I'll just leave this here....

[BabylonHoruv]

Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. 

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.

Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?

Not at all.  Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education.  Though it's not a direct one to one.  The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated.  For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely.  So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth. 

Again, you evaded the question. I'll make your hypocrisy a little more clear, since you seem to have trouble noticing it:

Roger argued that encroaching on all adults' personal freedom is not justified merely because a minority of bad parents do not prevent their marijuana from ending up in their kids hands. You criticized him for holding an "all or nothing" model. But when it comes to your reasoning, you stated that, "I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse." You don't see this as deeply hypocritical?

Why is it unacceptable for your opponent to hold an "all or nothing" point of view in terms of violating the majority of responsible adults' personal freedom, but it is somehow perfectly fine for you to maintain a "zero-tolerance" model in terms of increases in pot use amongst youth?

Because, according to his stated moral compass,  thousands of broken homes, thousands of people killed in drug violence, millions of nonviolent people in prison, billions of dollars in the pockets of criminals, the capture of the Mexican government by criminal enterprises, and thousands of kids who no longer have the option of a government funded education is better than one more kid smoking weed.

it's not hypocritical, it's just really weird.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

RWHN, you also completely avoided addressing this post:

You don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law.

Well I do think adults have to employ some responsibility when it comes to their actions.  I mean, yeah, knowingly breaking the law should come with acknowledgement of those outcomes.  But I wouldn't say they deserve to have their lives ruined.  I believe in second, third, etc. chances.  You have to in the substance abuse treatment model.  

Knowingly repeating the Prohibition (this time with marijuana) should come with acknowledgment of that outcome.

The current marijuana laws cause the legal issues to obscure and compound the health issues. Marijuana addicts that grow a lot of pot to support their habit do not benefit from their land being seized and getting locked up for years and years. Neither do their families. Trying to force people into treatment with incarceration clearly has not worked.

Portugal, Netherlands and South Australia have a model that doesn't incur that kind of damage to society which you can't dismiss by picking at imagined flaws in a study published by a professor who teaches "Research design and data collection for public policy analysis." It would be one thing if you could show he has a track record for juking the stats, but no, you tried to poison the well without even a shred of evidence. You tried to paint some of the most damning evidence against your argument as inconclusive before you even looked at the study.

I appreciate scientific rigor, but that includes giving the benefit of the doubt when it's reasonable to do so.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Why is it unacceptable for your opponent to hold an "all or nothing" point of view in terms of violating the majority of responsible adults' personal freedom, but it is somehow perfectly fine for you to maintain a "zero-tolerance" model in terms of increases in pot use amongst youth?

Because, according to his stated moral compass,  thousands of broken homes, thousands of people killed in drug violence, millions of nonviolent people in prison, billions of dollars in the pockets of criminals, the capture of the Mexican government by criminal enterprises, and thousands of kids who no longer have the option of a government funded education is better than one more kid smoking weed.

it's not hypocritical, it's just really weird.

How is that not hypocritical?

He clearly stated that it's not okay for Roger to use an "all or nothing model" for adults' personal freedom, but then 2 hours later used the same all or nothing model in regards to temporary increases in youth marijuana use.