Sarah Palin is on your team, kinda:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/sarah-palin-marijuana-use.html
QuoteSarah Palin said that she does not support marijuana legalization but seemed to offer some support for decriminalization of the drug.
CBS News reported June 17 that during a TV appearance with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) -- who supports legalization on libertarian grounds -- Palin said, "If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot. I think that would just encourage especially our young people to think that it was OK to just go ahead and use it."
However, Palin also characterized marijuana use as a "minimal problem" in society relative to other issues. "I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," she said. "And if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society."
During her run for vice president, Palin acknowledged a past history of smoking marijuana. The drug was decriminalized in Alaska for many years.
Congrats! :lol:
Of course, she does also support one of my arguments as well. Trying to have it both ways I suppose.
But that would mean cops would have to go after real criminals!
Quote from: RWHN on June 21, 2010, 04:36:09 PM
Sarah Palin is on your team, kinda:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/sarah-palin-marijuana-use.html
QuoteSarah Palin said that she does not support marijuana legalization but seemed to offer some support for decriminalization of the drug.
CBS News reported June 17 that during a TV appearance with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) -- who supports legalization on libertarian grounds -- Palin said, "If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot. I think that would just encourage especially our young people to think that it was OK to just go ahead and use it."
However, Palin also characterized marijuana use as a "minimal problem" in society relative to other issues. "I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," she said. "And if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society."
During her run for vice president, Palin acknowledged a past history of smoking marijuana. The drug was decriminalized in Alaska for many years.
Congrats! :lol:
Of course, she does also support one of my arguments as well. Trying to have it both ways I suppose.
I really don't get people like her... Don't regulate Big Oil, cause government is bad... but keep weed illegal cause the government knows best... but don't enforce the law... just sorta hang it over the fireplace along with the "Mom Knows Best" and "Kiss the Cook" plaques. Cause having laws we don't enforce surely doesn't degrade the concept of law or the respect our kids have for it.
At least Ron Paul has some kind of philosophy that he applies consistently.
Also, please Sarah, don't say you smoked weed... it just reinforces the stereotype!!!!! :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 21, 2010, 04:53:32 PM
Also, please Sarah, don't say you smoked weed... it just reinforces the stereotype!!!!! :lulz:
hahahhahahaha!
:mittens:
You know, I think the stereotype is already starting to change, and will change dramatically over the next decade or so. Especially with the rise of medical marijuana. It's going to be more in line with Rx abuse, in my estimation. It's the drug that everybody uses. But marijuana use will be much more accepted of course.
Quote from: RWHN on June 21, 2010, 05:23:10 PM
You know, I think the stereotype is already starting to change, and will change dramatically over the next decade or so. Especially with the rise of medical marijuana. It's going to be more in line with Rx abuse, in my estimation. It's the drug that everybody uses. But marijuana use will be much more accepted of course.
Like the song says:
"I beg your pardon, if you're offended by my garden But I just can't grow Prozac in my yard"
:wink:
Quote from: RWHN on June 21, 2010, 05:23:10 PM
It's going to be more in line with Rx abuse, in my estimation. It's the drug that everybody uses.
Google trends disagrees:
(http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=pills,+rx&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N)PILLS,RX
Actually, no - the graph is pretty much meaningless in that sense, but I found the seasonal spike over Christmas to be fascinating.
I am only now considering that I might actually find Palin acceptable if she was constantly high.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "if"?
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 21, 2010, 06:37:34 PM
Quote from: RWHN on June 21, 2010, 05:23:10 PM
It's going to be more in line with Rx abuse, in my estimation. It's the drug that everybody uses.
Google trends disagrees:
(http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=pills,+rx&date=all&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=0&sa=N)PILLS,RX
Actually, no - the graph is pretty much meaningless in that sense, but I found the seasonal spike over Christmas to be fascinating.
When I say it's the drug that everybody uses, I'm talking about multiple "walks-of-life". The stereotypical stoner has always been your slacker-hippy-college student with scruffy hair and appearance. When you thought stoner you didn't think about the 50 year old Mom who has fibromyalga, or the 70 year old guy with terminal cancer, or the 30-something executive with the three-piece. Prescription drug abuse is the same. It is impacting all age groups, many different demographics and cultural groups. And this is because both have a level of acceptance that most other drugs don't have. Marijuana because of the perceived safety of the drug or Rx pills because they are prescribed by a doctor. And now with medical marijuana cropping up in many states, its acceptance will grow even more amongst the common public.
RWHN, what credence do you give to the sociological theory that if certain drugs, like pot, are legalized, the social pressure to do them will actually drop, as there is no longer an illicit association with the act, thus lowering it's value in terms of in-group/out-group teenage peer distrinctions?
I can certainly see something like Rx drugs taking the place of pot if this theory holds true, but I wondered what your thoughts were on it as a whole. Not entirely your area, I know, but I picked it up while doing some criminological research and found the idea compelling, in the context of costly signalling and mutual guilt to build trust and bind groups together.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 21, 2010, 04:53:32 PM
I really don't get people like her... Don't regulate Big Oil, cause government is bad... but keep weed illegal cause the government knows best... but don't enforce the law... just sorta hang it over the fireplace along with the "Mom Knows Best" and "Kiss the Cook" plaques. Cause having laws we don't enforce surely doesn't degrade the concept of law or the respect our kids have for it.
Rat,
doesn't 'decriminalization', like she is saying that she supports get rid of weed being illegal? (as opposed to simply not enforcing the law as you suggest...)
It was my understanding that the difference was that decriminalization simply got rid of laws making it illegal, whereas legalization created laws that positively declared it legal (and would thus set it up for regulation and taxation).
is there something i'm missing in the legalese here?
Decriminalisation is where you can have a certain amount without being arrested or having it confiscated. Its still technically illegal tho.
That was how it works in Holland anyway.
how can it be 'decriminalization' if it is still a crime?
'Decrim' usually point to decriminalization of Possession... and leaves Intent to Sell criminalized.
Quote from: Sigmatic on June 21, 2010, 06:49:42 PM
I am only now considering that I might actually find Palin acceptable if she was constantly high.
Quote from: Cain on June 21, 2010, 06:54:17 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "if"?
Seeing Palin high on pot would be hilarious. She's probably only on oxycontin right now.
Quote from: Cain on June 21, 2010, 10:11:14 PM
RWHN, what credence do you give to the sociological theory that if certain drugs, like pot, are legalized, the social pressure to do them will actually drop, as there is no longer an illicit association with the act, thus lowering it's value in terms of in-group/out-group teenage peer distrinctions?
I can certainly see something like Rx drugs taking the place of pot if this theory holds true, but I wondered what your thoughts were on it as a whole. Not entirely your area, I know, but I picked it up while doing some criminological research and found the idea compelling, in the context of costly signalling and mutual guilt to build trust and bind groups together.
Well, the thing is, even if it ever becomes legalized here in the states, there most certainly would be an age limit ala tobacco and alcohol. I don't know if it would be 18 or 21. So, no matter what happens, it will still be illegal for teenagers to use. For adults, I don't think there would be much change. If that theory did have any weight I would suspect you would see that shift in the 21-25 yo population. But I don't know, I don't really think too much thought goes into that. It doesn't seem to impact alcohol consumption amongst young adults, which is legal. But, if it were to be legalized, it certainly would be something to study. And I don't think Rx drugs really taking the place of any kind of other drug. The rise in abuse of Rx has a lot to do with availability. Kids are doing them for the same reason they are huffing or doing inhalants. Because they're their and nobody is paying attention to them.
If you do corrections law enforcement reform right, you don't need to do decriminalization. States should have laws on the books where people caught with personal amounts of marijuana are not clogging up the courts and getting thrown in jail. All 50 States should have drug courts set up to handle these cases, get people through the system, put them on some kind of treatment plan if they are addicted or if they don't meet addiction criteria, put them in an education class much like you put a bad driver in a defensive driving class. And that shit shouldn't go on their record either as long as they successfully complete the conditions. Give them a little community service on the side too. The dealers still belong in the system, but the folks with personal amounts don't.
Quote from: RWHN on June 22, 2010, 10:41:25 AM
If you do corrections law enforcement reform right, you don't need to do decriminalization. States should have laws on the books where people caught with personal amounts of marijuana are not clogging up the courts and getting thrown in jail. All 50 States should have drug courts set up to handle these cases, get people through the system, put them on some kind of treatment plan if they are addicted or if they don't meet addiction criteria, put them in an education class much like you put a bad driver in a defensive driving class. And that shit shouldn't go on their record either as long as they successfully complete the conditions. Give them a little community service on the side too. The dealers still belong in the system, but the folks with personal amounts don't.
