Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

So why allow them access to a substance that increases said behaviour?

Criminalizing drugs restricts their access?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Criminalizing drugs restricts their access?

Based on a lot of evidence, it absolutely does! In Colorado, commercialization, and later legalization, increased usage year over year!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Based on a lot of evidence, it absolutely does! In Colorado, commercialization, and later legalization, increased usage year over year!

I don't think you quite understand risk-seeking behaviour. Making it illegal is more likely to entice someone with that type of behaviour profile to seek it out.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't think you quite understand risk-seeking behaviour. Making it illegal is more likely to entice someone with that type of behaviour profile to seek it out.

Citation, please.

EDIT: Also another example of moving the goalposts.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

99% of teens are not dealing with a 'real' dealer. There are going to be at least 5 middlemen between the grower and the high school kid selling it to you. And who knows what it's been laced with, what chemicals were used in the hydroponics, if it was cured for long enough, if it was sprayed with stuff to make it weigh more, etc.

That's pretty much what I said earlier.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

BTW If you are dealing with Hells Angels, you made a very poor choice at some point in your life.

Absolutely although that situation was as much a wrong place at the wrong time as it was anything else as I was never myself a dealer.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, I am a 30 year old with a graduate degree who has worked closely with vulnerable populations - in both the public and private sectors.

So wouldn't you say you are heavily biased against weed than?

Any exposure you have to smokers are at the 'vulnerable' side of the spectrum.

It's like talking about alcohol if your job is to deal with the homeless. You are dealing with all the people abusing the drug, not using it in moderation to improve their quality of life.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

As the study I posted states (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/....2016.15070878):

This is terrifying.

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.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

So wouldn't you say you are heavily biased against weed than?

Any exposure you have to smokers are at the 'vulnerable' side of the spectrum.

It's like talking about alcohol if your job is to deal with the homeless. You are dealing with all the people abusing the drug, not using it in moderation to improve their quality of life.

Biased? Educated, yes. Experienced, pretty much yes. So if that is a bias, I guess so.

I have experienced it from the other end. Bourgeois Bohemian types who enjoy a sort of lifestyle at any cost to those less fortunate than themselves.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by peter12

As I have said, given that there is a risk factor, why take the risk? Is getting high really that important to people? It is incredibly flippant.

There is a risk that a drink of liquor can ruin someone's life, should we make it illegal? Lots of people use Marijuana to cope with other issues, it is safer than many of the pharmaceuticals that are being precribed. It's not for everyone, but nothing is. The big advantage is that it's not an addictive drug like Alcohol or tobacco or caffeine which are all legal.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Citation, please.

EDIT: Also another example of moving the goalposts.

Not moving the goalposts at all. You stated that people tend to mitigate risk. I'm saying there's a whole host of people who actively seek out risks. Extreme sports, gambling, drinking to excess, unprotected sex. All of these are examples of people actively or subconsciously seeking out risk. Your argument is flawed.

[MrMastodonFarm]

How's the fishing this morning, peter?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

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. 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.

That graph shoes a year over year increase for 10 years. In the social sciences, we would call that pretty much evidence.

As I said, your hypothetical optimal outcomes don't come close to mitigating the potentially massive risks.

Why doesn't your opinion change after seeing that study? In a previous post, you insinuated that the risks were minuscule. Well, clearly, they are quite profound.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Oh and Peter, I'd like you to discuss more points than just whatever is easiest for you to debate. There are dozens of quality posts that you have yet to acknowledge.

I know you are heavily outnumbered due to taking such a stance, but you have been saying the same thing with that study for like 5 pages. Get some new sources, counter some more arguments or please just give up and save us all the time having to educate you on this.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Oh and Peter, I'd like you to discuss more points than just whatever is easiest for you to debate. There are dozens of quality posts that you have yet to acknowledge.

I know you are heavily outnumbered due to taking such a stance, but you have been saying the same thing with that study for like 5 pages. Get some new sources, counter some more arguments or please just give up and save us all the time having to educate you on this.

That's a recent study with a statistically significant randomly-selected population studied over a period of time.

That is a legitimate study. Read it.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's a recent study with a statistically significant randomly-selected population studied over a period of time.

That is a legitimate study. Read it.

Stop deflecting already. We have all seen it and acknowledge it. We have also acknowledged how little it means in the grand scheme of legalizing marijuana. This study should be a proponent for legalizing weed and it's silly to think otherwise.

I've already discussed this in a previous post you failed to counter.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

There is a risk that a drink of liquor can ruin someone's life, should we make it illegal? Lots of people use Marijuana to cope with other issues, it is safer than many of the pharmaceuticals that are being precribed. It's not for everyone, but nothing is. The big advantage is that it's not an addictive drug like Alcohol or tobacco or caffeine which are all legal.

Well, it is changing the subject, but yes, I believe liquor should be more tightly controlled. And no, I won't deny that the massive damage done by corporate backed prescriptions of pharmaceutical painkillers.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

That graph shoes a year over year increase for 10 years. In the social sciences, we would call that pretty much evidence.

As I said, your hypothetical optimal outcomes don't come close to mitigating the potentially massive risks.

Why doesn't your opinion change after seeing that study? In a previous post, you insinuated that the risks were minuscule. Well, clearly, they are quite profound.

And this study shows a decrease for the past 15 years and a much larger sample size, so it seems that you're being selective with your evidence.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/The+....8j41jrLV.dpbs
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm....8j41jrLV.dpuf

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Stop deflecting already. We have all seen it and acknowledge it. We have also acknowledged how little it means in the grand scheme of legalizing marijuana. This study should be a proponent for legalizing weed and it's silly to think otherwise.

I've already discussed this in a previous post you failed to counter.

Sorry, if you fail to see why that study is important when tied into the larger picture of increasing access, then there is little I can do to convince you otherwise.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So if the government legalizes, and sells in stores requiring ID, at a reasonable price(not way above black market), wouldn't it follow that there would be far fewer dealers around to sell to the youth because they have lost their market? Logically, wouldn't it be tougher for minors to access in a legalized market?

Originally Posted by peter12

As the study I posted states (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/....2016.15070878):

This is terrifying.

So given it is terrifying, care to address my post above? Would legalizing not, logically, make it harder for minors to access it? Your previous response didn't really address that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sorry, if you fail to see why that study is important when tied into the larger picture of increasing access, then there is little I can do to convince you otherwise.

As a social scientist you must see why an average of "last month use" over a two-year span is an incredibly poor sample size to draw conclusions from.