"Think? History says we're capable. And, that 13.2% was when marijuana was illegal."
So what, that was a whole different time with a different dynamic at work. Things have changed since then. And I'll bring it up again, you haven't seen use going up to 20% or 25% or more in places like Holland where they sell marijuana in shops. It hasn't ever gone anywhere close to that. It's never been anywhere close to that in any of the countries that keep this kind of data. What makes you think that Dutch people or others in places with much less restrictive marijuana laws are so much better able to control themselves when it comes to marijuana than we "weak" Americans?
"Make the argument when it suits you, TKDietz. You're flexible. Need I remind you that not too long ago you were posting that drug use was increasing?"
It has gone up some. That's what it does. It goes up and down with the times. It will always do a little fluctuating. What I was pointing out to you before was that it even goes up when the drug war is cranked up several notches. We can seize more pot and lock up more people than ever but if it's going to go up, it's going to go up. If it's going to go down, it's going to go down. The government has little control over that.
"Let's go back to Alaska. Legalize marijuana for adults (in a restrictive manner, to boot) and teen use is double. That 30% becomes 60%. I used a conservative 50%. It's possible, is my point."
You say teen use doubled based on some survey the University of Alaska did once and compared with SAMHSA's numbers. The survey isn't published anywhere where any one can find it. We have no way of knowing how many people where surveyed, the questions asked, or methods used for collecting the data. We also don't know what the numbers for teen use before and after the survey.
I don't believe that teen use doubled in Alaska. You don't have any proof that it doubled.
"Currently. Why do you insist that percentage would remain after legalization?"
Because it's only going to be legal for adults and we're still going to encourage teens not to use it and punish them if they do, just like we do now. At least where I live, we are much harder on teens than we are adults for marijuana possession, except that they aren't really fined and they don't get left with a criminal record that stays with them through their adult lives. Lot's of them do get sent away to a 45 day treatment program though, and they are put on restrictive probation where they are drug tested. They have to perform community service, make it to school with no unexcused absences, tardies, or disciplinary referrals, and their case goes on and on until they have a couple of good reports at review hearings. Bad reports get them juvi hall or get them sent off for six months to a year at some facility somewhere half way across the state. This wouldn't all just stop happening if marijuana was legalized for adults.
The ratio of young pot smokers to old is going to keep shifting to older people, whether marijuana is legalized or not. The reason for this is simple, a higher and higher percentage of older people are those who came of age after marijuana became popular. Over 50% of those born from about the mid 1950's on have at least tried it according to government statistics. Many born before that have also tried it but the percentage of those who have tried it drops off sharply as we start going back in the years to people born much before that. Hardly any of those born in the 1920's and 1930's or before have ever tried it, and the fact is that each year more and more of these people pass on. Certainly not all of the people who have tried marijuana still smoke it. Only a small percentage do. Nevertheless this causes the percentage of persons over 21 who smoke marijuana to grow each year and tilts the ratio of young to old marijuana smokers toward older people.
"But, for sake of argument, let's go with your numbers. That means the vast majority of those arrested are 18 to 20, yes? Almost all, if you're to be believed."
I didn't say anything about arrests. I don't know what the arrest numbers are. I was only talking about use numbers. If you don't believe me on the use numbers, simply look at the link breaking down marijuana use by detailed age categories I'm going to provide you and do the math yourself.
See table 1.2A:
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/PDF/Sect1peTabs19to27.pdf
"My question. How long before there comes the cry (from public defenders like you) to lower the legal marijuana age to 18?"
So what if people "cry?" A lot of people want alcohol to be legal for 18 year olds but it isn't happening. And who listens to public defenders anyway? Yea, we public defenders are a powerful force to be reckoned with in the political arena.
"YOU don't want. Why am I not reassured?"
Who cares?
"Legalizing marijuana will make it that much easier to legalize the other soft drugs, whether you want that or not. Similar arguments can be made for those drugs that are/were made for marijuana."
So you think drugs like LSD, ketamine, GHB, and that sort of thing are soft drugs? That puts you in the distinct minority. These drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana. Marijuana doesn't make you lose control of yourself. Marijuana is not addictive like some of the drugs you call soft drugs. Some of these drugs are much riskier for the user and innocent people who might come in contact with people using these drugs. And unlike marijuana, we don't already have millions and millions of people using them regularly and even more millions and millions using them occasionally. Marijuana is already a very common drug, easily available everywhere. These other drugs are not even close to being as available everywhere as marijuana. Making them legal would change that.
I still do not believe that simple possession of these or any other "recreational" drugs should be a felony though. Shoot, huffing paint isn't a felony anywhere I know of but it's much worse than most any other drug out there. Felonies should be reserved for much more serious crimes where people are causing serious harms to others or putting others at serious risk. At a minimum it shouldn't be a felony the first time or two someone gets caught with one of these other drugs. There are plenty of sanctions available for misdemeanors that would act as just as much a deterrent as a felony would, and we wouldn't have so many people out there with criminal records that can really make it hard for them to get ahead in this world just because they went through a wild partying stage in their lives and happened to be unlucky enough to get caught with an unsanctioned drug. An awful lot of decent, productive citizens have fooled around with drugs at one point in their lives.
"And I'll bring it up again, you haven't seen use going up to 20% or 25% or more in places like Holland where they sell marijuana in shops."And I'll bring it up again. DON'T COMPARE CULTURES. I seem to recall that Holland has a huge problem with underage drinking -- like double ours.
"AMSTERDAM — Dutch teenagers aged 15 and 16 are Europe's heaviest youth drinkers, with 25 percent drinking alcohol more than 10 times per month, according to new research."
The European School Survey on Alcohol and Other Drugs revealed on Tuesday that Dutch teens, boys in particular, drink often and in large quantities. Roughly one third of male teens will consume five or more glasses during each drinking session (binge drinking -- triple ours)."
"The study indicated that due to low drunkenness rates among young Dutch people, drinking alcohol in the Netherlands is a socially acceptable phenomenon and youths have become accustomed to drinking. Schools and parents should be take more responsibility, the report advised."
-- www.expatica.com
Could it be that the Holland youth would rather drink than smoke? And if Holland clamped down on underage drinking, would marijuana use increase?
The culture, the attitude, the laws are different. STOP comparing us to them, if you wish to retain what little credibility you have with me.
(Oh, according to the same article, "The survey found that 18 percent of young Dutch people questioned had smoked a joint in the month preceding the study." Our 12-17 rate is 8.17%.)
"I didn't say anything about arrests. I don't know what the arrest numbers are. I was only talking about use numbers."Well, under your legalization scenario, if 90% of the people illegally using marijuana are in the 18 - 20 age group, I would expect the arrests to reflect that.
"A lot of people want alcohol to be legal for 18 year olds but it isn't happening."
Alcohol was legal for 18-year-olds, so don't give me that "ain't happening" BS.
But my point is that you and others are claiming that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol, yes? (Or are you going to back down on that claim now also?). Should be a heck of lot easier to legalize it for 18-year-olds than alcohol.
And what a nice introduction to drugs that would be.
"These drugs are much more dangerous than marijuana."
So? The argument would be that they're less dangerous than alcohol, which is your argument for marijuana legalization (need I remind you?).
So now TKDietz has a sliding scale for legalization? The drug has to be less dangerous than alcohol, but more than just a "little less" dangerous.
You ever get the feeling that there's a TKDietz's world, and then there's the real world?
"I still do not believe that simple possession of these or any other "recreational" drugs should be a felony though."
In how many states is it a felony for first time possession of a small amount of marijuana for personal use? Any? What are you talking about?