:troll:
Quote from: RWHN on June 22, 2010, 10:41:25 AM
If you do corrections law enforcement reform right, you don't need to do decriminalization. States should have laws on the books where people caught with personal amounts of marijuana are not clogging up the courts and getting thrown in jail. All 50 States should have drug courts set up to handle these cases, get people through the system, put them on some kind of treatment plan if they are addicted or if they don't meet addiction criteria, put them in an education class much like you put a bad driver in a defensive driving class. And that shit shouldn't go on their record either as long as they successfully complete the conditions. Give them a little community service on the side too. The dealers still belong in the system, but the folks with personal amounts don't.
Cause smoking pot in your home = bad driving? That seems kinda bizarre to me.
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
Also, tax it, and use the proceeds to pay for proper healthcare reform.
Would help the economy some also.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
This!
The fact that they are illegal is what makes most drugs interesting in the first place.
It would free the cops up so they can write more tickets for anyone smoking tobacco within 20 feet of a business entrance.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 22, 2010, 04:51:32 PM
It would free the cops up so they can write more tickets for anyone smoking tobacco within 20 feet of a business entrance.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
http://www.cleanairmanhattan.org/
Quote from: Rainy Day Pixie on June 22, 2010, 04:27:31 PM
Also, tax it, and use the proceeds to pay for proper healthcare reform.
Would help the economy some also.
Yes!
We, the people, should be able to
buy back the inalienable rights that were stolen from us!
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 22, 2010, 04:51:32 PM
It would free the cops up so they can write more tickets for anyone smoking tobacco within 20 feet of a business entrance.
If I have to live in a dorm/apartment again next year, I am tying a brick to the front door with a 15' rope with a note saying "If I can hit you with this brick, you are smoking to close to the goddamn door."
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 22, 2010, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: RWHN on June 22, 2010, 10:41:25 AM
If you do corrections law enforcement reform right, you don't need to do decriminalization. States should have laws on the books where people caught with personal amounts of marijuana are not clogging up the courts and getting thrown in jail. All 50 States should have drug courts set up to handle these cases, get people through the system, put them on some kind of treatment plan if they are addicted or if they don't meet addiction criteria, put them in an education class much like you put a bad driver in a defensive driving class. And that shit shouldn't go on their record either as long as they successfully complete the conditions. Give them a little community service on the side too. The dealers still belong in the system, but the folks with personal amounts don't.
Cause smoking pot in your home = bad driving? That seems kinda bizarre to me.
Is it a perfect 1-to-1 ratio? No. But it is in the same spirit. But, I'd be fine skipping that and just giving them community service. Have them work the phones or stuff mailings at a substance abuse treatment agency.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
But adolescents don't have the mental capacity to make those adult decisions.
Quote from: Iptuous on June 22, 2010, 08:05:34 PM
Quote from: Rainy Day Pixie on June 22, 2010, 04:27:31 PM
Also, tax it, and use the proceeds to pay for proper healthcare reform.
Would help the economy some also.
Yes!
We, the people, should be able to buy back the inalienable rights that were stolen from us!
Freedom isn't free. You need a tax stamp. That's why we fought the revolution, after all and...um. Wait.
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 12:45:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
But adolescents don't have the mental capacity to make those adult decisions.
Sure. Alcohol is legal, and we don't let kids drink it legally.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 22, 2010, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
This!
The fact that they are illegal is what makes most drugs interesting in the first place.
Not really, it's more the fact that parents don't want them to do it. Part of rebellion against parental authority. I don't imagine that would change all that much if drugs were legalized.
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 22, 2010, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
This!
The fact that they are illegal is what makes most drugs interesting in the first place.
Not really, it's more the fact that parents don't want them to do it. Part of rebellion against parental authority. I don't imagine that would change all that much if drugs were legalized.
I don't see an increase in use occurring if they were legal for adults. The kids who would do drugs are already doing them.
What I'd see is a hell of a lot less kids with felony convictions hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 23, 2010, 12:50:15 AM
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 22, 2010, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
This!
The fact that they are illegal is what makes most drugs interesting in the first place.
Not really, it's more the fact that parents don't want them to do it. Part of rebellion against parental authority. I don't imagine that would change all that much if drugs were legalized.
I don't see an increase in use occurring if they were legal for adults. The kids who would do drugs are already doing them.
What I'd see is a hell of a lot less kids with felony convictions hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives.
THIS.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 23, 2010, 12:50:15 AM
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 22, 2010, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
This!
The fact that they are illegal is what makes most drugs interesting in the first place.
Not really, it's more the fact that parents don't want them to do it. Part of rebellion against parental authority. I don't imagine that would change all that much if drugs were legalized.
I don't see an increase in use occurring if they were legal for adults. The kids who would do drugs are already doing them.
What I'd see is a hell of a lot less kids with felony convictions hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives.
How often does that happen vs. the number of kids who die from ODing?
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 01:05:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 23, 2010, 12:50:15 AM
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 12:47:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 22, 2010, 04:28:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 22, 2010, 04:19:58 PM
Sorry, RWHN, I still think drugs should be completely legalized.
Everyone has the right to fuck themselves up in any way they choose.
This!
The fact that they are illegal is what makes most drugs interesting in the first place.
Not really, it's more the fact that parents don't want them to do it. Part of rebellion against parental authority. I don't imagine that would change all that much if drugs were legalized.
I don't see an increase in use occurring if they were legal for adults. The kids who would do drugs are already doing them.
What I'd see is a hell of a lot less kids with felony convictions hanging around their necks for the rest of their lives.
How often does that happen vs. the number of kids who die from ODing?
Number of felony convictions vs the number of deaths in minors?
Hang on, I'll look.
Okay this is a bitch. I keep getting 30 pages of lawyers websites.
Continuing.
Well, here we go:
Average deaths from drugs in 2008 (adult and juvenile): 17000...Counts only actual drug caused deaths. For example, in 2006, the total number of drug related deaths was as follows:
Quote"In 2006, a total of 38,396 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States (Tables 21 and 22). This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of legal or illegal drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. It excludes unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use, as well as newborn deaths due to the mother's drug use."
So for our purposes, 17,000 people TOTAL die nation wide, on average, each year from overdoses.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 Sources are cited at the website.
Now, convictions:
Just New York - just one state- had 2.5 times that number of felony drug violations.
QuoteThere were 43,844 adult arrests in New York for felony drug violations during 2007.13 There were 42,265 such arrests during 2006.14
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/statelocal/ny/ny.pdf
I can keep digging, though it's a pain in the ass. Strictly juvenile figures seem to be damn hard to find. What percentage of that 17,000 do you expect are minors?
For it to be apples to apples however, we want to compare juvenile felony convictions and adolescent overdose deaths. But I would also add to deaths OD's that don't result in death and other serious mental and medical conditions caused by drug use. Because that is the trade-off.
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 01:58:04 AM
For it to be apples to apples however, we want to compare juvenile felony convictions and adolescent overdose deaths. But I would also add to deaths OD's that don't result in death and other serious mental and medical conditions caused by drug use. Because that is the trade-off.
Okay, and I want to add misdemeanor convictions and trauma caused by having parents in prison for drugs.
I mean, if we're moving the goal posts.
I'm not moving the goal posts, but I should've included those in the previous post. Because it isn't just about the kids who die, it's about the kids who get addicted and have their lives pretty much ruined because of the addiction. And again, when it comes to kids, unless they are distributing and selling, the justice system should be set up as an intervention, not solely a vehicle for punishment. That's why I say every state should have juvenile drug courts set up. They've done wonders in my state by keeping kids out of jail and getting them the help they needed. And when I say needed, I mean that after a scientifically and researched based assessment, they were found to have drug dependence or drug addiction.
If a state is simply locking them up, they are doing it wrong. The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, because you are igonring the larger cultural and environmental issue which is a community that obviously isn't conducive to getting kids help when they need it. And when you legalize it you are sending a signal to the kids that you as a community don't care anymore whether or not they do drugs. And if the state says its okay, you can be damn sure they are going to take that and run with it. Why listen to your parents when the government is telling you it is okay? When you are a teenager, parents are stupid. They are uninformed. You think they are smarter than they are. And now, they would have the government on their side, in their perception. No thanks.
Okay now you're just being absurd - teenagers believe what the government tells them?
I'm getting the impression you weren't a very rebellious teenager. If I'm wrong in this assumption then I'm sorry - it's my impression is all - no insult intended. Just in case I'm right, let me put you in the picture, from someone who was pretty much a study in teenage rebellion. The golden rule = fuck authority. The bigger the authority the harder they need fucked. Government and coppers = infinitely bigger authority than teachers, with parents sliding in somewhere below them. If the government had passed a mandate when I was a teenager, decreeing that I absolutely had to drink and take drugs or I would be prosecuted and/or imprisoned and/or executed by lethal injection then, and only then, would I have refrained from taking all the booze and pills I could get my grubby little hands on.
