Seeking Common Ground #1: Marijuana & Minors

[IdaBriggs]

We've got an incredibly long thread going on with a huge discussion of whether or not marijuana is a "safe" drug, or simply an over hyped victim of bad press and stupid governmental policies. (I am paraphrasing with some exaggeration of both opinions on purpose.)

So, in this thread, let's look for some common ground on areas where we can agree. I suggest the first point of discussion be something simple: Minors.

Question: Should people who provide alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, or other "recreational" drug to anyone under the age of eighteen be prosecuted?

Point of discussion: Should it matter if the person "providing" is a parent or guardian? What about a fellow adolescent? Should there be varying degrees of penalty for different quantities? Should tobacco / alcohol be treated the same as heroin? If so, why? And why note?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Nope.

Good way to bond with a teenager.

Furthermore, I think starting a thread on marijuana and then lumping in coke and heroin is fundamentally dishonest.

[Ariana Celeste]

28. Exactly.

"Furthermore, I think starting a thread on marijuana and then lumping in coke and heroin is fundamentally dishonest."

:thumbsup: I notice I tend to agree with what you say in most threads I see you in.

[bbinacan]

2. Yes

wait to they are old enough to decide.:smoke: :beer:

[dsc]

3. I think there is a huge difference between a parent providing

and anyone else providing drugs of any sort to a minor. The first case is OK the second case should be illegal. Parents are in charge of their minors and that is the way it should be.

[SPKrazy]

50. If You Give Your Kid Drugs, And I Find Out About It

you will be visited by the police, Human Services, and your ass will be in trouble

it's wrong period end of story

[Mythsaje]

61. Damn straight!

Let 'em buy them from the guy on the corner and take their chances like everyone else!

[SPKrazy]

106. No, Maybe If Their Parents Didn't Condone The Behavior

or do drugs themselves

the kids would have had a better shot at staying drug free

geez

I'm sorry about your problems

[Mythsaje]

109. My problems?

And what, precisely, do you believe THEY are?

:popcorn:

[SPKrazy]

113. So You Don't Have Any Problems?

maybe you're addicted to popcorn
:popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Mythsaje]

117. Popcorn annoys me...

gets stuck in my teeth and makes me nuts.

As far as addiction goes--caffeine and, for the moment, nicotine. I don't really have an addictive personality, thankfully. I've tried just about every drug that didn't involve a needle and learned a few things along the way. These days it's the two I mentioned above. And the occasional beer or glass of wine.

Personally I'd rather my oldest smoke pot than drink. He's only got one kidney. Not that I'm about to tell HIM that. He's only twelve and he's got a while before I even want to consider him trying anything at all...alcohol or marijuana.

I won't go so far as to say my old man was irresponsible in that regard when I was a kid, but... :shrug: He and I have drank and smoked together since I was a teenager. Had some great conversations along the way too.

Depending on the kid, and the overall environment, I don't consider it a terrible thing to have a beer or smoke a bowl with your own kid. At least it'll give you some idea how the drug might affect them.

I'm wary of absolutes. Nothing is absolutely black or white, not even the colors black and white.

[SPKrazy]

118. Wouldn't It Be Better

to not smoke pot with your kid if you don't want s/he to do it? And while pot may be safer than alcohol, and it is inevitable that a kid will do it (maybe), why be the supplier?

[Mythsaje]

126. It's not my choice, when you get right down to it.

Eventually he'll make the choice himself. And I have no intention on smoking pot with him anyway, even if I were still doing it myself. Not at 12, for certain. But when he's fifteen or sixteen, and makes up his own mind, I might sit down and smoke some with him. But it's not as though I can provide it. I don't even know where to get it anymore. And my wife (not his mother, though they'd probably agree on this) doesn't think young teens should smoke pot anyway. She's a bit of a hypocrite in this regard, since I know damn well SHE did as a teen. My wife, I mean, not my ex.


If he asks me about it, I'll tell him the truth... It has its upside and its downside. But it's a far cry better than some of the other things out there, regardless of what the government has to say about it.

I went out of my way, personally, to learn how to control how it affected me. And, if he DOES choose to indulge someday, I'd prefer he learn to do the same thing. In the next couple of years, assuming he shows that he won't misuse it, I'll start teaching him the martial arts.

[Solon]

65. That's awfully absolutist, don't you think?

My next door neighbors played host to a French foriegn exchange student, he was about my age, around 16 at the time, and they regularly gave him wine with his dinner, etc. because that is NORMAL in his country. Should they have been had their kid taken away, especially considering he was in FRANCE at the time, and most likely drinking alcohol there, he was also around 16. Shoud the exchange student have been deported?

[SPKrazy]

105. Is It Legal?

they shouldn't have done it

would I report it

DAMNED STRAIGHT

[Solon]

114. If that's your litmus test, then wine in church qualifies as well...

I really don't see the difference between the two.

[SPKrazy]

115. If Wine In The Church Is Illegal, I'll Eat My Bill Of Rights

and a sip or a dunk does not equal giving kids booze to drink now does it?

snark snark

come on

:rofl:

[Solon]

116. It has alcohol in it doesn't it?

Also, don't throw the First Amendment out there, the Native American church was banned from using Peyote in its religious ceremonies. It is ILLEGAL to give kids under the age of 21 alcohol, doesn't matter if its a sip or a bottle. Using YOUR argument, that is. This is also one of the few laws that churches are most definately NOT exempt. The Catholic Church I grew up in used grape juice, thank you very much. Using your argument, your church should be shut down.

[SPKrazy]

119. Shut It Down!

good luck!

:rofl:

[Solon]

122. All right then, how about this, should Rastas have the right to...

use Cannabis during their religious ceremonies, including giving the drug to children during such ceremonies?

[dsc]

123. actually until a recent law overturning a supreme court case it was i

in dry counties. I admit to not knowing of a single case where a person was arrested for doing so but it was illegal to have wine in communion in dry counties. It was the peyote decision. The SC clearly stated that any law which was generally applicable could be enforced against all people even those whose religious practice it banned. That would include Communion in dry counties. Before anyone could try that Congress overturned the case with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Hmmm. Next passover I'll point you towards some doors you can kick down.

Where people give their kids an extremely dangerous, potentially addictive drug (known as "alcohol") and not only that, cloak it in the guise of religious faith!

Go get 'em, champ.

[SPKrazy]

104. Hey, Come On Down And I'll Show You How It's Done

CHAMP!

your talking out of your ASS



I'm talking about giving kids substances to get intoxicated

from the post I WAS RESPONDING TO

I think there is a huge difference between a parent providing
and anyone else providing drugs of any sort to a minor. The first case is OK the second case should be illegal. Parents are in charge of their minors and that is the way it should be.

So put your bullshit strawman up, I'm talking about giving to kids to get intoxicated

and if religious people are getting their kids intoxicated, then I'd turn their ass in too

but come on down, let's play

[dsc]

124. excuse me

but please point out the word intoxicated in my post.

