REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

If you are interested in actually debating or discussing these items, it would help if you didn't post so many of them in one post.  If that was your intent.  I know, I know, I'm like the only voice of dissent seemingly, but still.

Anyway, a couple of points.  Gateway isn't rhetoric.  It is a predictable and provable phenomenon in drug use.  It is true, and the article states, that marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug, but it certainly is one of them.  This is because of the ease of access. 

As far as children, when you look at adolescence and brain development we are coming to understand more and more that when you disrupt or alter brain chemistry in the crucial periods of development, it can have a very real and irreversible effect.  And of course, as with anything, it isn't 100%.  It isn't destiny.  It doesn't mean that if a kid smokes a joint they are going to ruing their brain.  It does, however, present very real and measurable risks and I, for one, am not about condoning behaviors that pose negative health risks and negative development risks. 

As far as the "War on Drugs", that is old news.  I've brought this up several times in all of our discussions that it is no longer called the "War on Drugs".  But the pro-legalization movement keeps using it as a way to demonize and characterize those who work in substance abuse prevention, which includes law enforcement and the courts. 

I would also point out that you should be very careful about the conclusions you draw from arrest data.  An increase in arrest data can be a result of varying factors.  More arrests can result from a larger police force.  A lot of police departments these days are stretched thin because of thin city budgets.  This certainly dwindles their capacity to enforce laws.  When that capacity is then, increased, you are obviously better able to enforce laws, thus an increase in arrests. 

Increases in arrests can also be the result of more people violating the law.  In the case of drug arrests, we are in a shitty economy right now.  People tend to turn towards escapist vices in tough times such as drugs and alcohol.  This will obviously also contribute to increased arrests.  So it isn't an automatic that just because arrests were higher in year one of Obamas administration than Bush's that it means Obama is being more of a hard-ass on the "War on Drugs".  You have to take the other factors into account, such as the fact the economy under year one of Obama is much shittier than it was under Bush when the federal government had a goddamned surplus. 

BAWK! POT DESTROYS CHILDREN!
            \

    /
DRUG LAWS DON'T HURT ANYONE! BAWK!

[Doktor Howl]

LET

IT

DIE

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Hey Telarus, check your PMs.

[AFK]

Debating with substance is hard. 

[Doktor Howl]

This thread ruined my life.

[Telarus]

I mostly had to dump a bunch of Tabs so my Firefox would stop crashing every 5 minutes.

I appreciate your input RWHN. You're willing to have these discussions. Granted, the government isn't calling it a "War on Drugs" anymore, but the tactics haven't changed, and the budget numbers back that up pretty well. It was brought up in another thread, but our current judicial system isn't concerned with Rehabilitation, but about Punishment and Fear-Based Diversion. As such, if you come out of prison a better person, it's because you were actively fighting against the system in there.

That we've recently won standing as individuals (not States) to challenge the constitutionality federal laws which would harm us if applied to us, and the fact that the federal scheduling of Cannabis is inconsistent with the CSA itself (it's own definitions), and declared medical safety practices in the states, I see the total Prohibition of Cannabis is a very weak position right now. As noted, the Governer and Attourney General of Arizona have sued the feds for the creation of this "harm" from "unnecessary uncertainty".

I still think that Gil Kerlikowske pawning off accepting a report from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition onto an Aide was a dick move (a well calculated dick move). At least RWHN has the balls to discuss this himself.

I totally agree with you that children with developing brain structure shouldn't arbitrarily experiment with psychoactive substances... But I disagree that some-one possessing or using Cannabis in private poses enough of a threat of Harm to any specific individual or to a community that they deserved to be punished with the removal of basic rights like Liberty.

My question for RWHN is: If total Prohibition fails, do you have new any strategies for your prevention work?

Also, this is another subject I was interested in your opinion on: Random Drug Testing in Schools

The government is not allowed (constitutionally) to use random "suspicion-less" drug-test on Government Employees, including Teachers. What is your opinion of the State arbitrarily using that power to tear up the same Privacy of the minors in it's care?

[BabylonHoruv]

The state is acting in loco parentis over children in school.  So basically if it would be acceptable for parents to do something it is acceptable for the school to do so.

