I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

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.

Let's be specific.  What argument do you want me to concede?  

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment.  I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue.  I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.  

[AFK]

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

It's a different animal when it comes to youth vs. adults because of brain development.  Substances impact a developing brain differently than they do a developed adult brain.  So the progression of experimentation to abuse and dependence looks a bit different.  Add in to that the inability of youth to make adult decisions, it generally isn't a good idea to promote or condone any use amongst youth. 

[Kai]

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. 

The above.

Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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. 

The above.

Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.

Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.

[Triple Zero]

To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S. 

To be entirely fair, I'm not so sure if it would work that well either, with respect to abuse and such, in the US.

I mean, we don't have meth, pretty much not at all, in the Netherlands, and neither do we have much of a problem with Rx drugs. And while I do believe that might get a littlebit less if you'd just let people get high on pot without too much hassles, it wouldn't be significant let alone go away.

That seems to me a bit of a cultural thing. Really it astounds me what kids (and adults) in the US will do to get high. I had never even considered Rx drugs as an option--seemed to me to be just as bad/dangerous as any other kind of pill-based drugs (like XTC etc).

I do believe those problems would be significantly reduced if you guys got your healthcare a bit sorted out, however. Because, you see, if people could just go to their GP whenever they have a small ailment and get it treated for (nearly) free, they wouldn't have to wait until the very last moment when it gets really bad. And then small ailments wouldn't grow into real big crappy ailments, people would possibly even care for their own health better (because they got it and it's worth preserving), and doctors wouldn't need to prescribe as much painkillers as they do now. Because if you'd have some big bad hurting in your joints or something, they'd prescribe painkillers just for the period before it got actually treated, and when it's treated you wouldn't need (as much) painkillers any more. Hey it would even reduce the need for medicinal pot, for that matter--though not for chronic pains and cancer and such, but those incidences would also get less if people were able to get it treated earlier.

I mean, that's the basic economic bonus of proper healthcare. Treat small ailments when they're small so they don't get big, and everybody's healthier, less of a strain on the economy, which would most probably even require less healthcare in total in the long run.

Try explaining that to the libertarians though. "Why should I pay for other people's healthcare?" because it would mean there's less healthcare necessary in total, that's why! Hell they might even end up paying less than they would if they only paid for their own shit like they do now, if they could just get over the idea of everybody chipping in for everyone.

Of course Big Pharma knows this too, they're perfectly aware of how they're unable to sell as much medicines in countries with proper universal health care.

I dunno, if you want to reduce Rx abuse, healthcare is probably the best way. Even moreso cause you'd not be catching and punishing (or re-educating) people, but actually giving them something they want to have, something that drives some of them to Rx abuse if they can't get it, even.

Is there numbers on that, too?

[Triple Zero]

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.

WE'RE A BUNCH OF FILTHY BELGIAN THEORETICAL NUANCED DECRIMINALIZED POT MUTANTS, THAT'S WHAT

[AFK]

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. 

The above.

Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.

No, see, I actually did concede and fully acknowledged to Trip when he provided me data that the percentage of lifetime and 30-day use in the Netherlands is lower than it is in the United States.  But that, in and of itself, doesn't tell you anything.  It could be that, irrespective of drug laws, the culture in the Netherlands is such that youth aren't as prone to be using substances as they are in the United States.  You cannot ignore the cultural piece.

So, from my perspective, what is more reliable is to see the reaction of that base-level data to changes in the policy.  So yes, the levels in the Netherlands are lower, but when access was increased there was an initial rise and then an eventual decrease though I'm pretty sure one of those sources also said that the decline wasn't especially sharp, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong.  One of the studies also said there were increased admissions for treatment. 

So, that's what I'm talking about.  I agree that a lower percentage of Dutch youth use marijuana compared to U.S. youth.  Do you agree that this low percentages saw some increases in use after access became easier?  What about that?  What about the cultural piece?  Do you acknowledge that culture could be a confounding factor?  Is there something in these studies that I'm missing that controls for culture? 

[AFK]

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. 

The above.

Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.

Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.

See, I find it absolutely hilarious that people are getting on my back for the quality of this discussion when people keep conflating and misrepresenting my actual stance on substance abuse policy.  I don't know how many times in this thread I've stated that there needs to be policy changes to keep kids out of jail and to allow them access to financial aid.  Can we please acknowledge that and move on so we can have this utopian awesome discussion everyone want to have?

