D.C. Bud?

Seattle Weekly ^ | September 17, 2003 | Philip Dawdy

[toothless]

gotcha.

[MrLeRoy]

"teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group."

No proof of increase there. The following source suggests that it decreased, but not as fast as in the lower 48:

"Finally, in at least one of the United States, Alaska, decriminalization of marihuana, which took place in 1975, was deemed to be a failure. Notwithstanding a reduction in the daily teenage marihuana use nationwide of 75% since 1978, in Alaska it increased to twice the national average." - Juan R. Torruella, Chief Judge, First Circuit, Court of Appeals

[MrLeRoy]

Adults use alcohol 11:1 over marijuana; the legal-for-adults drug is proportionately less used by teens. [...] If the only explanation for the disparity in the two alcohol-to-marijuana ratios is that adults steer away from the illegal substance, then it would follow that if marijuana was relegalized for adults, the adult alcohol-to-marijuana ratio would become the same as for teens---that is, adult marijuana use would increase more than fivefold.

That seems clearly ludicrous---leaving only the conclusion that the adult legality of alcohol does make it less used by kids than it otherwise would be.

Your ratio hides the fact that majuana use drops off dramatically after age 30.

21 to 29-year olds use alcohol 5:1 over marijuana. So we still have a choice between believing that relegalization would increase 21-to-29 marijuana use by 2-¹/₂ times, or that the adult legality of alcohol does make it less used by kids than it otherwise would be.

[robertpaulsen]

"So we still have a choice between believing that relegalization would increase 21-to-29 marijuana use by 2-1/2 times,"

Only if we accept that illegality is the only factor in reducing use for this age group. I think illegality is one factor, yes.

But, I don't care about this age group when making the argument about teen use. Legal alcohol is used by twice as many teens as marijuana, despite the fact that alcohol is harder to get.

So, legalizing marijuana and making it as hard to get as alcohol holds no weight with me.

[headsonpikes]

So as I understand you, if marijuana was made 'harder to get', then more teens, possibly 'twice as many', would use marijuana.

Explain to me again, are you for or against teen use of marijuana?

But perhaps I drew the wrong conclusions because you were not making an argument, but merely having fun with non sequiturs.

[robertpaulsen]

The argument was made (back in post #8) that "the children can get it (marijuana) now on practically any street corner. If legalized, taxed and controlled like hard liquor is (at least in Texas, where hard liquor is sold only in liquor stores and you have to be 21 to walk in the door), it would not be any more available to kids than it is now, possibly even less available."

All I said was that, despite the fact that alcohol was "controlled" and hard to get, twice as many teens are using alcohol than are using the "easy to get" marijuana.

So, the argument of "let's legalize and contol marijuana so it's less available" holds no weight with me. It doesn't work for alcohol, why do we think it will work for marijuana?

[MrLeRoy]

despite the fact that alcohol was "controlled" and hard to get, twice as many teens are using alcohol than are using the "easy to get" marijuana.

Which may simply be because teens like alcohol more. You've proved nothing.

[MrLeRoy]

21 to 29-year olds use alcohol 5:1 over marijuana [...]; the legal-for-adults drug is proportionately less used by teens. [...] If the only explanation for the disparity in the two alcohol-to-marijuana ratios is that adults steer away from the illegal substance, then it would follow that if marijuana was relegalized for adults, the adult alcohol-to-marijuana ratio would become the same as for teens---that is, [...] relegalization would increase 21-to-29 marijuana use by 2-¹/₂ times. [...]

That seems clearly ludicrous---leaving only the conclusion that the adult legality of alcohol does make it less used by kids than it otherwise would be.

Only if we accept that illegality is the only factor in reducing use for this age group. I think illegality is one factor, yes.

What are the others?

[robertpaulsen]

Right now, I'm not concerned about this age group.

[robertpaulsen]

Why do they like it more? Maybe because it's legal?

[MrLeRoy]

Right now, I'm not concerned about this age group.

I understand your desire to avoid the choice between believing that relegalization would increase 21-to-29 marijuana use by 2-1/2 times, or that the adult legality of alcohol does make it less used by kids than it otherwise would be.

[MrLeRoy]

Why do they like it more? Maybe because it's legal?

It's not legal for them.

[headsonpikes]

"It doesn't work for alcohol..."

It doesn't work PERFECTLY, no. It would be naive to imagine that any set of regulations could be both universal, and just.

The utopian Puritanical streak in America is certainly persistant, despite the fact that reasonable regulation ALWAYS works better than fanatical prohibitionism.

Legalistic perfectionism is the driving germ of American-style socialism, imo. The feminist crones and race-pimping hustlers join the gun-grabbers and dope-warriors in mutual assault on American liberty.

Probably using the same lawyers. ;^)

[robertpaulsen]

IMO, it goes to the legal/legitimate argument. In today's society, if it's legal that means there's nothing wrong with it and you've got the go-ahead to do it.

Granted, in this case, it applies to a regulated product, but that appears to be a green light for teens. Ditto, tobacco.

[MrLeRoy]

In today's society, if it's legal that means there's nothing wrong with it and you've got the go-ahead to do it.

Nonsense---huffing is legal for adults and children, yet relatively few children and even fewer adults do it.

[headsonpikes]

"In today's society, if it's legal that means there's nothing wrong with it..."

You've identified the real problem here, the over-legalization of U.S. society.

In my experience, all sorts of things which are legal are entirely improper. The only folks I know who persistantly claim, "It's perfectly legal" as a justification for a particular act, are those who wouldn't know morality if it came up and bit them on the *ss!

Which I sincerely hope it will. ;^)

[robertpaulsen]

"In my experience, all sorts of things which are legal are entirely improper. The only folks I know who persistantly claim, "It's perfectly legal" as a justification for a particular act, are those who wouldn't know morality if it came up and bit them on the *ss!"

Exactly my point.

[headsonpikes]

"Exactly my point."

Thanks for agreeing.

[robertpaulsen]

"It doesn't work for alcohol..." It doesn't work PERFECTLY, no."

I don't expect perfection. But, I would accept "pretty well", or even "somewhat". You tell me how this "reasonable restriction" for alcohol is working:

Alcohol Use Among Students in the Past Month
8th Grade: 21%
10th grade: 39%
12th Grade: 50%

Marijuana use is about half that for each group, and teens say it's easier to get than alcohol.

Obviously there's something else at work here, and that something else is the legitimacy brought on by legalization. IMO.

[headsonpikes]

You ask how this 'reasonable restriction for alcohol is working?

Not as well as it could , but the 'leakiness' of the regulations - beer sold in grocery stores, etc - helps ease kids into the consumption of alcohol in a society in which such consumption is relatively central to much of non-family social life.

It would be better if more parents introduced wine at dinner moderately; if only because the object of drinking in isolation becomes to become drunk.

From my limited anecdotal knowledge of the current situation, it appears to me that hard liquor is properly quite difficult for most kids to obtain, although beer is just difficult enough to be thrilling. ;^)

I'm sure you desire the best for today's kids, but that has to include those rights to personal liberty that have been gradually anathematized by the modern smothering nanny state.

It's socialism, whether created by commissars or lawyers, and I intend to resist it by all means necessary, including and especially urging young people to defy wrongful authority.