Decriminalisation doesn't go far enough. It leaves distribution, and any import/export in the hands of Criminals. Not that I have anything particularly against Criminals, (and to be fair, they have been quite efficient at it) but for the whole of society (UK, Specifically) to benefit from a major move like this, it needs to be Regulated, Quality assessed, and Taxed.
I'm certain that once people actually realize the massive
(and I really do mean massive) amounts of revenue and jobs that this would generate for our badly abused economy, then the public would be wholeheartedly behind such a move. Not only would it ease the burden of Taxes on the average non-smoking working man, but it would also redirect a similar sum that is currently (by necessity) either in the Black Economy, or going straight out of the Country, funding fuck knows what, fuck knows where, back into the Economy proper.
So how can a responsible Government, who are purportedly in control of the Economy, and supposedly taking measures to improve it's general health, allow such a lucrative Black Economy to go straight into the hands of Criminal Ganglords, without even having the Tax from it?
All of this could be up and running in less than a year. If Legalisation were to take place, then the only extra outlay for the Government, would be to employ a few extra Taxbods to count the mountains of cash that would be rolling in.
There are already efficient and well established lines of distribution and import set up. And many of the people who are currently involved in these lines, (and earning good money at it too) would jump at the chance to 'Go Legal', So the knock on effect would be much more lucrative for the general populace, than the "Trickle down" effect of giving the Banks handouts. It begins at the other end of the Economy for a start, so the real effects of the influx of money would be felt straight away, generating a confident rise in public spending. It would eventually 'Trickle up' to the Banks, but only after it had generated Small Businesses, Tax, and Jobs for people. Which is really the mandate of the Banks & the Treasury , but they have proven to be too incompetant and greedy, and working so closely with each other, there is too much room for abuse and collusion. So if we put the whole of this new industry between the Government and the Banks, the revenues generated can be directed into something other than huge salary increases for 'The Boys on the Boards'.
As has already been said, the numbers of kids getting stoned would not be adversarily affected, as they are already smoking it, regardless of the Law. If anything, it would decrease thier numbers, as their suppliers would be driven out of business, or regulated. In fact, the whole thing need not affect the smoker at all, except in the pocket.
To summarise, I think we all must be missing some important factor, because Legalising Puff is such a win/win option, I find it unthinkable that the Government haven't already done so, decades ago. Therefore there must be some pretty heavy duty lobbying from Drug Companies, or Textile manafcturers, or The Church, or some other major player, that stands to lose a lot of money. And the only people that spring to mind, are the International Criminal Organisations who use the illegal status of drugs, and the subsequent industries of illegal import/export, as their source of income. (Presumably along with this, comes some top level bribery, that we can do without)
Quote from: Rainy Day Pixie on June 22, 2010, 12:15:06 AM
Decriminalisation is where you can have a certain amount without being arrested or having it confiscated. Its still technically illegal tho.
That was how it works in Holland anyway.
Same in Massaachusetts
I think BadBeast nailed it on the head.
Legalizing marijuana for example would take terrorist, drug cartels and the [insert ethnicity here] mafia out of the picture. Hell, the job of production and distribution can be taken up by tobacco companies instead. This also provides a new crop for agricultural purchases, giving farmers more to work with if they wanted. International tariffs and duties can be imposed for imports if it is legalized elsewhere. And if it isn't, TOURISM. This would also take a major commodity out of the hands of drug dealers. On top of that, it takes away the gateway drug effect. If weed is illegal and you smoke it for the first time and don't become an insane murder-rapist, then you might assume the authorities are also lying about angel dust. If you take weed, a rather benign sort of drug, which is less addictive than and has less of a negative impact than alcohol, out of the picture of illegal drugs, then you can continue to villify the other drugs that do really fuck up your life.
I'm sure that this has all been said numerous times before.
Yes, yes it has. About as much as libertarianism and only slightly more than whether Zappa sucks or not.
http://www.examiner.com/x-36226-Chicago-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d23-McDonalds-responds-to-threatened-lawsuit-over-Happy-Meal-toys
Hell, if Happy Meal toys are too dangerous for our kids, then I suppose we should make everything else illegal as well.
Time on the computer = time not exercising. INTERNETS IS NAW ILLEGAL!! We can put you in a community service program though... Television too obviously, cause people sit their fat ass on the couch and eat potato chips... OHSHI we better make those snacks illegal too! And fuck Maple Syrup right in the EAR and those damned Waffles/Pancakes/French Toast!
Come on my fellow Free Citizens! Rise up and save your fellow Americans from themselves! Tell them what they can and can't do, can and can't eat, drink, smoke, fap to and whatever else might possibly not be 100% healthy for them. IT IS OUR RIGHT AND DUTY, HELP THEM BE FREE!!!
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 23, 2010, 11:57:05 AM
Okay now you're just being absurd - teenagers believe what the government tells them?
If it helps them in their aim to rebel against their parents? You betcha! If the government decides to legalize marijuana, you can be damn sure they are taking that to the bank anytime their Mom or Dad tries to tell them it's bad for them.
QuoteI'm getting the impression you weren't a very rebellious teenager. If I'm wrong in this assumption then I'm sorry - it's my impression is all - no insult intended.
Depends on how you define rebellious. Did I drink and do drugs? No. My rebellion against my parents was pretty focused on losing my religion.
I'm not arguing that kids will blindly believe anything government says. What I'm saying is that kids will glom on to the government legalizing marijuana as a way to legitimize their use with their parents. It's not out of a blind allegiance to government, it's because the action is convenient to their aims.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 23, 2010, 05:15:47 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-36226-Chicago-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d23-McDonalds-responds-to-threatened-lawsuit-over-Happy-Meal-toys
Hell, if Happy Meal toys are too dangerous for our kids, then I suppose we should make everything else illegal as well.
Time on the computer = time not exercising. INTERNETS IS NAW ILLEGAL!! We can put you in a community service program though... Television too obviously, cause people sit their fat ass on the couch and eat potato chips... OHSHI we better make those snacks illegal too! And fuck Maple Syrup right in the EAR and those damned Waffles/Pancakes/French Toast!
Come on my fellow Free Citizens! Rise up and save your fellow Americans from themselves! Tell them what they can and can't do, can and can't eat, drink, smoke, fap to and whatever else might possibly not be 100% healthy for them. IT IS OUR RIGHT AND DUTY, HELP THEM BE FREE!!!
But see, the floodgate theory is really not reality. Reality is that these things happen apart from each other and each event can be evaluated by the American people on a case by case basis. Banning toys in Happy Meals doesn't automatically mean we are going to do all the things you suggest. America has always worked in an incremental fashion. When it goes too far, the people will put their foot down.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 23, 2010, 12:48:55 PM
Decriminalisation doesn't go far enough. It leaves distribution, and any import/export in the hands of Criminals. Not that I have anything particularly against Criminals, (and to be fair, they have been quite efficient at it) but for the whole of society (UK, Specifically) to benefit from a major move like this, it needs to be Regulated, Quality assessed, and Taxed.
I'm certain that once people actually realize the massive
(and I really do mean massive) amounts of revenue and jobs that this would generate for our badly abused economy, then the public would be wholeheartedly behind such a move. Not only would it ease the burden of Taxes on the average non-smoking working man, but it would also redirect a similar sum that is currently (by necessity) either in the Black Economy, or going straight out of the Country, funding fuck knows what, fuck knows where, back into the Economy proper.
So how can a responsible Government, who are purportedly in control of the Economy, and supposedly taking measures to improve it's general health, allow such a lucrative Black Economy to go straight into the hands of Criminal Ganglords, without even having the Tax from it?
All of this could be up and running in less than a year. If Legalisation were to take place, then the only extra outlay for the Government, would be to employ a few extra Taxbods to count the mountains of cash that would be rolling in.
There are already efficient and well established lines of distribution and import set up. And many of the people who are currently involved in these lines, (and earning good money at it too) would jump at the chance to 'Go Legal', So the knock on effect would be much more lucrative for the general populace, than the "Trickle down" effect of giving the Banks handouts. It begins at the other end of the Economy for a start, so the real effects of the influx of money would be felt straight away, generating a confident rise in public spending. It would eventually 'Trickle up' to the Banks, but only after it had generated Small Businesses, Tax, and Jobs for people. Which is really the mandate of the Banks & the Treasury , but they have proven to be too incompetant and greedy, and working so closely with each other, there is too much room for abuse and collusion. So if we put the whole of this new industry between the Government and the Banks, the revenues generated can be directed into something other than huge salary increases for 'The Boys on the Boards'.