[SPKrazy]

131. I Think You Are Responding To Me

but I was responding to someone else

otherwise I don't know WTF you are talking about

my quote is not of your post unless you have more than one identity here

[dsc]

132. You weren't responding to me

but you did indeed characterize my post. You claimed I had said it was OK to get kids intoxicated. I said no such thing. Again, instead of playing games you need to acknowledge that.

Here is your post quoted verbatim

CHAMP!

your talking out of your ASS



I'm talking about giving kids substances to get intoxicated

from the post I WAS RESPONDING TO




I think there is a huge difference between a parent providing
and anyone else providing drugs of any sort to a minor. The first case is OK the second case should be illegal. Parents are in charge of their minors and that is the way it should be.



So put your bullshit strawman up, I'm talking about giving to kids to get intoxicated

and if religious people are getting their kids intoxicated, then I'd turn their ass in too

but come on down, let's play

The three lines in the middle was my post. The text below says "I am talking about giving to kids to get intoxicated" in a place that can't possibly be in comment to anything but my post. So again, either a) find the word intoxicated in my post or b) apologize for your post. c) Claiming it isn't my post isn't an option.

[SPKrazy]

133. Okay, You're Right , I Was RESPONDING TO YOU!

get it

the other poster was responding to my responding to you I get it

but the other poster called me champ and said he'd show me some doors to kick in

you didn't say that

I was pointing out what I had responded to in the post

Now I'm responding to you

it is still fucking wrong to give your kids drugs, wrong, period, end of story

can i be any PLAINER than that?

geez

[dsc]

88. So should Catholics be arrested upon their child's first Communion

(they use wine).

[SPKrazy]

102. My Church Uses Wine As Well

and it's used in a religious ceremony

miles different than what I was responding to

giving your kids drugs to get them off at home so they don't do it elsewhere

illegal

if someone got my son drunk (an adult) damned straight they'd be answering to the LAW

[dsc]

107. And I said getting someone else's kid drunk was wrong

but I fail to see any difference at all in you giving your kid wine in church and someone else giving his own kid win at home.

[SPKrazy]

108. A Sip, Or A Dunked Wafer

is different from "giving your kid wine at home"

I guess I'd need to know what you are talking about

a taste

or a magnum while he plays with his gameboy?

there does seem to be a difference

[dsc]

121. I am presuming a glass with dinner

not drinking bunches alone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. I think you need to get some perspective.

You'd seperate a family and have a father go to prison because he smoked some marijuana with his son?

That's just shameful.

[SPKrazy]

101. I Think YOU Need The Perspective

pot is illegal

smoking pot with a child is illegal and immoral

and I seriously doubt that anyone is going to separate the family

they just might get some monitoring, some court ordered drug counseling (which the parent obviously would need) and some family therapy

Damned straight I'd do it

and my conscience would be clear as pure spring water

[mitchtv]

120. Does that include wine?

or is alcohol in general?

[Kutjara]

4. Too complicated for 'yes or no' answer.

French, Spanish and Italian children are often allowed to drink small amounts of wine at family dinners. The alcoholism rates in these countries is no higher than in more restrictive ones.

Marijuana is no more dangerous (and arguably much less so) than tobacco, so I'd have more of a problem with a parent giving a kid a cigarette than a joint.

Heroin and Cocaine? The lifestyle consequences of these drugs are so large that it should require an adult to decide for themselves whether they want to travel that road.

[qazplm]

8. marijuana has many of the same

carcinogenic properties as cigarettes, so I am not sure how it is "much less so".

I would however concede that marijuana is roughly equivalent to alcohol on the "dangerousness" scale. I'd have a problem with parents giving any of the three to children.

I get upset seeing kids who are 14 or 15 reeking of cigarette smoke when I know that many of their parents are turning a blind eye to it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Marijuana's considerably less carcinogenic then tobacco.

And recent studies indicate it's not carcinogenic at all. Furthermore, it's not addictive and people don't smoke it for the "flavor."

It's much safer than alcohol. But I'm in favor of parents drinking alcohol with their kids too. Too many parents don't teach their kids how to drink responsibly these days. And if they are going to party, I'd rather they do it in my house than somewhere else.

[qazplm]

14. just not true (on the carcinogenic)

and to argue that THC is not addictive at all? It certainly doesnt rise to the level of nicotine or some of the other drugs sure, but remember there is not only physical addiction but also psychological addiction.

Marijuana is not "much safer" than alcohol. Both affect your ability to make rational decisions, both slow down your ability to process information and both could lead young adults to have unprotected sex, drive under the influence or make other poor decisions because of the influence both have.

I think it naive to believe that because a parent drinks with their kids, that their kids are only going to drink with their parents.

[Mythsaje]

17. And yet

recent studies suggest that cannabis shows no sign of causing cancer, and, in fact, may help prevent and fight cancers. And you're obviously buying into some of the misinformation that's been handed out by our government over the years. Alcohol is not only far worse as far as diminishing judgment goes, it is also the ONLY drug proven to cause crime. You can't begin to make that argument about pot.

And I think you mistake the argument. Drinking with one's children doesn't necessarily mean they won't drink on their own, but it does give you the opportunity to gauge their behavior, their ability to handle alcohol, and discuss with them the concept of moderation. And it sure as hell makes for a better relationship with one's children than trying to prevent them from doing something they're more than likely going to do anyway.

[qazplm]

23. you know i can find a study

that will say anything. And you are buying into the misinformation that makes marijuana into a wonder drug that not only is not harmful but cures cancer and can make you 10 pounds lighter while also removing age-lines and firming your buttocks.

I never said anything about marijuana "causing crime" I said anything that affects a young persons ability to think coherently is a problem in an age of aids, stds and unwanted pregnancies.

MOST kids dont drink or smoke or do drugs so the argument that "theyre more than likely going to do it anyway" is specious and as untrue as the anti=cancer properties you claim for marijuana.

[Mythsaje]

29. Most kids don't drink?

Have you looked at the latest surveys?

Apparently not.

Pot doesn't impair judgment that much. If anything, it can make people MORE careful in certain situations. I hesitate to assume that you have no first-hand knowledge of the effects of pot, but your arguments lead me to that conclusion.

[qazplm]

35. believe me

as a defense attorney, I have quite a bit of first hand knowledge of the effects of marijuana.

The idea that pot doesnt impact judgment that much is absolutely silly.