I'm not real keen on the whole in loco parentis approach, but so long as that is the one being used they can indeed drug test kids.

[Telarus]

Thanks, that was the search term I was missing.

Anyway, this still stands:

My question for RWHN is: If total Prohibition fails, do you have new any strategies for your prevention work?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Hey Telarus, check your PMs.

[AFK]

I appreciate your input RWHN. You're willing to have these discussions. Granted, the government isn't calling it a "War on Drugs" anymore, but the tactics haven't changed, and the budget numbers back that up pretty well.

But that isn't the fault of the law, that is the fault of the politicians and policy makers.  I would certainly advocate for the numbers to look different.  More moneys should be shifted to prevention, but instead, lawmakers, on BOTH sides of the aisle, are cutting that money instead of increasing it. 

It was brought up in another thread, but our current judicial system isn't concerned with Rehabilitation, but about Punishment and Fear-Based Diversion. As such, if you come out of prison a better person, it's because you were actively fighting against the system in there.

That may be true in some cases but not all.  Here in Maine we have a fairly progressive judicial and corrections system that do their best to hook inmates up with services to help them turn their lives around.  I personally know drug counselors who've worked in the county jails and I've personally met some of the inmates they work with.  They are very grateful and appreciative to have access to those services.  They don't go to them out of fear from the system, they go to them out of a desire to make a better life for themselves. But you don't hear about those stories because they aren't as headline-grabbing and as sexy as the headlines about how everything is about the judicial and corrections systems acting like uncaring iron fists. 

I still think that Gil Kerlikowske pawning off accepting a report from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition onto an Aide was a dick move (a well calculated dick move). At least RWHN has the balls to discuss this himself.

Well, sure, and partly why I like to discuss it is because I really don't think the pro-legalization side looks for nor receives the full picture of the situation.  My goal in these discussions is always to expose some of you to different sources of information than you may be used to seeing.  I know a consistent criticism of Government sources is that they ignore data and information that is contrary to their policies and ideologies.  Well, I think its foolhardy to suggest the pro-legalization movement isn't subject to that same pitfall. 

I totally agree with you that children with developing brain structure shouldn't arbitrarily experiment with psychoactive substances... But I disagree that some-one possessing or using Cannabis in private poses enough of a threat of Harm to any specific individual or to a community that they deserved to be punished with the removal of basic rights like Liberty.

The problem is that it isn't possible for adults to have that freedom and have it not spillover and impact children in our society.  If you were going to go up into the mountains, grow your own and smoke your own, and agree to never have children or be around children, then I would advocate for you to have the right to do that.  The reality is that adults, necessarily, have to share their communities with children.  Communities, obviously, need children to grow, thrive, and sustain.  It is, then, in the interest of societies to advocate policies and norms that are most conducive to positive youth development.  Legalized marijuana and other drugs simply doesn't fit in with that model. 

My question for RWHN is: If total Prohibition fails, do you have new any strategies for your prevention work?

You first need to define success and failure.  I certainly hope you don't think success means complete eradication of substance abuse.  Because that is obviously not a realistic, nor an actual, goal.  So how exactly are you defining failure and success?

Also, this is another subject I was interested in your opinion on: Random Drug Testing in Schools

The government is not allowed (constitutionally) to use random "suspicion-less" drug-test on Government Employees, including Teachers. What is your opinion of the State arbitrarily using that power to tear up the same Privacy of the minors in it's care?

I wouldn't advocate school-wide random drug testing.  And to the best of my knowledge that isn't anything that happens in my State.  There are schools that will randomly bring in drug-sniffing dogs, and I'm okay with that because it is, after all, school property.  Of course kids being crafty, those things don't always work very well because kids will just keep their drugs in their cars or their friends cars. 

[Succulent Plant]

The problem is that it isn't possible for adults to have that freedom and have it not spillover and impact children in our society.  If you were going to go up into the mountains, grow your own and smoke your own, and agree to never have children or be around children, then I would advocate for you to have the right to do that.  The reality is that adults, necessarily, have to share their communities with children.  Communities, obviously, need children to grow, thrive, and sustain.  It is, then, in the interest of societies to advocate policies and norms that are most conducive to positive youth development.  Legalized marijuana and other drugs simply doesn't fit in with that model.   

