scenarios that none of us have argued for.  When provided data that indicates otherwise, you've dismissed it.

What do I want you to give? How about admitting that MAYBE the evidence disagrees with your previous assumptions. Hell, I don't expect you to join NORML... I don't expect you to quit your job (cause educating kids about the dangers of drugs is important IMO). However, a number of the arguments you've made don't seem to agree with the evidence from 'practice', if you can't give over on that, then why bother to be a part of the discussion?

Part of the problem is that there seems to be an attitude of, "well it goes up, but then it goes down, so that's okay".  Or, "well it hasn't exploded"

I'm for reducing youth substance abuse.  Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse.  An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans.  I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.  You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe. 

Someone, I'm not sure who, pointed out earlier that you seem to believe ALL use = Substance Abuse.

Personally, I've never felt the urge to use weed. But I do drink. I was introduced to alcohol, by my parents, at age 16, and by age 18 I knew enough to know roughly where my limits lay. I do not consider that kind of gradual experimentation before the legal age abuse; what I saw when I went to university, and kids who had never been allowed to drink before were suddenly away from the watchful eye of their parents and getting blitzed 24/7. That's abuse.

If you want to prevent substance abuse, I think a slight raise as people experiment with it, and then decide that actually they don't want to use it regularly (or do want to use it regularly but not to excess... you know abuse), is precisely the sort of thing you should be going for.

(or in shorter terms)

The words you are using are not the same words people are reading. Define your terms and people will probably continue to disagree with you, but at least it'll make more sense.