From wikipedia:

Cognitive effects

* Varying amounts of paranoia and anxiety in some users<17>
* Loss of coordination and distorted sense of time <18>
* Impairment of short-term memory in some users
* Auditory or visual hallucinations at high doses in some users
* Induced sense of novelty
* Increased awareness of sensation, including visual stimulation, music, taste, and sexual pleasure
* Increased mental activity, like metacognition and introspective or meditative states of mind
* Relaxation or stress reduction
* Mild entheogenesis (e.g. per Rastafarian users, more "Jah-Vibrations")



Behavioral effects

* Paramnesia, repetitiveness and ambiguation
* Initial wakefulness followed by drowsiness and lassitude ("burnt out")
* Gain or loss of some inhibitions
* Varying degree of euphoria, ranging from feelings of general well-being to lengthy pointless laughter

These are not things I would want a teenager to have happen to them. It's a prime situation for unprotected sex, for poor and risky choices and behavoir, and it certainly sounds to me like impairment. I am sure YOU may feel that YOU are not impaired that much. Kudos for you if true.

As for surveys, those things are wildly inaccurate. However if you want to talk about them:

"the proportion of youths aged 12 through 17 who consumed any alcohol within the previous month has dropped from 50% in 1979 down to 19% in 1998, according to the federal government's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse."

Many kids do not drink at all, or try it once or twice and stop. Even in college a Duke study found that 66% of college age kids given a breathlyzer test on Friday through Sunday evenings had zero percent alcohol in their systems coming home from parties or going out.

The idea that everyone does it so we have to concede that is a bit disingeunous.

[Mythsaje]

41. So it depends on what survey you want to believe, eh?

You want my advice? Probably not. But my advice is to actually experience that which you're casting judgment upon. Second hand knowledge is, at best, worth about as much as hearsay in a courtroom.

It's the only way you'll ever know how much it impairs judgment. Anything else is just assumption.

[qazplm]

51. thanks

but i tend to not like to break the law and i dont need to jump off a cliff to know how it feels.

[Mythsaje]

55. Then take a trip to Amsterdam and do it legally...

And jumping off a cliff is hardly an decent analogy.

[qazplm]

69. its a very decent analogy

there are plenty of things that one does not need to actually do to figure out whether it is harmful or not.

[Mythsaje]

73. Jumping off a cliff is immediately, directly harmful...

Smoking pot MIGHT eventually be harmful, but the jury's still out on that.

Apples and grenades there, buddy.

[dysfunctional press]

62. so- how does jumping off a cliff feel then?

i'm curious...because personally, i probably would have to jump off one to KNOW how it feels.

although i could probably simulate it through other similar activities involving falling, and then make an educated guess at how it feels...

BUT- it's a lot easier just to ask you, seeing as you claim to already know.

[Mythsaje]

63. Ummm.

It hurts.

;)

[qazplm]

67. see

and you figured that out all without actually having to do it.

[qazplm]

68. it feels very painful

dont believe me, find out for yourself. Me? I think I can figure it out without the broken bones.

I can figure a few other things out without actually doing them too.

[Mythsaje]

71. It's a faulty analogy...

You're comparing something that is directly painful and potentially injurious with something that isn't.

Are you SURE you're a lawyer? I always thought that particular breed was better at nuance.

[dysfunctional press]

91. it's not a faulty analogy...

it's a stupid, meaningless, pretty much laughable attempt at an analogy by someone who apparently has NO idea what they're talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Yeah, and Priests think they're in a position to lecture about sex, too.

I think they're full of shit.

[dysfunctional press]

89. well, apparently a lot of them DO have experience in that area.

and i suppose that they can usually just wipe the shit off when they're done.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. That's icky.

You're a bad man!

[dysfunctional press]

90. and that relates to marijuana use again...how exactly?

people who jump off cliffs suffer grevious bodily harm.
people who smoke pot do not.

i don't get the connection...?

what is it?

[Mythsaje]

110. If he argues like that in court

he's definitely not someone I would want as a defense attorney...

[High Plains]

97. Your underage drinking figures are low.

http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k4NSDUH/2k4results/2k4results.htm#ch3

This is from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

Underage Alcohol Use
In 2004, about 10.8 million underage persons aged 12 to 20 (28.7 percent) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.4 million (19.6 percent) were binge drinkers, and 2.4 million (6.3 percent) were heavy drinkers. These figures were similar to the 2002 and 2003 estimates.


More males than females aged 12 to 20 reported binge drinking (22.1 vs. 17.0 percent) and heavy drinking (8.2 vs. 4.3 percent) in 2004.


Among persons aged 12 to 20, past month alcohol use rates ranged from 16.4 percent among Asians to 19.1 percent among blacks, 24.3 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives, 26.4 percent among those reporting two or more races, 26.6 percent among Hispanics, and 32.6 percent among whites.


Among persons aged 12 to 20, binge drinking was reported by 22.8 percent of whites, 19.0 percent of American Indians or Alaska Natives, 19.3 percent of Hispanics, and 18.0 percent of persons reporting two or more races. However, binge drinking was reported by only 9.9 percent of blacks and 8.0 percent of Asians. The binge drinking rate among underage Hispanics increased significantly from the 2003 rate of 16.9 percent.


Across geographic regions in 2004, underage current alcohol use rates were higher in the Northeast (32.3 percent) and Midwest (31.4 percent) than in the South and the West (26.2 and 27.3 percent, respectively) (Figure 3.2). This pattern was similar to that in 2002 and 2003.

[madokie]

74. and seeing the parent as a hippocrit in the process, yes you are right

[MrPrax]

30. Well if psychological

then it is no more a dangerous than impulsive shopping, which can prove 'addictive' to some as well.

Besides if taken in excess, especially by younger and smaller people, too much alcohol can kill you--whereas you can't overdose on marijuana. On that level it is more harmful and I personally believe that alcohol and driving are a far worst combination than 'stoned' and driving.

[Mythsaje]

32. Absolutely...

People drive stoned all the time. And how often does anyone even notice? Not very.

What's really dangerous is when someone stupidly mixes their intoxicants and then decides to drive. Alcohol and pot DO NOT mix well.

[qazplm]

36. hmmmm...

"Although not as severe as that for alcohol, heroin, or cocaine dependence, marijuana withdrawal is usually characterized by insomnia, restlessness, loss of appetite, irritability, anger, increased muscle activity (jerkiness), and aggression after sudden cessation of chronic use as a result of physiological tolerance. Prolonged marijuana use produces both pharmacokinetic changes (how the drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted) and pharmacodynamic changes (how the drug interacts with target cells) to the body. These changes require the user to consume higher doses of the drug to achieve a common desirable effect, and reinforce the body’s metabolic systems for synthesizing and eliminating the drug more efficiently." Again from wikipedia (which seems a pretty pro-marijuana page by the way).

Sounds to me a BIT more serious and dangerous than impulsive shopping.

If you think having longer reaction times isnt a problem for drivers then I dont know what to say. YES alcohol is more dangerous for driving, that does not make marijuana NOT dangerous for driving merely less. Considering teen drivers are generally more likely to have accident purely clean, I'm not sure I understand the wisdom of having them under ANY drug which lessens their reactions.