As has already been said, the numbers of kids getting stoned would not be adversarily affected, as they are already smoking it, regardless of the Law. If anything, it would decrease thier numbers, as their suppliers would be driven out of business, or regulated. In fact, the whole thing need not affect the smoker at all, except in the pocket.
To summarise, I think we all must be missing some important factor, because Legalising Puff is such a win/win option, I find it unthinkable that the Government haven't already done so, decades ago. Therefore there must be some pretty heavy duty lobbying from Drug Companies, or Textile manafcturers, or The Church, or some other major player, that stands to lose a lot of money. And the only people that spring to mind, are the International Criminal Organisations who use the illegal status of drugs, and the subsequent industries of illegal import/export, as their source of income. (Presumably along with this, comes some top level bribery, that we can do without)
:cn:
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 09:05:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 23, 2010, 11:57:05 AM
Okay now you're just being absurd - teenagers believe what the government tells them?
If it helps them in their aim to rebel against their parents? You betcha! If the government decides to legalize marijuana, you can be damn sure they are taking that to the bank anytime their Mom or Dad tries to tell them it's bad for them.
Well, Mom and Dad should stop being liars and tell them that its not necessarily bad for them, but it does seem to have some bad side effects for kids their age and maybe they should wait until they're older.
Quote
QuoteI'm getting the impression you weren't a very rebellious teenager. If I'm wrong in this assumption then I'm sorry - it's my impression is all - no insult intended.
Depends on how you define rebellious. Did I drink and do drugs? No. My rebellion against my parents was pretty focused on losing my religion.
I'm not arguing that kids will blindly believe anything government says. What I'm saying is that kids will glom on to the government legalizing marijuana as a way to legitimize their use with their parents. It's not out of a blind allegiance to government, it's because the action is convenient to their aims.
Lame Parents are lame.
Quote from: RWHN on June 23, 2010, 09:10:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 23, 2010, 05:15:47 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-36226-Chicago-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m6d23-McDonalds-responds-to-threatened-lawsuit-over-Happy-Meal-toys
Hell, if Happy Meal toys are too dangerous for our kids, then I suppose we should make everything else illegal as well.
Time on the computer = time not exercising. INTERNETS IS NAW ILLEGAL!! We can put you in a community service program though... Television too obviously, cause people sit their fat ass on the couch and eat potato chips... OHSHI we better make those snacks illegal too! And fuck Maple Syrup right in the EAR and those damned Waffles/Pancakes/French Toast!
Come on my fellow Free Citizens! Rise up and save your fellow Americans from themselves! Tell them what they can and can't do, can and can't eat, drink, smoke, fap to and whatever else might possibly not be 100% healthy for them. IT IS OUR RIGHT AND DUTY, HELP THEM BE FREE!!!
But see, the floodgate theory is really not reality. Reality is that these things happen apart from each other and each event can be evaluated by the American people on a case by case basis. Banning toys in Happy Meals doesn't automatically mean we are going to do all the things you suggest.
Well, of course, I was being absurd ;-)
Quote
America has always worked in an incremental fashion. When it goes too far, the people will put their foot down.
*looks around*
Really? Are you talking about America in the 21st century? Cause I'm not sure I've seen much evidence to support such an optimistic theory...
I've never really been sure what that 'citation needed' smiley meant.
It's from Wikipedia -- it means back up your assertions with valid references, or STFU. It's a lot easier than providing your own sources which disprove the uncited assertions, and it has the added benefit of pissing people off who up until that point, were under the misconception that they were participating in a conversation.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 23, 2010, 09:33:35 PM
It's from Wikipedia -- it means back up your assertions with valid references, or STFU. It's a lot easier than providing your own sources which disprove the uncited assertions, and it has the added benefit of pissing people off who up until that point, were under the misconception that they were participating in a conversation.
:cn:
:mccain:
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 23, 2010, 09:41:00 PM
:mccain:
I couldn't decide between that and the :potd:
;-)
I'd be happy with Medical recognition/legalization and equal exemption for religious use. That way, you'd have an adult population (arguably trained in the effects) to provide information and control access.
Because, seriously, allowing the Native American Church to use peyote, and allowing the south american/christian syncretic religions to use Hoasca(DMT), but throwing Rastafarians in jail for their sacrament screams of entrenched unconstitutional power-mongering.
Quote from: Captain Utopia on June 23, 2010, 09:33:35 PM
It's from Wikipedia -- it means back up your assertions with valid references, or STFU. It's a lot easier than providing your own sources which disprove the uncited assertions, and it has the added benefit of pissing people off who up until that point, were under the misconception that they were participating in a conversation.
:lulz:
Here's the thing. I've heard this argument that legalizing drugs will somehow be an adrenaline shot to the economy. That it is going to be this big, boost. And I've never seen any reasonable, legitimate proof to bolster that position. So I'm asking BadBeast to simply provide the facts that supports his theory. Because I honestly don't see it from my understanding of economics and drugs. Yes, certainly, there would be additional revenues coming into the state coiffers if you legalized marijuana. But one thing that will happen is a good percentage of that will go to treatment and prevention funding. That will undoubtedly be one of the compromises made to legalize the drug (if it ever happens). The other revenues would also likely be marked for specific funds, most likely in the area of health care. Maybe some of it goes into the general fund. But, by that point, what you have left wouldn't actually be so significant that it would provide that much of a punch to an ailing economy. UNLESS, you market the drug to get more people to buy it and use it. And then, you have a whole new can of worms.
Oh, and FP, you're doing a great job Monday QBing this thread. Anytime you want to actually add to the debate, go right ahead.
I'm gonna jump in and add some unsupported conjecture to the economy boost thing. Don't ask for citations because I'm talking out my ass.
I can't see it contributing to the economy directly. People already have jobs involving selling weed and weed accessories. If anything the wages on those jobs will go down if the risk is removed and big corporations move in, or more people just grow it in the back yard,.
The only monetary gain I can see to it is A) The gov will save money on enforcement and B) Vice Tax revenue. This might improve the economy to the extent that a solvent government is a good thing economically. (and on the one in a thousand chance the government doesn't respond by increasing spending elsewhere).
Unhealthy use of drugs = badwrong ergo drugs=badwrong therefore drugs are hit with banhammer
Unhealthy sexual practice = badwrong ergo sexual practice=badwrong therefore sexcrime
Driving cars too fast with your eyes shut = badwrong ergo driving cars=badwrong therefore we ban cars
______ = badwrong - ________ should be banned
If there's any single phenomenon left when we're finished I'm pretty sure we can can nip it in the bud by applying the - children will do it - logic
Liberty is an either or scenario - there is NO in between. Luckily for me I'm a criminal so I can pretty much do whatever the fuck I please. I wouldn't trade my place for your idea of freedom in a million years.
The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13. Your brain simply is not properly wired yet to make those kinds of adult decisions. Sure, they may start out making the "right" decisions, but eventually they are going to want more, harder, faster, weirder, and kids simply are not equipped to handle the outcomes of those decisions. (I would argue there are many adults not ready for the outcomes of those decisions as well, but I digress)
In a perfect world, yes, adults should be able to make adult decisions. But when those decisions impact the youth, that is where the line must be drawn, IF, we value the overall health of our youth. In America, that seems to be the cultural norm right now. That we want our youth to be healthy so they can thrive and succeed. It's very difficult for them to do that if they are addicted to drugs or having a baby at 14. I don't do what I do because I want to take away fun from adults. I do what I do because I want to help keep our youth, including my own kids, healthy so they can thrive and live to their fullest potential and so they can make the most of things as they follow their paths. I want to minimize the shrapnel that gets embedded in their skin and throws them off their paths.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 01:12:48 PM
The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13.
I wasn't talking about children but thanks for bringing that up cos it illustrates my point fucking beautifully. One of your main arguments for not allowing
adults to take drugs is because it'll be easier for children to get them then, right? Same goes for fucking - if adults are allowed to do it then children will want to as well. Your logic dictates we have to ban fucking immediately - for the sake of the younger generation. Anything that kids aren't meant to do will be easier for them to do if adults are allowed. Porn, horror movies, subversive literature, music with swear words in... Where do you draw the line? I'll guarantee it comes down to opinion and that's where my whole fucking problem lies. Think of the most conservative morally uptight whining bastard you ever met, then assume there's someone out there who's much worse and then imagine living your life by a set of rules dictated by them because that's what lies at the bottom of this slippery prohibition slope. Little by little the fences get moved back and I for one aint fucking having it.
