I'll just leave this here....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well said, Trip!

[AFK]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

[AFK]

Uhh, no. You haven't given a straight answer to anything anyone's asked you ITT, except apparently via PM. But since your capacity for self-delusion seems pretty vast, I don't see much point in trying to make you see that.

That's because if he would have been, that would have counted as being straight with you or Nigel, by extension. At least, that's the general gist I got from it

Which is a shame, because you guys asked a lot of the very same questions and made arguments I would have (except for the questioning his credentials part), which is one of the reasons why I stood clear of this thread.

So, by extension, that's now allowing him to avoid or take the piss on a lot of difficult questions that are in fact perfectly sensible, just "because of ECH and Nigel". Which is very childish and frustrating to anyone who is interested in this topic, nor does it make me want to take RWHNs input on this matter very seriously anymore.

I'll be perfectly straight with people I respect.  But when people spend pages and pages accusing me of being a fraud for the past five years, they are going to get something a little different.

... except that reaction flowed forth out of frustration by you not being straight or rational about this well before that. So to me it seems a lot like a cop-out to avoid parts of a discussion you don't like. And indeed if I hadn't known you for years I might have wondered about those credentials as well.

And I don't see why it has to be so difficult every time? It's obvious we disagree somewhere, but the discussion grows ugly every time before we figure out exactly what.

I was straight as I could be on an argument that was based on erroneous information.  This all started with a link and a quote concerning codeine with atropine which in reality was a quote about Lomotil, not codeine.  All of those pages of nonsense were built on a foundation of bullshit. 

[East Coast Hustle]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children? 

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

What does that have to do with adults being free to do as they see fit with their own bodies?

Are you in favor of making abortion illegal? Because by your logic, you should be.

[trix]

Just wanted to drop in and thank everyone involved for this discussion.

Prior to PD, I used to be a High Times type thinker in that there was no good reason, whatsoever, for marijuana being illegal.

Since this thread, and the other, I can see that there are decent arguments on both sides of the issue, and that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut stupid-government as the NORML mentality had led me to believe.

I am still of the opinion that anyone who tries to tell me I cannot smoke a bowl on my own time in my own house can go fuck themselves, but otherwise these discussions give me much to think about, and I enjoy reading the course of the debate.

TL;DR: I have nothing intelligent to add, except a thank you to the participants for level-headed discussion on both sides of the issue.  It has given me much food for thought.

[AFK]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children? 

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

What does that have to do with adults being free to do as they see fit with their own bodies?

Are you in favor of making abortion illegal? Because by your logic, you should be.

No, because I don't believe a fetus has the same rights as a child, nor do I recognize a fetus as a person. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children? 

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

What does that have to do with adults being free to do as they see fit with their own bodies?

Are you in favor of making abortion illegal? Because by your logic, you should be.

No, because I don't believe a fetus has the same rights as a child, nor do I recognize a fetus as a person. 

So your personal belief should trump the belief of a religious leader with a doctorate and experience in Public Policy?

[AFK]

So your personal belief should trump the belief of a religious leader with a doctorate and experience in Public Policy?

1) You are making an assumption that an organization like Mercy Hospital would only employ Christians who are against abortion.  I don't know what Dr. Publicker's personal belief system looks like because I've never had any one-on-one conversations with the guy, nor is it something I'd really bring up in a casual conversation.

But 

2)  I was asked what I believe and I answered.  (Jebus, I just can't win with you people)  From the actual policy perspective, as it turns out, the laws currently trump what a religious person with a Doctorate and experience in Public Policy believes in terms of the morality of abortion. 

[AFK]

Okay, so for anyone who might be interested, I wanted to share links to a couple of documents so you can see what the current national direction is with substance abuse and other behavioral health issues:

This document outlines SAMHSA's strategic direction in terms of substance abuse and mental illness prevention.  Note the bullets that outline the costs to society, including financial. 

http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA11-4629/03-Prevention.pdf

This one is a bit more cumbersome but you can see the plan for Substance Abuse Prevention starting on page 33.  This one also includes data to provide the context of the environment in which this national prevention strategy was crafted. 

http://www.healthcare.gov/center/councils/nphpphc/strategy/report.pdf

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.

Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.

DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands?  Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?

This is a dishonest argument, RWHN.  A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.

Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone.  Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck. 

By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.

Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.

DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.

Gotta think that alcohol, tobacco, prescription opiates, obesity, cars, etc etc etc all add to the premium on health care plans.

Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.

If we want to make a healthcare argument for the current policy, it would have to be, 'Does the use of Marijuana by adults increase healthcare costs?' based on most studies, the answer appears to be 'No'.

However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I want to point out that the ONLY reason I questioned RWHN's credentials is because of the "your friend is misinformed" comment he made in the other thread when I was trying to say that multiple viewpoints can have validity, and used my friend, who is a highly-qualified maker of health policy and has done extensive work with at-risk kids and addict populations, as an example of someone who really knows her shit but holds a different view from his in terms of prohibition. At the time I was not trying to demean him at all, but he had made an appeal to authority, essentially saying that his view is the one right view because he is the expert.

If he is going to insist that he is the expert and people with different views are "misinformed", even those who are very highly educated and work in the field, he'd better be armed with some really solid facts with citations, and be prepared to present his credentials. Otherwise, it's just so much hot air.

[BabylonHoruv]

So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?  

Never said anything like that.

Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children.  Schools, for example.

Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc).  An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.

Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.  For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs.  However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.

But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous.  Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides?  I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods.  Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended? 

DDT effects more people than just the farmers that choose to use it.  It kills off insects and the birds that depend on them and gets in the water supply.

For the same reason operating a meth lab needs to be restricted, that produces a lot of toxins that get into the water supply, smoking anything tends to be restricted in public places and there is no reason this shouldn't apply to weed as well as tobacco (and also cover meth, heroin, crack or anything else someone might smoke)  regulating substances that affect others is different from regulating substances that effect only the user.

[Triple Zero]

By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.

I blame Quantum Physics.

- triple zero,
not very constructive.