[ms liberty]

56. If you are an attorney, then I'm sure you're aware

that wikipedia is NOT a primary source. I am not an attorney, however I would still NEVER use wikipedia as a source for anything, much less a discussion of real issues. Perhaps you should widen your horizons? There are quite a few credible studies available - from the US and elsewhere in the world - on the relative harmlessness of marijuana, and also on its medicinal properties. You seem to be operating on less than complete information.

[Mythsaje]

60. Considering wikipedia is pretty much a dog's breakfast

of facts, opinions, and conjecture, I would have to agree with you. A good primary source for entertainment facts, I suppose, but I wouldn't trust it for much else.

[qazplm]

70. I've found

that wikipedia is a pretty decent source for conversations like this.

Would I use it for court, uh no. Would I use it for this? yes. Most of the facts are footnoted and the constant revisions have been shown to be pretty respectably reliable.

[nonconformist]

78. I have to call MAJOR bullshit on that one.

I've smoked pot for years, daily even, and have had periods where I've quit for months at a time. Like right now, after daily smoking for a couple of years solid, I've been out for over 4 months.

The only "effect" I've had is I KINDA MISS IT. That's IT.

[Maine-ah]

87. that's funny

I've been smoking it for over 15 years. Quit last Feb. didn't have any problems with it either. No withdrawal like your claiming. In fact, everyone that I know that stopped for one reason or another (like in my case, I'm pregnant) didn't have any problems.

Now, I don't know about your area of the woods, but up here I never read about cases of OUI that resulted in an accident because someone was on pot alone. Always alcohol or worse (ie heroin or a combo of drugs).

Pot is no worse than alcohol IMHO, and should be legalized.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

95. Ooo, sorry, you're wrong.

The pharmacology is of THC is well understood, it'd have to be, it's been approved by the FDA and it's pharmacology is widely available to the public under trade names such as "marinol." It's not addictive, and it doesn't cause tolerance, which is what your wikipedia quote is describing.

Marijuana is, literally, safer than Tylenol.

[dysfunctional press]

34. marijuana is MUCH safer than alcohol.

you can't kill yourself with pot...people (especially kids)do it all the time with alcohol.

[dysfunctional press]

38. another part of it...nicotine is a vascular constrictor-

contributing to high blood pressure.
whereas pot works as a bronchial dilator- making it easier for one to breathe, and get more oxygen into the blood.
i've been smoking about an ounce/week for going on 30 years(just me- nobody else i know smokes), but i've never been a tobacco smoker- i just had a chest xray, prior to surgery- and my lungs are clean as a whistle.

and- although i have no facts about a connection- my bad cholesterol level is about 40 points lower than any of my non-pot smoking friends of similar age with comparable diets.

[Mythsaje]

42. An ounce a week?

Wow.

Yeah, what you describe pretty much fits into what I've observed. I know people who don't smoke cigarettes who can run as if they don't smoke at all. I've also known several people who made the honor role in college (including myself) while smoking regularly.

A friend told a story about high school that we had to laugh at--he was known as a cigarette smoker and had to attend one of those smoker education classes which included a lung capacity test. He actually red-lined the tester repeatedly. The instructor didn't understand it, saying "we know you smoke. How is it that you have no obvious decrease in lung capacity?"

He grinned at the guy and said "bigger bong hits."

:shrug:

[Mnemosyne]

53. "bigger bong hits." How true!

:rofl:

[wordpix2]

82. I agree, and the European kids who grow up drinking wine with the family

tend not to binge drink whe away from the family because they're taught when enough's enough. This from a few European students of mine who were aghast at their American counterparts' overindulgence.

[KyndCulture]

5. Double edge sword.

I know many parents who let their older teens drink at family functions. It prevents them from sneaking out and doing it anyway, IMO... but then I get the nagging feeling you could be creating a serious problem with addiction with booze.

I have no problems with parents giving their older teens pot.

[Kutjara]

20. It can work both ways.

My parents were both teetotal, never had alcohol in the house, went berserk if there was even a suspicion that I'd been drinking, and lectured me endlessly on the life-destroying dangers of alcohol. The result: a 20 year alcohol addiction that I only managed to kick five years ago.

Perhaps if my parents had been a bit less uptight, I might not have regarded alcohol as such a tempting 'forbidden fruit.'

[qazplm]

26. or maybe

you would have done it anyways.

This idea that if we just make everything "unforbidden" that people wont want to do it anymore only goes so far.

[Kutjara]

27. Perhaps...

...and there are arguments on both sides of the nature/nurture divide, but I never got into smoking, even though both my parents were heavy smokers and wouldn't have been particularly upset if I'd started. In my case, I think the nurture side was a stronger influence, since there are no alcoholics in my immediate family (which would seem to weaken the argument for a 'genetic' cause).

[qazplm]

39. it doesnt weaken the argument

for a genetic cause, it merely says that genetics doesnt determine everything 100 percent.

[qazplm]

6. children under 18

are not generally set up to handle this and parents and adults are supposed to set an example on this and in respecting the law.

Cocaine, tobacco, and heroin have certifiable addictive issues and cause other problems. What if that heroin was one of the "tainted" heroin that is going around for example? Can a 17 year judge drinking and driving as well as someone over 21 most of the time? Do we even know fully the effects of some of these drugs on still developing brains and bodies?

There may be a legitimate argument (I dont agree with it but can see the other side) that some of these drugs should be legalized for adults just as alcohol and tobacco are, or arent any worse than those two legal products are.

However, can anyone seriously believe it is responsible and correct to share drugs with those under 18?

[Jed Dilligan]

9. 18's an artificial line

Some 16 year olds can handle drinking, drugs, sex, et cetera, some 21 year olds can't. It used to be that judges were supposed to be wise people who could tell a non-abusive from an abusive situation, but the Ida Briggs-es of the world have brought us "sentencing guidelines" and turned the judiciary into an army of castrated punitive robots.

[qazplm]

16. all lines are pretty artificial

with that thinking. Thus you are left with either having no lines (smoke up 12 year olds) or coming up with a line that works decently well for the majority. 18 does that for many things, 21 does that for alcohol.

[Mythsaje]

18. We can send them to fight and die

but we can't let them drink.

That's nonsense. Just like we can prosecute children as adults for committing crimes, but refuse to accept that they may be able to choose to have sex.

Our culture is so screwed up in this regard...

[qazplm]

22. hey if you want to raise the enlistment age

to 21 be my guest!

[Mythsaje]

31. Good luck with that one...n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

75. which is why I bought my son a bottle the other day...

some damn koolaid looking stuff called Hypnotic. Weak too. But that's what he wanted. (it was his 20th birthday).

They got him wearing a uniform and he's old enough to send to war, then I can buy the kid a bottle of booze.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. Other

First, I don't want common ground with anyone who thinks we should seek votes by tossing prosecutions to a bloodthirsty electorate.