By all means raise awareness, treat the ones who need it but we're innocent until proven guilty. Just because, in your opinion, there's no healthy way to use drugs doesn't mean the rest of us necessarily feel the same way. Why should you be the one who gets to decide?
It isn't just according to my opinion or the opinions of my colleagues in the field. It is also according to brain science and the research behind adolescent development. It is more than how one feels, it is also about the evidence. The current brain research suggests that adolescents simply do not have the capacity to make adult decisions. They are irrational and are all about testing their boundaries. And that is natural, and we should encourage opportunities for testing those boundaries, but they should be opportunities we know are healthy.
But of course, societies evolve. Perhaps decades from now, or sooner, the prevailing wisdom and opinion will be that drugs are fine and dandy for 13 and 14 year olds. And the laws will eventually follow that mindset. I think that would be a harmful and very negative evolution myself, but, it could happen.
Here is an example of what I am talking about: http://pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu/dahl/Dahl_Adolescent_brain_development.pdf
If you read the first couple of pages you'll see the impacts of their brain development. On the one hand, their reasoning skills and intelligence is increasing. However, when you pair that up with their penchant to take risks, and their inclination to make irrational, emotional decisions, the results can be fairly catastrophic. Morbidity and mortality increases 200% during this developmental state. Adding drugs into the equation isn't going to hep that at all.
Also prohibition = violence.
Prohibition of alcohol in the US caused a hell of an organised crime problem.
Would the social problems with gangs and drugs be lessened by legalisation?
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 24, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 01:12:48 PM
The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13.
I wasn't talking about children but thanks for bringing that up cos it illustrates my point fucking beautifully. One of your main arguments for not allowing adults to take drugs is because it'll be easier for children to get them then, right? Same goes for fucking - if adults are allowed to do it then children will want to as well. Your logic dictates we have to ban fucking immediately - for the sake of the younger generation. Anything that kids aren't meant to do will be easier for them to do if adults are allowed. Porn, horror movies, subversive literature, music with swear words in... Where do you draw the line? I'll guarantee it comes down to opinion and that's where my whole fucking problem lies. Think of the most conservative morally uptight whining bastard you ever met, then assume there's someone out there who's much worse and then imagine living your life by a set of rules dictated by them because that's what lies at the bottom of this slippery prohibition slope. Little by little the fences get moved back and I for one aint fucking having it.
By all means raise awareness, treat the ones who need it but we're innocent until proven guilty. Just because, in your opinion, there's no healthy way to use drugs doesn't mean the rest of us necessarily feel the same way. Why should you be the one who gets to decide?
Still not.
RWHN, I understand that you work with children. But. As a child of the late '60's and early 70's drug and sexual revolution I have to disagree with you. We didn't run around all fucking "I'm going to kill myself" emo. A hell of a lot of very intelligent people are from the era. Oh, and most of us stopped doing the hard shit decades ago. I stopped doing all of it in '72.
Just had a visit with a shrink and guess what? He suggested that I switch from alcohol to pot at night to sleep. But what the hell does he know.
I am irked by so many people trying to decide how I should live my life because they have an opinion. Hey, I have one too.
Oh, we have fat kids so let's ban fast food. How utterly fucking stupid. Take the damn video games away from the fat little bastard and kick his outside.
So your fat kid is all emo and throwing a fit? Paddle his fat ass.
Kids need a little less fucking pampering and a little more real fucking world.
Charley, perhaps you're having a bit of Survivorship Bias. The very fact you're here means that your drug experiences were not overly damaging. There will be no posts in this thread from people who were overly damaged by them, because, well... anyone who was damaged won't be here.
Sure, there were intelligent people in the 60s and 70s. And in the 80s, the 50s, and the 90s. But as each decade had its share of intelligent people who did the drug of their era, there are many more* who became opium junkies, acid casualties, alcoholics, crackheads, or tweakers (pick your decade's favorite drug).
What I'm hearing from RWHN is that while it isn't possible to keep all kids away from all drugs, the more kids you can keep away from most drugs will result in fewer casualties.
The intelligent kids will always be intelligent kids, but there will be fewer burnouts. And isn't that a good thing?
*Unverified statistic - Conclusion reached due to the general principle of the long tail.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:18:00 PM
Charley, perhaps you're having a bit of Survivorship Bias. The very fact you're here means that your drug experiences were not overly damaging. There will be no posts in this thread from people who were overly damaged by them, because, well... anyone who was damaged won't be here.
Sure, there were intelligent people in the 60s and 70s. And in the 80s, the 50s, and the 90s. But as each decade had its share of intelligent people who did the drug of their era, there are many more* who became opium junkies, acid casualties, alcoholics, crackheads, or tweakers (pick your decade's favorite drug).
What I'm hearing from RWHN is that while it isn't possible to keep all kids away from all drugs, the more kids you can keep away from most drugs will result in fewer casualties.
The intelligent kids will always be intelligent kids, but there will be fewer burnouts. And isn't that a good thing?
*Unverified statistic - Conclusion reached due to the general principle of the long tail.
Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.
And, since I did live through those times, there were VERY few who are they way you are saying and oddly enough a lot of the rest of us tried to help them.
But carry on with deciding how I should live.
Quote from: RWHN on June 22, 2010, 10:37:30 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 21, 2010, 10:11:14 PM
RWHN, what credence do you give to the sociological theory that if certain drugs, like pot, are legalized, the social pressure to do them will actually drop, as there is no longer an illicit association with the act, thus lowering it's value in terms of in-group/out-group teenage peer distrinctions?
I can certainly see something like Rx drugs taking the place of pot if this theory holds true, but I wondered what your thoughts were on it as a whole. Not entirely your area, I know, but I picked it up while doing some criminological research and found the idea compelling, in the context of costly signalling and mutual guilt to build trust and bind groups together.
Well, the thing is, even if it ever becomes legalized here in the states, there most certainly would be an age limit ala tobacco and alcohol. I don't know if it would be 18 or 21. So, no matter what happens, it will still be illegal for teenagers to use. For adults, I don't think there would be much change. If that theory did have any weight I would suspect you would see that shift in the 21-25 yo population. But I don't know, I don't really think too much thought goes into that. It doesn't seem to impact alcohol consumption amongst young adults, which is legal. But, if it were to be legalized, it certainly would be something to study. And I don't think Rx drugs really taking the place of any kind of other drug. The rise in abuse of Rx has a lot to do with availability. Kids are doing them for the same reason they are huffing or doing inhalants. Because they're their and nobody is paying attention to them.
Hmm, yes, I see your point on the age thing. I know that, for example, in Canton next to the one I'm currently staying in at Switzerland, pot can legally be bought, and the age is around 16, whereas of course the USA tends to be a little more strict with alcohol (I don't know about tobacco) and that could raise the age of legal use considerably.
I was just wondering because I was catching up on my criminology reading, and the author was talking about the use of law-breaking in order to build group cohesion and test individuals. He gave the examples of boarding schools and how he, as a child, was pressured to steal food from the kitchen as it was something which could get you expelled. He didn't want to do it, because he wasn't hungry, but was pressured into it regardless. Earlier on in the book, it mentioned how undercover cops were allowed to break certain laws, such as using drugs, to maintain their cover, so tests for organized crime groups, like the Mafia, which had gotten lax, were replaced with the requirement to kill someone to be given entry.
Obviously teenage cliques are not criminal gangs, but their sociology will mirror it in some ways, and one of the best ways I could think of to see if someone could be assimilated into the group would be to give them something illegal to do and see if they wussed out or went for it. In that sense, I could see the value of pot decreasing, depending on how legalised it was, the age at which smoking it was legal, the penalties associated with it etc. At the same time, I can see something else then picking up speed to replace pot should that happen, and it could easily be something far more dangerous, like ecstasy or heroin.
Anyway, thanks for your answer.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 24, 2010, 02:25:47 PM
Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.
And, since I did live through those times, there were VERY few who are they way you are saying and oddly enough a lot of the rest of us tried to help them.
But carry on with deciding how I should live.
Parenting skills? In an age where a mother will call the cops to taze her own child for misbehaving?
I understand your point about freedom to choose: Now, what do you do about kids who have no choices?
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 08:23:57 AM
Here's the thing. I've heard this argument that legalizing drugs will somehow be an adrenaline shot to the economy. That it is going to be this big, boost. And I've never seen any reasonable, legitimate proof to bolster that position. So I'm asking BadBeast to simply provide the facts that supports his theory.
[...]
Oh, and FP, you're doing a great job Monday QBing this thread. Anytime you want to actually add to the debate, go right ahead.