This statement confuses me, sorry if you've already been asked this.. but, what do you want to happen to marijuana?  I mean, to the plant in general?  As long as it exists people are going to want to smoke it whether its legal or not and where there are procreating adults there are always going to be children, so do you advocate complete eradication of the plant altogether? Or.. ???

[AFK]

I advocate NOT making it legal.  I don't want anything to happen to it.  I just don't want to see it become a legal product. 

[Succulent Plant]

I advocate NOT making it legal.  I don't want anything to happen to it.  I just don't want to see it become a legal product. 

OK, wasn't sure.

[East Coast Hustle]

Two...more...pages....

[Telarus]

 

It is, then, in the interest of societies to advocate policies and norms that are most conducive to positive youth development.  Legalized marijuana and other drugs simply doesn't fit in with that model.

Personally, all of your arguments carry a lot of weight for me on almost every other substance that is currently under Prohibition.  The only meaningful difference between heroin and Percoset to an end user is the supply chain (unknown contaminants, vs acetaminophen contaminant), and length of effect (amount needed to sustain the addiction). And these types of drugs are embedded in our medical system, they're not going away even if we totally eradicated the ability of the black-market to make opiates and stimulants.

Things like refined heroin, other opiates, cocaine, meth, and those style of stimulants (not to mention prescription drugs of abuse which fall into the same stimulant categories, like Ritalin, and others) all have very very acute damaging 'harm' effects if abused. They all have very narrow LD50 levels (meaning high chance of death or serious immediate brain injury from exceeding a specific dose-to-body-weight-ratio). These substances are in Schedule 1 because abuse leads to catastrophic health problems.

I can clearly see that the possible harm from substances like heroin, meth, etc moving into an accepted position in our society would FAR outweigh the harm in Prohibiting them. So I see your point there, there should be policies an norms that focus on harm prevention, and keeping these substances (and Nicotine, Alcohol, and Cannabis) away from children definitely is a good idea.

But I really cannot see the level of possible harm that Cannabis presents as comparable to these other substances. Driving a substance into a black market which has an LD50 level not even reachable by normal human consumption methods, where brain change (reduction or 'downregulation' of CB1 receptors) from use is reversible (details here), where it's ilelgal status is used as a profit motive for violent criminals is not the best way to reduce overall harm to any community.

According to the FBI arrest figures for 2009, the most recent compiled figures (these are arrests and not prosecutions, although the trend will be obvious), approximately 1,663,582 arrests were made for "Drug Abuse Violations". Yup, 1.6 Million. Of this 1.6 Million, marijuana arrests accounted for 858,408 arrests, or about 51.6 % of all arrests. Of these 99,815    were for 'Trafficking/Sale', and 758,593 were for 'Possession'.

So that's about 45.6% of all drug arrests nationwide for a whole year for Possession (not Sale/Trafficking/Cultivation) of Marijuana. This leads to situations exactly like the woman who was arrested for carrying a SAGE stick. So, that's where I'll have to be convinced, that the proposed harm to the children in a community will outweight the actual harm that is happening right now (to individuals and to our rights as a whole) from it's Prohibition. If you have any links to studies on other long-term effects, either children or adults (as I know you'd probably have more of the child focused material), I'd be happy to read them.

------

Ok, by 'the failure of total prohibition', I mean that if things like the Arizona lawsuit (and the just announced Washington 2012 Legislation that has a former US Attorney as a backer, and the fact that Miracle Grow is now directly marketing to the Medical Marijuana movement) leads to actual change in the Federal Scheduling, taking Cannabis out of Schedule 1, how do you see your side of the prevention field adjusting the message? If you cannot rely upon the "it's totally illegal to posses and you will be punished, including loss of possible school aid" anymore, due to a change in the Law itself (and then due to the societal approval of use by a portion of the community), how do you see the prevention field responding?

I know you don't advocate that position, but you have to some logistics to deal with the possibility.



:edit:

I advocate NOT making it legal.  I don't want anything to happen to it.  I just don't want to see it become a legal product. 

Ah, this is concrete... so you don't want it's use commercialized, "a product". So you see that as inevitable if possession is decriminalized?