Or is it just me who has to bend to the will of the larger collective? 

[BabylonHoruv]

To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S. 

To be entirely fair, I'm not so sure if it would work that well either, with respect to abuse and such, in the US.

I mean, we don't have meth, pretty much not at all, in the Netherlands, and neither do we have much of a problem with Rx drugs. And while I do believe that might get a littlebit less if you'd just let people get high on pot without too much hassles, it wouldn't be significant let alone go away.

That seems to me a bit of a cultural thing. Really it astounds me what kids (and adults) in the US will do to get high. I had never even considered Rx drugs as an option--seemed to me to be just as bad/dangerous as any other kind of pill-based drugs (like XTC etc).

I do believe those problems would be significantly reduced if you guys got your healthcare a bit sorted out, however. Because, you see, if people could just go to their GP whenever they have a small ailment and get it treated for (nearly) free, they wouldn't have to wait until the very last moment when it gets really bad. And then small ailments wouldn't grow into real big crappy ailments, people would possibly even care for their own health better (because they got it and it's worth preserving), and doctors wouldn't need to prescribe as much painkillers as they do now. Because if you'd have some big bad hurting in your joints or something, they'd prescribe painkillers just for the period before it got actually treated, and when it's treated you wouldn't need (as much) painkillers any more. Hey it would even reduce the need for medicinal pot, for that matter--though not for chronic pains and cancer and such, but those incidences would also get less if people were able to get it treated earlier.

I mean, that's the basic economic bonus of proper healthcare. Treat small ailments when they're small so they don't get big, and everybody's healthier, less of a strain on the economy, which would most probably even require less healthcare in total in the long run.

Try explaining that to the libertarians though. "Why should I pay for other people's healthcare?" because it would mean there's less healthcare necessary in total, that's why! Hell they might even end up paying less than they would if they only paid for their own shit like they do now, if they could just get over the idea of everybody chipping in for everyone.

Of course Big Pharma knows this too, they're perfectly aware of how they're unable to sell as much medicines in countries with proper universal health care.

I dunno, if you want to reduce Rx abuse, healthcare is probably the best way. Even moreso cause you'd not be catching and punishing (or re-educating) people, but actually giving them something they want to have, something that drives some of them to Rx abuse if they can't get it, even.

Is there numbers on that, too?

The other thing libertarians hate about socialized medicine is waiting in lines.  Something that really pisses me off personally, people should not be able to buy their way to the front of the line just because they have money.

[Kai]

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. 

The above.

Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.

No, see, I actually did concede and fully acknowledged to Trip when he provided me data that the percentage of lifetime and 30-day use in the Netherlands is lower than it is in the United States.  But that, in and of itself, doesn't tell you anything.  It could be that, irrespective of drug laws, the culture in the Netherlands is such that youth aren't as prone to be using substances as they are in the United States.  You cannot ignore the cultural piece.

So, from my perspective, what is more reliable is to see the reaction of that base-level data to changes in the policy.  So yes, the levels in the Netherlands are lower, but when access was increased there was an initial rise and then an eventual decrease though I'm pretty sure one of those sources also said that the decline wasn't especially sharp, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong.  One of the studies also said there were increased admissions for treatment. 

So, that's what I'm talking about.  I agree that a lower percentage of Dutch youth use marijuana compared to U.S. youth.  Do you agree that this low percentages saw some increases in use after access became easier?  What about that?  What about the cultural piece?  Do you acknowledge that culture could be a confounding factor?  Is there something in these studies that I'm missing that controls for culture? 

You keep saying things about "culture" but I'm not even sure what you mean by the word. Because if you're going to make an argument that culture is a factor you have to be specific about what you mean.

[East Coast Hustle]

RWHN also seems to be conveniently ignoring any data from any countries other than the Netherlands that have tried the decrim or legal-with-heavy-regulation model.

[East Coast Hustle]

Of course, I wouldn't expect much from someone who works in the field of substance abuse prevention and votes FOR a casino in his backyard.

[BabylonHoruv]

One aspect that seems cultural is the general level of acceptance WHN mentioned a few times.  The idea that legal weed for grownups sends a cultural message that it is ok for kids.  The same arguement has been made in reverse, that illegal weed makes it a cool rebellious thing to do.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

This. He's an evangelist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

Let's be specific.  What argument do you want me to concede?  

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment.  I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue.  I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.  

An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?

Further, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.