You could get a proposal for stiffer penalties for providing drugs to minors to fly through any existing legislature, particularly the more Puke-dominated ones. So why ask us about it? We're just poor disenfranchised progressives.

To have a discussion here you should frame it as where you would set the limits of drug legalization or decriminalization and see if people agree. Otherwise, write to your congressman.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

12. Where have I said I take drugs?

You don't have to take drugs to deplore the drug war.

If we are resorting to name-calling, I can think of a few for you too.

[IdaBriggs]

24. My answer was intended as sarcasm, based on your post

in the other thread asserting your daily drug use. And trust me, your "subtle" comments weren't exactly that!

But, let us try to hold a civil discussion. My apologies if my inappropriate snide comment offended you; heaven knows this is *NOT* an easy topic for any of us!

Peace between us! :)

[Jed Dilligan]

57. Once again, show me the link to my "daily drug use"

No Peace until you (all) end the War.

[IdaBriggs]

83. Whoops! Official apologies for the "daily drug use" comment -- Confused

you (based on your e-mail "tone") with another DU'er on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1467094&mesg_id=1471105 who was proudly proclaiming daily drug use. You were just the guy who was happy my family had gone through terrible drug related tragedies, and sanctimoniously declared us "enemies" because of my views, comparing me to criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld because of them.

Don't worry about there being peace between us, but I still apologize for automatically assuming you are a druggie, just because you were not being the "nicest" person on the planet during that thread, or this. This is obviously a topic you feel strongly about, as do other people (including me).

[Jed Dilligan]

92. Profiling, false accusation and conviction

What else should I have expected from your side? I should check my inbox to make sure you didn't e-plant a cyber-baggie there.

[Richard Steele]

13. And you wonder why people don't think you are open to debate.

[Mythsaje]

15. I was able to drink with my father

(who has never been a model of moderation) from the age of about 14 on. These days I only drink occasionally, when it suits me, and a six pack may languish in my fridge for weeks. Maybe it's that I'm not personally prone to alcoholism (though certain surveys from treatment centers might say otherwise, but I trust them as far as I can throw them for obvious reasons), but I just don't see an issue with supervised consumption of intoxicants. Better supervised exposure than the alternative, I think.

Pot's another thing, in a way. The most notable thing about marijuana is the vast majority of people from my teenage years who smoked like fiends back then no longer do. This is more or less true of myself, though I reserve the right to do so if I so choose. People simply lost interest, except for the few that got so wrapped up in other things that they lost themselves entirely.

The argument that pot's a "gateway" to other things is a bit deceptive, as far as I'm concerned, since prohibition is the reason it serves this function. Having to acquire the substance from the black market puts a user in contact with people with a vested interest in increasing their profits by turning them on to more dangerous stuff.

My wife's argument has always been that she believes that early consumption of pot causes nerve damage and slows the reflexes. I certainly never found that to be the case, but it might be something to do with my own genetics and the fact that quick reflexes runs in the family. Even being stoned didn't seem to affect them to any particular degree...then again, pot is to some extent a relaxant, and, as Bruce Lee suggested, relaxed muscles respond more quickly.

This is a complex subject. :shrug: But an interesting one.

[AndyTiedye]

100. Easy To Test The Reaction-Time Claims

slows the reflexes. I certainly never found that to be the case, but it might be something to do with my own genetics and the fact that quick reflexes runs in the family. Even being stoned didn't seem to affect them to any particular degree...then again, pot is to some extent a relaxant, and, as Bruce Lee suggested, relaxed muscles respond more quickly.

It is easy enough to test this. There are java-based tests you can run on a web browser.
Tried it the last time I was in Amsterdam.
20% faster :smoke:.

[Mythsaje]

111. I haven't indulged in what feels like forever...

But that sounds like a fun test regardless.

[madmusic]

19. Throw the parents in jail!

Throw the kid into foster care. That's always more healthy than a home with a joint in it. :sarcasm:

[qazplm]

25. just because something is criminal

does not mean you are going to be sent to jail.

I dont think anyone on here is advocating sending parents to jail for giving their kid a beer, but giving their kid coke? yeah, I think there is a problem there. Marijuana is somewhere in the middle in my mind. Pretty poor parenting IMO but not worthy of sending someone to jail over.

[madmusic]

72. That's not how the vote is going

"Hang them" usually means jail.

[WindRavenX]

21. christ no

And it's pretty offensive lumping pot with meth and coke :wtf:

[dysfunctional press]

33. what about young cancer/aids patients...?

i wouldn't deny them medicinal use of pot, for instance.

or what about alcohol consumed as part of a religious ceremony.

and what about caffiene and/or refined sugar...?, as long as we're looking out for their physical and emotional well-being and all...

[qazplm]

37. there is a difference

between pot for medicinal purposes and pot for recreational purposes dont you think?

And if we are going to allow alcohol to kids for religious ceremonies why not crack?

[dysfunctional press]

40. the OP makes no distinction...

that's why i asked.

as to the crack question- i'm not aware of any religions that use it as a sacrement...are you? i was drinking wine in church when i was 14, and iirc...some start younger than that.

[Yollam]

43. Putting alcohol & marijuana together with hard drugs is absurd.

I give my kids sips of beer and wine from time to time - big deal. Rastafarians let their kids puff on a spliff. Big deal.

But cocaine and heroin? There is no time when it's okay to give poison like that to a minor. In fact, they are highly addictive and can't be used safely by adults.


I hate when people lump hard drugs together with a plant that grows on the side of the road and fermented barley and hops.

[Mythsaje]

44. I'd say that alcohol has more in common with those hard drugs

than it does with pot, but that's entirely subjective, of course.

[Yollam]

46. In large quantities, yes.

Large amounts of alcohol can kill you, and adults who INTOXICATE a minor should be prosecuted. But a sip of wine or beer is a whole different thing. I personally believe that it's good to give kids a little alcohol when they are young, and gradually introduce them to an adult pastime, rather than give them the "verboten" attitude, which I believe is largely responsible for the binge drinking among American teens (but not as severe in countries where the drinking age is lower) It's the verboten factor that makes alcohol seem more alluring to young people.

I personally would not give my kids pot, or even smoke pot in the presence of my kids. But I don't see it as harmful as the other drugs. I just don't want to set an example of using drugs as an escape to my kids.

[Mythsaje]

48. I've always found the idea of pot as an "escape" to be rather interesting

since I've found that, if anything, it relieves stress surrounding a circumstance to allow for a more rational view of the problem. It's simply not an escape. Alcohol, on the other hand, tends to place people in the moment--there is no future or past, just the immediate. I can see it being used as an escape quite easily.

