[raydan]

I'm with Yogi on this one.

Eventually, pot will be legalized for 2 reasons, both having to do with money...
...it costs too much to enforce criminalization
...governments will not be able to ignore potential taxation money

[andyt]

The National Survey on American Attitudes on Substance Abuse shows that youth access to marijuana has increased significantly in the past year:

According to the report, half of the 16- and 17-year-olds surveyed said their peers use marijuana more than tobacco. More teens say it’s easier to acquire marijuana than beer. And there’s a 35% increase from last year in the number of teens who say they can buy marijuana within an hour and a 14% increase in the number of teens who say they can find it in a day. [MPP]


Marijuana is perceived as easier to access than cigarettes on Canadian school grounds, a newly released government report on teenagers shows.

Commissioned by Health Canada, the report was prepared for the department as it developed coping and refusal skills for teenagers. It said the easier access to marijuana is due to the legal age limit for smoking cigarettes and the fact that you have to buy cigarettes through traditional outlets, such as corner stores.

[Brenda]

I think you would have to regulate it. Booze is regulated, abortions are not (by law), and pot is illegal. Why is that?

[Yogi]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Yogi Yogi:

I don't believe for a second that if legalized young peeps are going to start smoking any more than is already the case.

Instead of continuing to try to 'hold back the tide, the govt might as well sit back and rake in some more cash.

Einsteins theory of insanity comes to mind!

Speaking as a former teenager Yogi....

Do you think that if weed was just as accessible in the home as alcohol is today that more teens would be tempted to try it?

Nope! I really don't think so. Simply because any teen who has had the desire to try it already has!
Some will continue to smoke,regardless of the laws, just as they already do, and others won't care for it. ( such as myself).
No point in continuing to stigmatize them by saddling them with a criminal record just for being in possession of a few joints/grams. It's very clear that the status quo is not working. Never has. Never will. The money currently being wasted by all levels of govt in this mindless persuit would be much better spent elsewhere.

[andyt]

It could actually turn out the pot becomes legal without any regulation - just as abortion did. The diff is that there's a lot of money to be had by taxing and regulating pot, so govts would step in toute suite. Nobody wants to touch regulating abortion because of the kind of response you saw here by Dayseed - you get called a woman hater and equivalent to being pro slavery. It's a third rail for politicians.

[Canadian_Mind]

Speaking as a former teenager, with siblings who are still teenagers, anyone who would ever consider trying pot in our generation has. It is more accessable than alcohol, and is even used on school property despite strict rules against it. Legalising it won't change the accessability for teenagers. Either way, it'll be illegal for them, and any who are willing to break the rules to possess and use it will break the rules whether pot is legalised or not.

Further, you speak of alcohol being accessable at home as a problem. While I think it's wrong for kids to steal their parents alcohol, kids who are willing to swipe their parents alcohol will swipe it whether it's in a cupboard, or locked up in a safe. The accessability of pot will likely correlate, and will likely not be different either way.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

It could actually turn out the pot becomes legal without any regulation - just as abortion did.

In my eyes, that would be a mistake, just like unregulated abortion is a mistake.

$1:

Nobody wants to touch regulating abortion because of the kind of response you saw here by Dayseed - you get called a woman hater and equivalent to being pro slavery. It's a third rail for politicians.

I had already forgotten about that Santorum/Limbaugh-esque response

[OnTheIce]

Yogi Yogi:

Nope! I really don't think so. Simply because any teen who has had the desire to try it already has!
Some will continue to smoke,regardless of the laws, just as they already do, and others won't care for it. ( such as myself).
No point in continuing to stigmatize them by saddling them with a criminal record just for being in possession of a few joints/grams. It's very clear that the status quo is not working. Never has. Never will. The money currently being wasted by all levels of govt in this mindless persuit would be much better spent elsewhere.

Well, I happen to feel differently, as do many studies out there.

When you drop the price of pot dramatically, you make it more affordable and easier to abuse...while we may not see a spike in users, current users will probably opt to smoke more with the price being considerably less (Some say it could drop to 80% less). Parents who smoke weed may do so in the open, in front of children just as they do drinking.

Getting this into teenagers, especially those under 16 has some damaging effects. 60% of teenagers under 16 who use marijuana go on to use cocaine.(American Council for Drug Education)

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

When you drop the price of pot dramatically, you make it more affordable and easier to abuse...while we may not see a spike in users, current users will probably opt to smoke more with the price being considerably less (Some say it could drop to 80% less). Parents who smoke weed may do so in the open, in front of children just as they do drinking.