You put a [citation needed] emote against his entire post, I guess I found that quite disrespectful, and significantly different in tone from how you intended it to come across (bolded above). My bad.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 08:23:57 AM
Because I honestly don't see it from my understanding of economics and drugs. Yes, certainly, there would be additional revenues coming into the state coiffers if you legalized marijuana. But one thing that will happen is a good percentage of that will go to treatment and prevention funding. That will undoubtedly be one of the compromises made to legalize the drug (if it ever happens).
Wouldn't that guarantee jobs, proportional to usage?
The prison industry creates jobs, but is a net loss to any governments budget. I'm seeing estimates between $30k-$50k to house a prisoner per year, so even if the pot-heads who were no longer in jail were placed on welfare, you'd have a net-gain to the economy. Bonus -- even in the worst case scenario, the pot-heads would be efficiently organising their minimal income to maximise how much they get to spend on weed, thereby stimulating the economy further.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 08:23:57 AM
The other revenues would also likely be marked for specific funds, most likely in the area of health care. Maybe some of it goes into the general fund. But, by that point, what you have left wouldn't actually be so significant that it would provide that much of a punch to an ailing economy.
Okay - if the money gets put into healthcare, prevention, general fund or WHATEVER... that aids the economy. If the money disappears into Mexico... that hurts the economy. It's been a while since I took my classes economics, but I'm pretty damn sure that's how it works.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 01:32:52 PM
It isn't just according to my opinion or the opinions of my colleagues in the field. It is also according to brain science and the research behind adolescent development. It is more than how one feels, it is also about the evidence. The current brain research suggests that adolescents simply do not have the capacity to make adult decisions. They are irrational and are all about testing their boundaries. And that is natural, and we should encourage opportunities for testing those boundaries, but they should be opportunities we know are healthy.
So following this logic, by reducing the appeal of pot as something that kids do to test their boundaries, we'd be reducing their overall usage?
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:28:34 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 24, 2010, 02:25:47 PM
Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.
And, since I did live through those times, there were VERY few who are they way you are saying and oddly enough a lot of the rest of us tried to help them.
But carry on with deciding how I should live.
Parenting skills? In an age where a mother will call the cops to taze her own child for misbehaving?
I understand your point about freedom to choose: Now, what do you do about kids who have no choices?
Ok, so what are you suggesting? Wrap the world in bubble wrap?
Exactly what do you mean by 'have no choice'?
Want to change laws? Decriminalize spankings.
There are plenty of parents who DON'T call the cops to taze their kids.
So who get's to decide how I live? Who's hands should I turn myself over to?
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 24, 2010, 02:25:47 PM
Then try using parental skills instead of trying to force me to live according to your ideals. That is what has me ticked off.
THIS!
Like I already said - there's a problem with teenagers having sex and getting pregnant. Your logic has
me banned from fucking consenting adults as a remedy.
Parents who are strung out on whatever is a bad environment for kids to be brought up in and yeah those kids have easy access to drugs but the issue isn't whether
I'm allowed to take drugs the issue is those are shit parents - social services should step in and ship the kids off somewhere they'll be brought up by responsible adults - locking me up for smoking a joint is not the solution in this instance.
http://www.theantidrug.com/drug-information/commonly-abused-drugs/alcohol.aspx?id=alcohol
Ban alcohol! Oh...wait....
I'm amused how so many Discordians are concerned about the legality of drugs or not, on both sides of the debate.
Man the fuck up. If you're stupid enough to get caught, go out in public while high, come to the attention of police informants, buy from undercover cops etc, then you're an idiot and deserve to go to prison. Suck it up, whiners. If you're going to let the law dictate your activities you may as well give up right now. And if you're going to complain because THE MAN is oppressing you and it's just not fair, mum, you might as well hang around with all those pathetic legalization campaigns.
And no-one should be forced to endure that.
Troof! If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times - I'm a criminal so I can do what I want. Hell, when I was dealing drugs legalisation was our worst nightmare - it'd kill business overnight. Doesn't stop me pointing out the stupidity inherent in doing things the legal way, tho. :lulz:
I just find it amusing that the majority of the threads in this forum regard everyone (including ourselves) as dumb monkeys who have trouble walking upright most of the time, and spend their days wrapped up by their Spiders™, eating Big Macs and watching Reality TV, flnging shit, oblivious to the world around them and the catastrophic things they do to themselves and their environment... Except when we argue with RWHN, and suddenly they are all completely capable, compassionate, and rational creatures who will raise their children in the best possible manner if we would just leave them alone.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:47:49 PM
I just find it amusing that the majority of the threads in this forum regard everyone (including ourselves) as dumb monkeys who have trouble walking upright most of the time, and spend their days wrapped up by their Spiders™, eating Big Macs and watching Reality TV, flnging shit, oblivious to the world around them and the catastrophic things they do to themselves and their environment... Except when we argue with RWHN, and suddenly they are all completely capable, compassionate, and rational creatures who will raise their children in the best possible manner if we would just leave them alone.
So you're saying I shouldn't take my kids to MacDonalds for breakfast and dinner then?
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:47:49 PM
I just find it amusing that the majority of the threads in this forum regard everyone (including ourselves) as dumb monkeys who have trouble walking upright most of the time, and spend their days wrapped up by their Spiders™, eating Big Macs and watching Reality TV, flnging shit, oblivious to the world around them and the catastrophic things they do to themselves and their environment... Except when we argue with RWHN, and suddenly they are all completely capable, compassionate, and rational creatures who will raise their children in the best possible manner if we would just leave them alone.
So there is no such things as good parents? Oh, they just never get the media coverage because they are
boring. What I am seeing ITT is a lot of is that kids are stupid and we need to protect them at all costs, including freedom.
Kids and substance is nothing new, it has been going on for a very long time and it will continue to go on for a very long time. Not even wrapping the world in bubble wrap is going to stop it. Of course it's tragic, no argument there, but where is self responsibility in this equasion?
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 02:53:03 PM
So you're saying I shouldn't take my kids to MacDonalds for breakfast and dinner then?
You can only take them if you Supersize© it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 24, 2010, 02:54:05 PM
What I am seeing ITT is a lot of is that kids are stupid and we need to protect them at all costs, including freedom.
Kids and substance is nothing new, it has been going on for a very long time and it will continue to go on for a very long time. Not even wrapping the world in bubble wrap is going to stop it. Of course it's tragic, no argument there, but where is self responsibility in this equasion?
If you recall, RWHN has posted several different studies that show that adolescents, because their brains are still developing,
even the smart ones, cannot fully be said to have full responsibility for their actions. The responsibility, then, falls to the parents. A responsible, informed parent will do their best. An irresponsible, misinformed parent will fail.
Again, I point to the rest of this forum, and all our ranting about the ignorance and irresponsibility of humans. Sure,
we are good parents, and so are our friends, but we are also the minority of a minority.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 02:53:03 PM
So you're saying I shouldn't take my kids to MacDonalds for breakfast and dinner then?
You can only take them if you Supersize© it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 24, 2010, 02:54:05 PM
What I am seeing ITT is a lot of is that kids are stupid and we need to protect them at all costs, including freedom.
Kids and substance is nothing new, it has been going on for a very long time and it will continue to go on for a very long time. Not even wrapping the world in bubble wrap is going to stop it. Of course it's tragic, no argument there, but where is self responsibility in this equasion?
If you recall, RWHN has posted several different studies that show that adolescents, because their brains are still developing, even the smart ones, cannot fully be said to have full responsibility for their actions. The responsibility, then, falls to the parents. A responsible, informed parent will do their best. An irresponsible, misinformed parent will fail.
Again, I point to the rest of this forum, and all our ranting about the ignorance and irresponsibility of humans. Sure, we are good parents, and so are our friends, but we are also the minority of a minority.
Ok, another angle to continue with Cains post about McDonalds.
We have fat kids, no argument. So, let's sue McDonalds to get rid of the toys because that encourages kids to get fat. There are several groups out there who want to ban fast food completely. So following the logic posited in this thread kids will then have 'burger parties' to try and get fat.
All of this when the real issue is the fat little kid needs to get the hell out from in front of the television or their video game and go do something. Something physical. Like play outside.
Kids are going to find a way to get trashed, whether it's drugs or alcohol of whatever. Because they are kids.
I don't even use illegal drugs, haven't since 1972.
The problem though with not legalizing pot is an incredible amount of money and lives are being spent and lost every year. Check out the Mexican border and drug cartels.
Where is the balance between common sense and doing the best we can?
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 02:53:03 PM
So you're saying I shouldn't take my kids to MacDonalds for breakfast and dinner then?