[Yollam]

54. That's because pot has drastically different effects on different people.

I haven't used it in many years, but I used to know people who could use it and just "mellow out", but if I used it, I was BAKED. I had no concept of time. I could talk about various topics, but could not remember the subject from 2 minutes ago. I would listen to music and "trip" on how amazing it sounded. It was definitely a sensory escape from normal, drab reality. It was a totally positive experience, but I could see that it was not helping me with school or career and a stopped using it. I know there are people who can make it work - but I could not.
The one time I gave some to my wife (then girlfriend), she seemed totally unaffected by it and was a complete drag.

As for alcohol - I don't drink a lot, mostly because of the calories, but also because any more than two beers and I have a guaranteed hangover. Again, different for everyone - some people seem to be unable to use alcohol in moderation.

[Mythsaje]

59. I wonder if the differences are biological

or mental. At first I was probably as unfocused as anyone, but I taught myself to focus. I didn't want to use it as a means of escaping, but as a way of gaining new perspective. I knew a lot of people who'd just continue smoking, when I was good after just a little bit.

We used to game stoned. And let me tell you, that teaches focus better than just about anything I've ever done.

[sweetheart]

45. No absolute moral ground

We have a bad cultural habit of trying to legislate the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of
the law. In the spirit of the law, you do not harm to others, and you love your kids unconditionally.
Then if you smoke grass, and your 15 years old comes up to you and asks you what its like and that
him and his friends can get some hash, you are in a conundrum. You can share some of your grass
with your kid, and know he/she got safe/clean stuff, or accept a street supplier. I'd say the
former is more responsible parenting. If you're doing nothing but drugs and you live in squalor
and your kids live in squalor with you, and you are unable to provide for them, and its just getting
to be a bad scene, then thats not responsible parenting.

For all you nazi, hardass "take the kids away" sort of nutjobs, read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=216&topic_id=3703#3722

The spirit of the law should be that parents need leeway to teach kids about drugs, and sometimes
this involves teaching them how to experiment responsibly, and "knowing" and managing the situation,
which can mean controlling your kids supply.

People love to raise kids in their fantasy television image, but on earth, is not worth breaking
up a family except in the most extreme cases.

[genieroze]

47. It depends if it's your kid and you allow a little wine on the holidays

etc... Most other countries allow parents to make their own decisions. Coke and heroin provided to anyone is stupid. I think one should be over the age of eighteen though but by the law they are still minors. In NJ you need to be 19 to smoke.

[noshenanigans]

49. many questions in one..

As many other posters have said I think it's hugely erroneous to lump together pot and, to a lesser degree, alcohol, with cocaine and heroin and the like. I mean, if I wanted to give crystal meth to an 11 year old I would be arrested and rightfully so.

Hmm, as for the "who is providing it" question, I don't think prosecuting a kid who gives another kid a joint is going to accomplish anything.

IMO, tobacco and pot are different from the harder drugs because they're at least grown- I don't know enough about the manufacture of heroin, but I'm led to believe that it's not pure poppy, but mixed with chemicals- akin to opium, I guess. Hey, come to mention it, how come no one does opium anymore?

Anyway, to answer the question at hand (albeit in a really roundabout way), I don't think minors should consume anything that could interfere with the growth of their neural or bone structure, and many drugs could do that. So, to quote South Park, "There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college." Before that, parents should do their job and with some harder addictive drugs I think people could be charged with child endangerment.

Of course, you're asking questions that require nuance and something other than total black and white thinking, so of course that's out of line. USA! USA! :sarcasm:

[Ariana Celeste]

52. Oh people still do opium.

When they can find it. :hi: ;)

[noshenanigans]

58. cool!

I knew one guy in college who told me what opium was like but I could never ever ever find anyone who had any. Seems so 1800s, I guess. It goes into the same category at Absinthe for me- something I'd love to try but I have no idea how to go about obtaining it.

[nonconformist]

64. Other: Flawed Poll

And impossible to answer. There are far too many variables.

Essentially, you are lumping together the 18 year old that hands his 17 year old buddy a beer with a 47 year old giving a 13 year old a weeks supply of heroin. Apples and oranges, and it cannot be summed up in absolutes by any thinking person.

[Reverend_Smitty]

125. I agree

I drank on occasion with my parents when I was underage...we never got "wasted" together but I'm sure there were a few nights when I had a couple of glasses of wine or beer with dinner when I was like 16 or 17 and got a little fuzzy headed. But it was always at home and driving anywhere after was certainly out of the question (hell to this day when I tell my mother I'm going out with friends she still asks who is going to be the designated driver) despite their "illegal" actions, I turned out alright.

I kind of feel the same way about pot. I personally don't think it's any more dangerous than drinking and if you plan to spend the night in, I don't see any problem with doing it. I think it might be a little weird to get stoned with your parents, but I think that is just a result of the illegality of the substance and if it was legal in the same way as alcohol, I don't think people would feel as "weirded" out.

But yeah it's just fucking stupid to give hard drugs to anyone regardless of their age. Once you are an adult, you should be free to make your own mistakes

[Solon]

66. Bullshit poll...

the fact that you lump Meth, Heroin, Tobacco, and Cocain(Crack) in with MJ and Alcohol just tells me that you know NOTHING about all these drugs.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. I think the penalty should be the same as for providing alcohol to minors.

No more, no less.

Now, speaking of "common ground"- can we agree that it's fucking obscene that we blow $40 Billion a year turning otherwise law-abiding adults into criminals for smoking pot?

[conflictgirl]

79. This is a "yes and no" kind of question for me

Because marijuana is illegal, I think that adults who provide illegal drugs to children should avoid doing so because that's a big risk. Do I think that marijuana should be legal? I do from the standpoint that I believe it is no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol (and I know some say it's less harmful than either), but I don't really trust the FDA and I think if it was legalized lord only knows what they would do to it. Genetically modified pot, anyone?

Parents are allowed to give children alcohol with supervision, I *think*. My kids are young and when they've asked for a taste of what we're drinking, I've let them do so.

I kind of group drugs according to their seriousness. Tobacco, alcohol and marijuana don't worry me a whole lot. But I differentiate between drugs of that class and harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Drug policy in this country is pretty stupid and because of the ridiculous penalties for people caught doing drugs, I think that as long as these laws are in place, adults should not provide drugs to kids. If a parent gives drugs to their kids, the parent will likely go to jail and the kid can jeopardize the ability to ever get a student loan. For that reason I'm going to tell my kids to follow the drug laws, but that doesn't mean the drug laws are good. I just don't think the potential consequences are worth it.

[Asgaya Dihi]

80. I answered other

First off there's valid medical use, the survey doesn't separate that. If it helps the kid with something there's nothing wrong with it on any level that I can see.

Medical use aside though what's a kid? Pot isn't harmless and a 10 year old probably has no business trying it but my father gave me a beer once at about that age and it didn't do me any harm. If it was a habit that's different maybe, can't learn much stoned all the time and there are some risks a kid that young doesn't need to face.

