Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
|
Dude. The argument is not about whether or not weed has negative effects. If anyone ever says that to be true you have free reign to call them a stoned idiot.
The argument is about whether or not it's easier for youth to obtain it as an illicit substance than it would be if it was legalized and properly regulated (along with the notion that these negative effects are no more frequent or dangerous than the effects of other substances -- including those currently prescribed by doctors -- that we currently allow).
For the graph on the previous page, increased use does not necessarily mean it's easier to get. Yes, we may see a short term increase because, as you said, the stigma decreases so people won't really bat an eye about it. (IE seeing kids standing outside of a high school smoking cigs triggers little reaction from anyone, including teachers, even if the kids are underage. Kids caught smoking weed is a different story).
But the thought process is that eventually the education of drug use/abuse will be such that it (hopefully) decreases use among youth. And the overall point is that what we do now, quite obviously, does not curb this issue at all. If kids want it bad enough, they will get it. Even with age limits and the like. This is an attempt to put up enough roadblocks for youth to get it, that a significant portion deem it to be not worth the trouble.