You can only take them if you Supersize© it.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 24, 2010, 02:54:05 PM
What I am seeing ITT is a lot of is that kids are stupid and we need to protect them at all costs, including freedom.
Kids and substance is nothing new, it has been going on for a very long time and it will continue to go on for a very long time. Not even wrapping the world in bubble wrap is going to stop it. Of course it's tragic, no argument there, but where is self responsibility in this equasion?
If you recall, RWHN has posted several different studies that show that adolescents, because their brains are still developing, even the smart ones, cannot fully be said to have full responsibility for their actions. The responsibility, then, falls to the parents. A responsible, informed parent will do their best. An irresponsible, misinformed parent will fail.
Again, I point to the rest of this forum, and all our ranting about the ignorance and irresponsibility of humans. Sure, we are good parents, and so are our friends, but we are also the minority of a minority.
Okay I'm going to do a u-turn here cos I just realised you're right and so am I, even though I was trying to be facetious :sad:
They should ban everything.
Including especially sex between consenting adults. That way the idiots wouldn't be able to breed.
Srsly
Ok, at this point, I'm amused at Vitriol's sudden adherence to either/or statements.
Protecting kids from weed is fine. Because, yeah, adolescents make stupid decisions. Like buying weed from a drug dealer.
If a kid wants to smoke pot, s/he's going to do it, with or without legal opportunity to do so.
Just like the kid who drinks alcohol, a restricted substance that is nonetheless legal.
I see what you're saying but I think you're thinking too much about what will the kids do? Nothing any different than they are now. Except that the store clerk can say, no weed for you, you're too young. Drug dealers don't card.
@Cain- tobacco, pornography, casino gambling and the lottery is legal at age 18. Alcohol is legal at age 21, except, I think, in Louisiana, where you can buy from a liquor store at 18 but can't go to the bar until 21. I would imagine that with legalization, you would have to be 21 to purchase marijuana.
Just a little background info I want to throw out there to everyone. So, I'm working on this big 3 year federal government grant. We have a big wad of dough to work on different areas affecting kids and affecting their learning environment. Bullying, mental health, early childhood education, etc., etc., I'm in charge of the subtance abuse piece. Anyway, one of the things I will be doing is developing new substance abuse policies for the schools that move them away from their current zero tolerance policies. The ones where a kid gets caught with a joint, gets suspended for a bunch of days, and then falls behind in school, eventually puts his arms up and drops out. The reality is that I will probably meet some stiff resistance when I propose this to the school boards. But I just wanted to throw that out there to perhaps add a little perspective to my perspective.
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 24, 2010, 01:59:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Vitriol on June 24, 2010, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 01:12:48 PM
The problem with that, is there really is no such thing as "healthy" use of drugs, or for that matter "healthy" sexual practices when you are 13.
I wasn't talking about children but thanks for bringing that up cos it illustrates my point fucking beautifully. One of your main arguments for not allowing adults to take drugs is because it'll be easier for children to get them then, right? Same goes for fucking - if adults are allowed to do it then children will want to as well. Your logic dictates we have to ban fucking immediately - for the sake of the younger generation. Anything that kids aren't meant to do will be easier for them to do if adults are allowed. Porn, horror movies, subversive literature, music with swear words in... Where do you draw the line? I'll guarantee it comes down to opinion and that's where my whole fucking problem lies. Think of the most conservative morally uptight whining bastard you ever met, then assume there's someone out there who's much worse and then imagine living your life by a set of rules dictated by them because that's what lies at the bottom of this slippery prohibition slope. Little by little the fences get moved back and I for one aint fucking having it.
By all means raise awareness, treat the ones who need it but we're innocent until proven guilty. Just because, in your opinion, there's no healthy way to use drugs doesn't mean the rest of us necessarily feel the same way. Why should you be the one who gets to decide?
Still not.
But the kids are in the equation whether you want to talk about it or not.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 04:09:24 PM
Just a little background info I want to throw out there to everyone. So, I'm working on this big 3 year federal government. We have a big wad of dough to work on different areas affecting kids and affecting their learning environment. Bullying, mental health, early childhood education, etc., etc., I'm in charge of the subtance abuse piece. Anyway, one of the things I will be doing is developing new substance abuse policies for the schools that move them away from their current zero tolerance policies. The ones where a kid gets caught with a joint, gets suspended for a bunch of days, and then falls behind in school, eventually puts his arms up and drops out. The reality is that I will probably meet some stiff resistance when I propose this to the school boards. But I just wanted to throw that out there to perhaps add a little perspective to my perspective.
Good. Zero-tolerance has never worked, and it just a combination of pandering to the hair-shirt punishment freaks and sucking the ass of insurance companies.
NT, that sounds about right, thanks for the clarifying info.
In that case, I can't see it having a massive effect, as per what RWHN said in response to me. In Europe, drinking and smoking ages are generally 2-3 years lower, and in those few areas where drugs are legal, similar age restrictions seem to apply. Plus there is also the cultural difference, most evident in the Mediterranean countries, where alcohol is often slowly introduced at home from the early teens, if not younger, which seems to help people take a more moderate approach than in the Northern European states (and UK and USA).
So even if the ages were reduced to be in line with those of Europe, that cultural difference in dealing with narcotic substances may still have an effect.
Quote from: LMNO on June 24, 2010, 02:18:00 PM
What I'm hearing from RWHN is that while it isn't possible to keep all kids away from all drugs, the more kids you can keep away from most drugs will result in fewer casualties.
The intelligent kids will always be intelligent kids, but there will be fewer burnouts. And isn't that a good thing?
Pretty much. Let's put this into discordian terms. I see drug use by adolescents as destructive disorder. Some will see it as creative disorder. The problem is that it can become a crutch. The adolescent feels they need the drug to tap into an alternate reality. To tap into a feeling that makes them forget a bd feeling. It quickly becomes a way of postponing and putting off dealing with emotions and issues. Add to that the issue of state dependent learning. That is what happens when kids study and learn while high. Eventually, the brain becomes dependent on that state and the only way for the kid to recall what they've learned is to be drunk or high. Now, if you are a kid who is under constant stress from parents or yourself to get straight A's, you can see how quickly that develops into a dependency or issue of addiction. And I think we all know how many kids are put under that stress to succeed.
And yes, we can't keep all kids from doing drugs and that has never been the goal. It's all about working with the margins. Decreasing my 2 or 3% a year. Hell, for my grant we are only aiming for a 15% decrease over 4 years. That doesn't amount to that many kids. But, it will dramatically improve the lives of those few kids.
Quote from: Cain on June 24, 2010, 04:13:12 PM
NT, that sounds about right, thanks for the clarifying info.
In that case, I can't see it having a massive effect, as per what RWHN said in response to me. In Europe, drinking and smoking ages are generally 2-3 years lower, and in those few areas where drugs are legal, similar age restrictions seem to apply. Plus there is also the cultural difference, most evident in the Mediterranean countries, where alcohol is often slowly introduced at home from the early teens, if not younger, which seems to help people take a more moderate approach than in the Northern European states (and UK and USA).
So even if the ages were reduced to be in line with those of Europe, that cultural difference in dealing with narcotic substances may still have an effect.
I just got a funny image of an Italian family slowly introducing a post dinner joint to their kids as they grow older, vs. an English family going, "Roight, yer 18 now. Oi'm gunna get you good and fucked up on quality weed, son!"
Well... this conversation is like a constant repeat ;-)
So, my thoughts:
1. I think most monkeys survive ok. I don't particularly agree with the dominant view here that humans are barely capable of walking and breathing at the same time or are somehow unable to act outside of their programming. That's just not my trip. I think that people are people and most of the time they do what they do to exist, survive, or enjoy whatever they think life is. All ya all with Spiders and Shrapnel and Prisons may see it that way, but it doesn't jive with my experiences. Sure, I'm an optimistic idiot who read too much Wilson and friends, but really, I think Bars and walls and shrapnel are useful tools for looking at ourselves and our automated responses so we can more easily change... but I don't think they are the things that run/control human existence... knowing about the concept might help you be less of a Cosmic Schmuck, sometimes... but there are plenty of humans who are doing OK without the metaphors. Just because we can change our cell, just because there is a Golden Sphere of Possibility, it doesn't mean that those who don't play with it are robots under the control of Spiders, Machines or Prison Guards. Sometimes, I think the metaphor gets confused with the reality.
2. I dunno about the area of the country that RWHN lives in, but here, I've been told by minors that Pot is very easy to get, far easier than alcohol. This appears to be because some (many?) drug dealers don't give a fuck about your State ID or the law. Currently, all of my contacts in Columbus are dry. A friend, however, found a quarter of hydro in her son's room last weekend. I haven't seen hydro in six weeks.
