[peter12]

]Depends on if you think the impacts are severe enough to hinder people's freedoms (that aren't actually being hindered anyways). We don't have concrete evidence enough to show that these impacts are more severe than anything else, or that they are even effecting each other at all.

If you are saying "more studies are needed before making a rash decision to legalize a substance that looks to be incredibly harmful to young people," then I would totally agree.

If you want more conclusive research into this stuff before making a decision on it that's all good. I think a lot of people would like that, myself included. But you seem to have made up your mind about it already. If more research is done and the negative impacts turn out to be negligible (unlikely but who knows) would you be willing to accept it as a product that can enter the market?

I posted a study completed by a reputable research team on a good sample, and published in a very reputable journal. I haven't made up my mind, but I am pretty certain as to where the evidence is leading. I also think there is strong circumstantial evidence that increasing availability tends to increase youth usage.

I'll give an anecdote that I find interesting. We have a person living at our place from South Korea. There, getting caught with a joint is 2-3 years in prison. He says hardly anyone smokes and that even if his best friend had one, he would consider turning him in for fear of being prosecuted himself. So that's the extreme you have to go to wipe it's use out. Is that OK? Is it OK when combined with the allowing of substances that are worse in pretty much every category?

So let's look a hybrid approach that doesn't rely solely on strict prison sentences. No one wants young people or people from minority populations to go to jail on the basis of small-time possession.

Keep in mind that drinking in public is legal there and he says everyone is drunk all the time, like everywhere.

A strong anecdote in favour of restriction. I saw the same when I lived in Denmark. Appalling public drunkenness.

Since coming here and indulging a few times with us, he has completely changed his tune and says what they are told about weed is completely false. He would no longer turn in a friend and thinks it's stupid how harsh it is. He also works at a convenience store here and says the amount of people that buy rolling papers far exceeds people who buy cigarettes. Which I thought was interesting.

Why is it that I am considered to have a biased perspective on this, and you aren't?