I'll just leave this here....

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.

[Kai]

Fuck this thread.

[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.  

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?

Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase?  These surveys don't track them all of their lives.  They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school.  I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right?  These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids.  And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation.  Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.   

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.

Really?  Do you watch movies?  do you listen to current music?  Do you watch TV?  To suggest their isn't a "culture of permissiveness" NOW, with it being illegal, is crazy.  There is clearly a culture of permissiveness in this country when it comes to marijuana.  I will admit it is kind of shocking to me, in a way, that we haven't legalized it by now.  Because I think by and large, Americans are largely uneducated as to the true costs of youth marijuana use.  Or maybe they just don't care.  I'm not sure which one it is. 

[AFK]

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.

Let me ask you this question.  Do you think, if every country in the world all of a sudden enacted the exact same policies regarding marijuana, or even all illicit drugs.  If every country made them legal tomorrow.  Do you think that the rates of youth use of substances would be identical in every country, within a confidence interval? 

[AFK]

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.

That certainly happens with some kids.  I won't deny that.  But when you look at the overall trends, you will tend to see that as perception of harm goes up, use goes down, and vice versa.  But it is a trend, there obviously will be outliers, but policy making according to trends will be more effective. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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, wait.  You're suggesting that teenagers are different in the two countries?

[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.

Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.

Examples must be made of the disobedient.

Frankly, I think they should make them wear hair shirts for the duration of their sentences.

[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?

Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase?  These surveys don't track them all of their lives.  They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school.  I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right?  These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids.  And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation.  Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.

But studies that tracked adult use pre and post legalization show a similar spike, then decrease. You would have a better point if adult use didn't show the same pattern.

As for permissiveness in our culture, I'm really confused. First you say that legalizing it would create a culture of permissiveness, then you say that there is already a culture of permissiveness. Personally, what I see in the media is not so much social acceptance, but a glamorization of marijuana as a symbol of rebellion.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have no idea why I'm continuing to respond, when he's already said that data won't change his position. It's a pointless as arguing with a Creationist, and frustrating for all the same reasons.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I have no idea why I'm continuing to respond, when he's already said that data won't change his position. It's a pointless as arguing with a Creationist, and frustrating for all the same reasons.

There's not much else going on.

I think my main point here is, I'm all about prevention.  169%.  Prohibition, however, is a collosal waste of time and lives, and this was proven by the prohibition era last century.  It gets harmless people put in prison, makes gangsters rich, and makes a joke of the law as a whole.

[East Coast Hustle]

Here's a question, RWHN:

Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?

A kid who smokes pot?

Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?

This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have no idea why I'm continuing to respond, when he's already said that data won't change his position. It's a pointless as arguing with a Creationist, and frustrating for all the same reasons.

There's not much else going on.

I think my main point here is, I'm all about prevention.  169%.  Prohibition, however, is a collosal waste of time and lives, and this was proven by the prohibition era last century.  It gets harmless people put in prison, makes gangsters rich, and makes a joke of the law as a whole.

Yeah, that's exactly what I think about it, based on all the existing evidence and statistics.

[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.

Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.

Examples must be made of the disobedient.

Frankly, I think they should make them wear hair shirts for the duration of their sentences.

Y'know, I expect this bullshit out of ECH and Nigel but I'm frankly quite disappointed that you continue to conflate and misrepresent my actual stance. I've said continuously that while I don't support legalization I also support policy change to keep kids out of prison and to keep them from losing access to financial aid.

I've had your back when trolls have come in and tried to twist your words and here you are doing it to me.  I don't give a fuck that you disagree with me but misrepresenting what I actually believe is some lowdown bullshit. 

[AFK]

But studies that tracked adult use pre and post legalization show a similar spike, then decrease. You would have a better point if adult use didn't show the same pattern.

Which study are you looking at where the pattern is the same?  I've only been looking at the youth related ones since that is what my arguments have been focusing on. 

As for permissiveness in our culture, I'm really confused. First you say that legalizing it would create a culture of permissiveness, then you say that there is already a culture of permissiveness. Personally, what I see in the media is not so much social acceptance, but a glamorization of marijuana as a symbol of rebellion.

I disagree.  It used to be portrayed that way but Hollywood and the media have definitely been mainstreaming it over the years.  When you see it as a normal part of comedy and gags on sit-coms, it's definitely moved out of the realm of rebellion. 

[AFK]

Here's a question, RWHN:

Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?

A kid who smokes pot?

Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?

This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.

I could answer your theoretical question, and it would probably be an answer you would agree with.  However, your theoretical question is based on a bullshit premise and so I won't.  Because I know exactly what you will do with my response which is what you've already done in this thread.  Just cut out the part you like, delete the rest, and claim a hollow victory.

Sorry, RWHN, don't play that game.  But, I think from this you should be able to infer what my answer to your question would be. 

In the real world, the answer is that they are both awful and both need to be addressed.