3. I agree 100% with RWHN's views about the dangers of kids smoking pot. People that I've met who tell me that they were a stoner in high school almost never turn out as a responsible, fully functional adult with no side issues. (Though maybe this is because if you're doing drugs at 13, something is terribly wrong in your life to begin with, or maybe because the normal ones don't go bragging about smoking pot at 13, I dunno.) HOWEVER, and this is a big one, I find RWHN's view of adult usage to be so far outside of my experience that I doubt the validity of the data he bases his opinions on. To presume that an adult that smokes pot needs counciling seems absurd in the extreme. I have many friends that are stoners. All of them are gainfully employed, most are happily married/dating/engaged, all of them have active social lives. I can think of four people who are in management positions, four who deal with IT support, security, architecture, programming etc. one who deals in international facility implementations for a major corporation and none who act like Harold, Kumar, Jay, Silent Bob or any other Hollywood caricature of pot smokers. Some have 'American' goals (Family, House, Car etc), some have social goals (have fun, enjoy life, don't get tied down with mortgages), some work just enough to pay the bills and others are 10 hours at the office kind of people... just like the rest of the planet. Presuming that they need help seems absurd to me and smacks of the psychology of any dogmatic belief system.
4. Legality. We've had the debate of politics many times and my views of what a government should/should not do has been stated before. Legal or not legal doesn't stop me from choosing my own actions, but as a citizen of this country, in my opinion, the drug war is a waste of time and money, the prohibition of pot appears to be based on bad information and scare tactics of previous administrations and I have yet to see any convincing argument for it to be continued. Given the easy access for kids NOW, I find it stretches credulity to argue that it will be 'more available' if its legal. Well, I am wrong, actually... there certainly could be SOME instances where a kid that normally wouldn't smoke might steal his Dad's pack of joints or whatever... but there would be many fewer illegal sources to purchase from so that may well balance out. HOWEVER, "some kid might do it" still doesn't seem like an acceptable argument for Federal laws concerning marijuana use for adults. We have adult only beverages, tobacco products, movies, peep shows, porn stores, websites and clubs... our society accepts that things can be legal for adults and illegal for kids. As pot appears to be less risky than sex, alcohol or tobacco... the argument sounds absurd.
5. All that being said, I think kids shouldn't do drugs and if pot were legal, I would support redirecting that drug war money into education, support and counciling for kids AND any adults that felt that they needed it (or were found naked on top of a windmill, with candy bar wrappers in between their toes... they probably need some help). :lulz:
However, I still like RWHN and thinks he's a hip frood... just disagree vehemently on this one topic.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 24, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
I don't particularly agree with the dominant view here that humans are barely capable of walking and breathing at the same time or are somehow unable to act outside of their programming.
Just who the FUCK said that?
Oh, well, back to deliberately misunderstanding shit, I guess.
As far as the wacky weed is concerned, I think it's just another form of racial profiling, dating from the 'sixties.
AS IN, another excuse to arrest the brown people. Like peyote with the native american church. I'm no lawyer, though.
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:23:42 PM
As far as the wacky weed is concerned, I think it's just another form of racial profiling, dating from the 'sixties.
AS IN, another excuse to arrest the brown people. Like peyote with the native american church. I'm no lawyer, though.
I think it could be used as racial profiling, but I don't think it is correct to say it is intrinsically motivated by race. Now, where there were racial imbalances with drug enforcement was in the difference in sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine. It wasn't a one-to-one ratio as it should be. People caught in posession of crack were getting a sentence that in some cases I think was something like 5 to 1, maybe even as much as 10 to 1. And of course what we see is that, roughly speaking, crack is a black drug and powder cocaine is a white drug. Thankfully, this was recently amended to make it more even and fair.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2010, 05:16:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 24, 2010, 04:51:29 PM
I don't particularly agree with the dominant view here that humans are barely capable of walking and breathing at the same time or are somehow unable to act outside of their programming.
Just who the FUCK said that?
Oh, well, back to deliberately misunderstanding shit, I guess.
LRN to DEAL WITH HYPERBOLE.
Off the cuff comment, not deep dissertation of philosophy.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 05:32:20 PM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 24, 2010, 05:23:42 PM
As far as the wacky weed is concerned, I think it's just another form of racial profiling, dating from the 'sixties.
AS IN, another excuse to arrest the brown people. Like peyote with the native american church. I'm no lawyer, though.
I think it could be used as racial profiling, but I don't think it is correct to say it is intrinsically motivated by race. Now, where there were racial imbalances with drug enforcement was in the difference in sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine. It wasn't a one-to-one ratio as it should be. People caught in posession of crack were getting a sentence that in some cases I think was something like 5 to 1, maybe even as much as 10 to 1. And of course what we see is that, roughly speaking, crack is a black drug and powder cocaine is a white drug. Thankfully, this was recently amended to make it more even and fair.
I think Zyzyx was referencing the early application of marijuana prohibition which according to many accounts appeared to heavily affect Blacks and Hispanics. There are many arguments that the original reason for the prohibition was specifically to cause problems for minorities. Of course, there are also arguments that it was the tobacco cartel, or the paper business or the... ya know how it goes.
Out of all the arguments, the racially motivated one does appear to have more circumstantial evidence than the others.
I don't think it was the original motivation, but I do see how today it can be used in that manner. I'm thinking particularily in Arizona with their new papers-please law. I think probably anyone with a brown skin tone in that area wants to make sure they are always wide awake and alert when they are out and about, otherwise, a less than honest police officer could Lo5 it into appearing stoned and use that as the shoehorn to ask for papers, etc.,
Most laws are usually passed because they please multiple constituencies. Racism certainly isn't the whole reason for various drug laws, but it is still a very real facet of it. Flooding the hood with crack (which, I'm sure we all agree now, was facilitated by certain US govt agencies) and pot not only kills off minorities and getting them fighting each other for profit instead of their mutual enemies, but also gives certain enforcement agencies, in the eyes of the average suburban voter, due cause to go in heavily armed and crack heads on occasion. I believe this is called "getting tough on crime", though if that were the real concern they'd probably just raid the nearest bank.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 05:49:34 PM
I don't think it was the original motivation, but I do see how today it can be used in that manner. I'm thinking particularily in Arizona with their new papers-please law. I think probably anyone with a brown skin tone in that area wants to make sure they are always wide awake and alert when they are out and about, otherwise, a less than honest police officer could Lo5 it into appearing stoned and use that as the shoehorn to ask for papers, etc.,
Harry Anslinger was a pretty horrible person by most accounts.
(Some select quotes attributed to him)
Quote"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
Other examples of similar thinking:
QuoteWhen Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."
Quoteas newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
In all honesty, based on the scientific evidence of the time, versus the racial scaremongering... it seems unlikely that the prohibition was based on sound medical council... what was it based on? Maybe racial issues, maybe anti-hemp corporations, maybe the insanity of the temperance movement... but I have yet to come across sane medical reasons from the early 1900's when prohibition began. Thus, many pro-pot people claim (perhaps falsely I dunno) that pot prohibition was directly tied to racism.
I can only speak for myself and the prevention movement here in Maine, but now, it is based upon brain research and research on adolescent development. And of course, Maine is 97-98% white. A lot of the 2-3% of minorities is made up of refugee immigrants most of whom don't use marijuana but use native drugs like khat. And the prevention movement here in Maine is largely made up of liberals and liberal-minded individuals. So it's really about the kids here.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 06:53:06 PM
I can only speak for myself and the prevention movement here in Maine, but now, it is based upon brain research and research on adolescent development. And of course, Maine is 97-98% white. A lot of the 2-3% of minorities is made up of refugee immigrants most of whom don't use marijuana but use native drugs like khat. And the prevention movement here in Maine is largely made up of liberals and liberal-minded individuals. So it's really about the kids here.
Sure, and that's great. But as has been pointed out, illegal dealers don't card.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be using any substance until they're of voting age. I'd prefer 21, but if you're old enough to get shot in service to America™, you're old enough to make your own decisions.
Quote from: RWHN on June 24, 2010, 06:53:06 PM
I can only speak for myself and the prevention movement here in Maine, but now, it is based upon brain research and research on adolescent development. And of course, Maine is 97-98% white. A lot of the 2-3% of minorities is made up of refugee immigrants most of whom don't use marijuana but use native drugs like khat. And the prevention movement here in Maine is largely made up of liberals and liberal-minded individuals. So it's really about the kids here.
Of course! I wasn't trying to tar you with that brush!!
I was just providing the background on the comment by Zyzyx "I think it's just another form of racial profiling, dating from the 'sixties." (pre-sixties actually but... there ya go)