A 16 year old on the other hand I don't see a big deal with. In two years he's old enough to join the military but he's not old enough to do that? Some european nations offer limited responsibilities as you near adulthood and it allows them to step into it more smoothly, seems reasonable to me.

For a decent look at what pot does and doesn't do check the following, it's a collection of sourced quotes from statistical studies or research journals. It's not harmless but when used with some sense not a big deal to most either. http://drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

[IdaBriggs]

84. Haven't checked out your link yet, but I think you identified the problem:

"when used with some sense" -- not something we can guarantee!!! :)

[Asgaya Dihi]

85. Education is the answer I'd think

We spend tens of billions of dollars on locking them up and hunting them down but what we spend on education is a joke and much of that distortions rather than truth. Kids don't trust us and we haven't offered them much reason to.

We could seriously evaluate our policies and do better, nicotine is more addictive than heroin (measured by dependence) with nearly as bad a withdrawal and we've reduced use by over 50% in recent decades. We didn't need to lock anyone up, we used just education. Where it used to make us sexy, sophisticated and grown up now it just makes us smell like an ashtray and kills us for no good reason. It's all in the attitude and education.

http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

The problem is we've fallen into some black/white world that people know isn't true. Pot isn't harmless, but unless they are prone to psychological imbalance it's probably not a big deal either unless abused and does have valid medical use. Drugs can heal, they can act in the same way as a couple of beers after work if mild and used with restraint, or they can kill. Rather than keep kids blind or confused like we have in the past we need to teach them the difference and do it with nothing but the facts so they know how to protect themselves and from what.

[IdaBriggs]

86. One of my issues is the "Russian Roulette" factor. For 'some people'

its harmless; for others, its not. Who wants to be the guinea pig in that type of scenario?

I did a "seeking common ground #2 thread" asking about who you would trust as an expert, and while the poll sank like a stone, the answers were 5 folks who believe "NORML" (the folks who want pot legalized), and one picked Other. Nobody liked any of the peer reviewed journals, the National Institute of Health, or any of the medical schools. I find that frightening -- I know "the other side" likes to pick and choose its facts, but in a general way, my assumption has always been that more people are "reality based believers" than "anecdotal evidence" type stuff. I guess that explains why so many people refused to believe there was a link between tobacco and cancer, though -- they "knew" people who smoked for decades, and didn't have any ill effects, so what was the problem? Sigh.

At what point do we say, "this substance is dangerous for too many people to condone it" -- on the one hand, peanut products can kill those with allergies, but we don't ban peanut butter; on the other hand, 'some people' who try heroin don't have a problem with it. :shrug:

I agree that the 'war on drugs' as currently being waged isn't working, and we need to find better ways of addressing some of the issues. Part of me has no sympathy for people who spend time in jail even when "its just a little pot" because part of me is thinking DUMB ASS - WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DIDN'T YOU GET? DID YOU THINK THE LAW ONLY APPLIED TO "OTHER" PEOPLE??? And that kind of preferential treatment assumption irks the shit out of me. On the other hand, as a taxpayer, why should I want to spend money prosecuting people who are doing something that doesn't really affect me in the privacy of their own homes? And since its always good to have more than two hands, there is a part of me that just gets completely torked at what I perceive to be irresponsible behavior of adults happily breaking drug laws when they know this places their families in danger (because they might end up in jail, and who will take care of their children?) because they like getting high, think the laws are stupid, and don't plan on getting caught. Why would someone who loves their child even THINK about putting themselves in such a risky position? It can't be a "civil disobedience" thing, because they are sneaking around doing it, and yet, they don't seem to understand that JAIL IS AN OPTION AND THEIR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT. Toss in an unpleasant divorce and some insider knowledge, and a lawyer somewhere is going to be making some money....Sigh.

The situation with my (deceased) sister and her daughter (now a heroin addict) really got me examining how things work locally. In my investigation of the "reality" of being a drug user locally, I found that local law enforcement wasn't really interested in prosecuting the casual, small time user; they preferred using their resources against "the big dealers", and expected the PARENTS to deal with the small shit. Not every parent has an instruction book for dealing with their kids and drugs (and many couldn't identify a rock of crack if it was laying on their kid's dresser!), and a lot are unaware of the extent to which children are exposed / able to purchase illegal drugs at young ages. Heroin for $3??? WTF? And more commonly available than alcohol because of police crackdowns on stores selling to minors?

We had a problem in this area a few years back with high school graduation parties serving alcohol. Of course drunk teenagers ended up getting involved in fatal automobile accidents, and that was just deemed to be the way things were. Then someone got mad, and sued the shit out of the adults providing the "safe haven" for the alcohol to be consumed -- and it was HIGH PROFILE!!! Suddenly the "risk factor" of being the "nice adult" who turns a blind eye to teenagers consuming alcohol on their property was far outweighed by the fact someone was going to sue your ass and take everything you owned -- and now alcohol use at high school graduation parties isn't as common, AND there has been a substantial decrease in the number of teenage alcohol related deaths during the graduation party season. Local law enforcement didn't solve it -- the lawyers did.

That solution is one I'm personally advocating for underage drug use. If I find out the parents of one of my kid's friends are giving my kid marijuana, heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, or any other illegal substance, then I am going to spend every cent I have until I *OWN* THE SOBs -- and heaven help the "helpless parent" who doesn't think they can do anything about their kid sharing his stash with mine, because in addition to making sure my kid knows that using drugs isn't going to be "fun" while they are living under my roof, I'm going to spread the pain and SUE THE SUPPLIER. If it works for dog bites, maybe it will work for druggies.

What we're doing now isn't working. Its time to try something new. But I hope to God that my kids are smart enough that I *never* have to actually follow through with any of the above plans.

[Asgaya Dihi]

94. Sorry to be slow answering, needed some sleep

The problem with the Russian Roulette analogy is that we've done nothing but trade possible damage for certain damage. Lifetime use of most drugs is up, the only ones that have really fallen is tobacco and alcohol and those due to education rather than laws. The ones we tried to crack down on we did nothing but to increase the damage. You can source that at the following.

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/ever-used.htm

In 1979 lifetime use for pot was at 27.9%, today it's at 40.2%. Use of hallucinogens was at 8.9% lifetime use, today it's at 14.3%. Cocaine was at 8.6%, today it's at 14.3%.

Now there's one problem with our survey system, it depends on self reporting. A guy calls on the phone or drops by your house in todays environment and we're a lot more likely to admit we tried something in college than that we tried some last week or have a stash in the other room right now. The best we can assume is that we haven't lost too much ground and there's good reason to believe we've lost quite a bit of ground. That's not Russian roulette, that's certain damage that we caused ourselves.

