[raydan]

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.

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

The thing is, when you conduct tests like this, the kids would have to be their own control for the results to be valid... which is impossible. Nothing says that the kids would not have used cocaine anyways, even if they had not touched pot.

People that abuse drugs have other problems that make them more susceptible.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

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.

Do you know how many of those people started using marijuana at 15 or under?

[1Peg]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Young people find pot easier to get than alcohol, because alcohol is regulated

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Another bit of information without any backing.

Where I am pot is everywhere and it's fairly cheap. It's in the schools and it's in the workforce.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The problem is, Lemmy....the lifestyle choices of many smokers, drinkers and drug users cost the general taxpayer billions of dollars a year to get them better.

Pro-legalisationists could use the "but they pay a lot of taxes that go into health care too because we tax the hell out of it"-phrase...

That argument doesn't wash anyways.

The amount of money brought in via taxation doesn't even begin to cover the costs of health care alone.

How about this....if drug users want the people out of their "business" sign off on your Provincial health insurance that you'll be responsible for any and all costs associated with your choice to do drugs.

However, the government will cover your treatment to get off drugs and prevention programs.

[Brenda]

I agree with you. Although I am pro-legalization (WITH restrictions), not for taxation reasons.

Just like there are rules for drinking, there should be for smoking pot too. And for abortion. But that's a whole different issue

I definitely do not think you should make XTC legal, or anything heavier than pot.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I searched all posts for the word "nanny" authored by "OnTheIce" and there were zero posts.

My apologies. You were quoting another who used that phrase. I stand corrected.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

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

As would be the stats from the "pro" side of the spectrum.

Yup.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

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.

And I could net-mine an equal amount of research that contradicts your research.

Yup again. So where does that leave us? How about common sense. Do you honestly believe that 60% of people who try weed as teens go on to use cocaine? That doesn't seem outrageously high (no pun intended) to you?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The problem is, Lemmy....the lifestyle choices of many smokers, drinkers and drug users cost the general taxpayer billions of dollars a year to get them better.

And I already said that I'd support a "lifestyle tax" on smokers and drinkers to offset any medical risk associated with their lifestyle choice, so long as a similar tax is also applied to people whose diet and exercise habits place similar burdens on the system.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Do you know how many of those people started using marijuana at 15 or under?

No, not for certain. I would suspect all or most began using as teenagers, but that's speculation. Personally, I had tried it by 16, but I didn't use regularly until my 30s.

[Brenda]

As a mom of a 14 year old, I can tell you... many. At least tried it ONCE (or twice.. Or 3 times) before they were 16.

[Canadian_Mind]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Do you know how many of those people started using marijuana at 15 or under?

Was that the basis for the study? The kids had to be under 15?

When you suggested teenagers, I assumed through the whole age range. So when 50% of Canadian high school graduates have tried it (17-18) the 60% of teenage pot users becoming cocaine addicts made no sense. Even at 15 or under, it's still a difficult number to believe.

If you were to suggest 60% of children under the age of 14 become cocaine addicts (ie 13 and below), then I'd believe the 60% ratio. But, I would still argue against the cocaine being a direct result of the pot. Rather, I'd argue that the kids have parents with what would be considered shady and downtrodden backgrounds or histories. Yes, pot is prevelent in these children's homes, but so are much harder drugs. The child in this instance would have equal access to all. So while pot would be their first choice due to likelyhood of more social acceptance, after awhile the child, now a teenager, may percieve there being nothing wrong with harder drugs because they grew up with parents who showed them there is nothing wrong with it. It is here that they then look for social acceptance and use pier-pressure to try to suck others in, so as to feel more comfortable in their own use of the drugs. They no longer see it as wrong because they are no longer alone doing it.

This is where the problem lies. I've seen it first hand. The only reason pot is a stepping stone drug into harder drugs is because, more likely than not, the kids who smoke pot are supplied by these kids who grew up in the more downtrodden households where much harder drugs are prevelent. And when you are 14, 15, 16, 17,it's hard to say no to your supplier, especially when he's a "bro." If you kill this connection, you kill the problem.

You can debate with studies all you want. But I grew up in a town where drug culture is generally accepted, and this is exactly how it worked. So far as i can tell, it isn't any different anywhere else.