Now that's an argument I think has some merit - reducing pot prices will increase consumption. So we'd have to keep the price high using taxes, and we can use the current enforcement system we have in place to bust the illegal grows that would try to undercut the legal stuff. Legal pot would have the price advantage by a big margin tho.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Another bit of information without any backing. You consistently ignore the fact that kids have very easy access to alcohol within the home. Prohibition doesn't work to a certain degree on everything. If people want it that bad, they'll find a way. Using the excuse that other drugs are more harmful and that's why we should legalize weed is just laughable. Let's not make any more drugs easily accessible to people.

Okay, fine. I disagree with you, but that's your opinion and I respect it. But you conservatives love to bitch about "The Nanny State" and I'm going to call you on that every time you use that phrase in the future. I, on the othe hand, think that the choice to use drugs ought to be a personal choice. And it should be parents' jobs to educate their teenagers about drug experimentation. You conservatives don't get to bitch about the government being our nannies only when it suits your moral agenda.

Oh yeah, that stat you posted on the other thread about 60% of teenaged pot users moving on to cocaine is bullshit. I'd wager everything I own on that.

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And it should be parents' jobs to educate their teenagers about drug experimentation.

Legal or illegal, parents should anyway.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Okay, fine. I disagree with you, but that's your opinion and I respect it. But you conservatives love to bitch about "The Nanny State" and I'm going to call you on that every time you use that phrase in the future. I, on the othe hand, think that the choice to use drugs ought to be a personal choice. And it should be parents' jobs to educate their teenagers about drug experimentation. You conservatives don't get to bitch about the government being our nannies only when it suits your moral agenda.

Oh yeah, that stat you posted on the other thread about 60% of teenaged pot users moving on to cocaine is bullshit. I'd wager everything I own on that.

I've never bitched about the nanny state stuff, but thanks for comin' out.

As for the stat on 60% of teens under 16 that use marijuana go onto use cocaine is directly from the source I noted.

Then again, I've seen you take studies and government numbers and dismiss them in the past so I don't expect anything different.

You may also note:

Children who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archi ... 10.24.html

[Canadian_Mind]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Oh yeah, that stat you posted on the other thread about 60% of teenaged pot users moving on to cocaine is bullshit. I'd wager everything I own on that.

Ditto.

I understand that pot is a stepping stone to harder drugs for some people. But a blanket 60%? That's rediculous. With those numbers, around 30% of Canadians are or have been cocaine addicts.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Okay, fine. I disagree with you, but that's your opinion and I respect it. But you conservatives love to bitch about "The Nanny State" and I'm going to call you on that every time you use that phrase in the future. I, on the othe hand, think that the choice to use drugs ought to be a personal choice. And it should be parents' jobs to educate their teenagers about drug experimentation. You conservatives don't get to bitch about the government being our nannies only when it suits your moral agenda.

Oh yeah, that stat you posted on the other thread about 60% of teenaged pot users moving on to cocaine is bullshit. I'd wager everything I own on that.

You may also note:

Children who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archi ... 10.24.html

I haven't seen a study yet that says the reason they used cocaine is their use of cigarettes/pot/alcohol. Only that one leads to the other.

Could the reason they started smoking tobacco or pot, then turned to cocaine still remain? Poverty? Abuse? Boredom?

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I've never bitched about the nanny state stuff, but thanks for comin' out.

A quick search of your CKA posts indicates you have used that term, but, nonetheless, it's a popular phrase used by conservatives to bitch about government programs they disagree with.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

As for the stat on 60% of teens under 16 that use marijuana go onto use cocaine is directly from the source I noted.

Given the authors of that source, one would expect its stats to be exaggerated, which I remain certain they are.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Then again, I've seen you take studies and government numbers and dismiss them in the past so I don't expect anything different.

Only when the numbers I've gathered from the government or my own peer reviewed work disagrees with others' would I dismiss it, save cases where there is obvious author bias, like your 60% figure (American Council for Drug Education? Really?)

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You may also note: Children who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than non-marijuana users. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archi ... 10.24.html

That figure smells like bullshit too. I could net-mine a pile of research that contradict yours. Where does that leave us? How about with some common sense. I know hundreds of people who use pot recreationally and none of them (us) use cocaine. I guess we're all in the 40%, eh? Statistical anomaly? Perhaps, but I'm still calling "bullshit". When a number doesn't make any sense it's probably because it was cooked up with an agenda behind it.

BTW, I said I respect your opinion and I do agree with you on one point you've made. I think people who abuse drugs (or smoke cigarettes or abuse alcohol or eat too much fastfood) should have to pay for any increased burden they place on the healthcare system. But I still think peoples' lifestyle choices are something that the government should stay the fuck out of. It's none of anyone else's goddamn business if I like to unwind with my buddies and my old friend, "King Bong Bundy", on a Friday night.