As far as the social damage goes it's been incredible. I posted a source last night in the other thread that showed one young black man in eight between the ages of 25 and 29 are behind bars as we speak. The reasons for that are as simple as our laws, overlapping safe school zones with mandatory minimums have destroyed poor neighborhoods who have no voice or resources to fight back so we could feel we were doing something about drugs. It fixed nothing, and consider that one in eight for a moment. How many were fathers? How many had parents at home they cared for? How much of the single mother households, poverty, and crime we see in those neighborhoods are the direct result of us imprisoning them for the same crimes our kids get treatment for? The drug war creates and keeps ghettos more than anything else.

Two links to consider on that note, one the arrest and conviction rates and the second the end results. Quoted from the first source...

"Mandatory sentencing laws disproportionately affect people of color. African-Americans make up 15% of the country’s drug users, yet they make up 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for a drug offense." http://www.idpi.us/resources/factsheets/mm_factsheet.htm

http://www.prisonsucks.com/

The situation with your sister and her daughter is tragic and I've seen it again, and again, and again. As long as this drug war continues we'll continue to see it. It wasn't heroin as such that killed your sister, it was our drug laws. With sane laws she could have had counseling and treatment instead of the risk of prison if she had asked for help. She'd probably be alive today. I posted in the other thread an example of a program the Swiss are running for heroin addicts that has had great success with over 9,000 patients, here's a glimpse of a part of that program. They first try more standard options and those who are true hardcore addicts and don't respond to treatment are shifted to this rather than to prison or the streets. Free heroin, all they need and at a known quality and purity. These were the results when applied in a sane manner in a medical setting. Do note that in over 5 years they had ZERO deaths.

http://www.dpft.org/heroin.htm

* Sharply reduced criminal behavior by participants.

* The ability to stabilize many addicts at a low enough level so they can return to normal work. Legal employment rose sharply.

* No overdose deaths among participants in five years.

* Major financial savings in reduced costs for health care and policing.

* Marked decrease in drug use and a small but significant number who progressed to abstinence.

* Homelessness among participants was virtually eradicated.

* The illegal markets were deprived of a portion of their normal customers and profits. But only wide scale expansion could make this a major blow to the cartels.

* Concerns about doses escalating out of control proved to be unfounded, and most participants achieved stable doses in 2 to 4 months.

Death rates for heroin have climbed, death for cocaine has climbed, we've increased the size of our prison and jail populations by 6 times in size since the early 70's and all we've managed to accomplish for our efforts is to make the sources of this stuff billionaires and to finance many of the terrorists we now fight around the world. No part of this has been anything short of an abysmal failure. We pretend that it's a choice between drugs and no drugs and that's never been any part of reality. Our choice is do we control them or do we allow the criminal markets to control drugs? The only way we get control is to legalize and regulate. Legal doesn't mean free use, morphine is legal today and not passed out of the streets. We do have control of it though. Heroin can be separated from our kids and put into a medical setting, by prescription and to current addicts only. In that setting it's as safe as you can get short of no use at all, and that's not an option. The more we move to that method the less market for dealers on the streets, the less dealers the lower the chances that a NEW kid will get hooked out of curiosity. We improve the problem over time rather than just fill prisons. Same with other drugs, separate them with science instead of hysteria by class of risk and access with the milder ones more available and the dangerous ones less so. When the same dealer doesn't have it all and the hardest drugs aren't just as easy to get as the softer ones then we've got a chance.

There's a short 12 minute video you should watch, it's lifelong cops from a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition talking from their own experience about the drug war and what we've been doing. You can browse their bios and see who they are in the who we are and speakers sections of the web page, they are an impressive group. If you wanted more past that feel free to drop me a note and I'd be glad to talk about it. I do have sympathy with you and any other victim of drugs, but us following policies that just assure the loss of more life isn't an answer. Harm reduction and control is.

http://leap.cc/audiovideo/LEAPpromo.htm

edit:typo

[High Plains]

99. Instead of trying to "own" some other parent, maybe you should

concentrate on your own family.

[anarch]

98. yes. everyone should be arrested and punished for everything

Do anything at all, go to jail. Or better yet, a work camp.

In fact, why wait until they slip up? I say send the new-born (non-priveleged class, that is) children straight to the work camps.

[MadHound]

103. Please, stop with this agenda driven screed

And like I said earlier, Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Breeze54]

112. I don't think pot is a gateway drug to heavier drugs.

I think it is a gateway drug, to kids hanging out with others, that are doing heavier drugs.

What would I do if an adult offered my kids some pot? Kick their ass! Why?
Because they're kids and they have growing to do and learning to... er...ah...learn! :rofl:
They will have plenty of time, after they graduate, to experiment. Why rush it?
I have no problem with adults who smoke weed. I think it's probably much less lethal than alcohol.
But kids? No. Besides, I can't afford to bail my kids out! ;)

[pooja]

127. This poll is biased into saying yes..

Giving a minor tobacco, cocaine, alcohol would just be wrong say the child is 5 yrs old, 10yrs old. Also, if these drugs were regulated as such a person wants to get high, they must be 18yrs old and purchase on their own without a back door purchase. As it is now it is illegal for tobacco purchase under 18, and acohol under 21. We all know that if kids are going to do it, they'll find a way. But I certainly don't support a general "minor" statement because that is ridiculous.

On the other hand, I know people who adopted a "crack" baby. In order to get him over his "crack" addiction, he smoke marijuana. Now, many would be saying a 5 yr. old shouldn't do that... but it is being delivered via his mother (a nurse) at the suggestion of the Dr. and all on the Down Low. (the baby was adopted and did horribly on the meds they give for the crack usage--does much better on the mary j.) When I first saw this, I was so shocked. But he was smart. He knew what was going on. He could read and write... it was like riddlin for this child. Very interesting what the professional Dr.'s and nurses do in their own worlds and what the rest of the world is supposed to do.

[jberryhill]

128. Most states have a parental exception for alcohol

By the comments above, I gather that many people do not realize that having your own kid drink in your own home under your supervision is perfectly legal in most places.

Here is the law in Delaware, for example:

(c) Whoever purchases, buys or gives alcoholic liquor for or to a person under the age of 21 years or knowingly allows a person under his or her supervision and under the age of 21 years to consume alcoholic liquor shall, in addition to the payment of costs, be fined for the first offense, not less than $100 nor more than $500, and may be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 40 hours in such form and on such terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances and may be imprisoned for not more than 30 days; and for each subsequent like offense, shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and may be ordered by the court to perform community service for a period of 80 hours in such form and on such terms as the court shall deem appropriate under the circumstances and may be imprisoned for not more than 60 days. This subsection shall not apply to religious services or members of the same family within the private home of any of said members.

[Mythsaje]

129. I get the feeling there are some among us

who'd like to drag said parents out into the street and stone them anyway. And I don't mean in a good way.

[Jed Dilligan]

130. I see your game now.

Outraging people enough to keep your thread kicked and kicked. Well, this is one last kick from me, Ida Briggs. Good luck fighting a war against a category of substances.