This next bit is a bit of conjecture on my part, based on my observations as stated above: If anything, kids who have parents who do only pot at home might not have to go to these kinds of people to get their pot, and therefore may end up being less-suceptable to being pulled into the harder drugs.

[andyt]

According to a report from the U.S. Department of Education, “Tobacco use is associated with alcohol and illicit drug use and is generally the first drug used by young people who enter a sequence of drug use that can include tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and harder drugs.”

http://www.dare.com/parents/Parents_Kee ... lt2f75.asp


Results were statistically significant. Researchers found the more alcohol comsumed the more likely the subjects were willing to try marijuana. All of the subjects reporting marijuana use also reported alcohol use.

http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.ed ... ts/481.php


Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study. Moreover, the study’s findings call into question the long-held belief that has shaped prevention efforts and governmental policy for six decades and caused many a parent to panic upon discovering a bag of pot in their child’s bedroom.

scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The problem is, Lemmy....the lifestyle choices of many smokers, drinkers and drug users cost the general taxpayer billions of dollars a year to get them better.

Pro-legalisationists could use the "but they pay a lot of taxes that go into health care too because we tax the hell out of it"-phrase...

That argument doesn't wash anyways.

The amount of money brought in via taxation doesn't even begin to cover the costs of health care alone.

How about this....if drug users want the people out of their "business" sign off on your Provincial health insurance that you'll be responsible for any and all costs associated with your choice to do drugs.

However, the government will cover your treatment to get off drugs and prevention programs.

Nice trick lumping in tobacco and alcohol with pot. Alcohol health care costs are 8 times higher than for pot. Tobacco is 40 times higher than pot.

$1:

“Alcohol is used by a very large number of people with the vast majority of these using in low- or moderate-risk ways. Conversely, cannabis and tobacco are used by far fewer people. The majority of cannabis use is low- and moderate-risk, however, while the majority of tobacco is high-risk.

”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health-c ... -marijuana

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

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.

Liberals too. I'm guilty. I prefer the "Mommy State" actually.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The problem is, Lemmy....the lifestyle choices of many smokers, drinkers and drug users cost the general taxpayer billions of dollars a year to get them better.

Pot users do not cost the taxpayer "biliions of dollars a year."

Besises, you ever hear of freedom? Not big on that, I guess. "Everything that isn't isn't mandatory is prohited" is your motto.

[Curtman]

$1:

One recent review of several studies of pot smoking and car accidents suggested that driving after smoking marijuana might almost double the risk of being in a serious or fatal crash.

What if the headline of that study was:

Marijuana: Half as dangerous as cell phones

Would it cause the same "wrinkle in pot debate"?

[Curtman]

Good news from Victoria:

Victoria council deems pot good, pipelines bad

$1:

A motion put forth by Coun. Ben Isitt supporting the taxation and regulation of cannabis passed without debate.

The resolution noted that laws against pot have fuelled “an increasingly violent illegal market with expanding organized crime involvement” and that B.C. municipalities are being forced to bear an increasing financial burden dealing with grow-ops and enforcement.

Victoria will write to other municipalities across the country and to federal and provincial justice ministers informing them of council’s position.

[OnTheIce]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Was that the basis for the study? The kids had to be under 15?

When you suggested teenagers, I assumed through the whole age range. So when 50% of Canadian high school graduates have tried it (17-18) the 60% of teenage pot users becoming cocaine addicts made no sense. Even at 15 or under, it's still a difficult number to believe.

I didn't suggest 'teenagers', I said teens under the age of 16.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

If you were to suggest 60% of children under the age of 14 become cocaine addicts (ie 13 and below), then I'd believe the 60% ratio. But, I would still argue against the cocaine being a direct result of the pot.

Nobody is saying "addicts". Just the use of weed prior to 16 makes you likely to use, not abuse, cocaine.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Rather, I'd argue that the kids have parents with what would be considered shady and downtrodden backgrounds or histories.

If anything, kids who have parents who do only pot at home might not have to go to these kinds of people to get their pot, and therefore may end up being less-suceptable to being pulled into the harder drugs.

So you talk on one hand about shady parents and on the other, you promote parents providing weed to their under-age children to avoid harder drugs?

Really?