Justin Trudeau says marijuana should be legalized

[rubecube]

UNICEF reports Canadian teens are among the heaviest pot users in the world. More than 22% reported lighting up within the previous year.

But didn't peter say that legalization increases access and instances of use among teens, so why are our numbers higher than places where decriminalization/legalization have already taken place?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But didn't peter say that legalization increases access and instances of use among teens, so why are our numbers higher than places where decriminalization/legalization have already taken place?

Peter Hitchens has made an excellent point on this front - the war on drugs is de facto already over. There is no enforcement.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Peter Hitchens has made an excellent point on this front - the war on drugs is de facto already over. There is no enforcement.

Uhhh what?

http://drugabuse.com/the-20-countrie...-in-the-world/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhhh what?

http://drugabuse.com/the-20-countrie...-in-the-world/

Obvious misdirection on your part, but sorry, I meant in Canada, and the UK.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obvious misdirection on your part, but sorry, I meant in Canada, and the UK.

Well, no, I actually thought you were referring to the global war. When does Hitchens suggest that the war on drugs ended in these countries? How do the numbers compare for teen use prior to its end compared to countries with more relaxed drug laws during the same period?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well, no, I actually thought you were referring to the global war. When does Hitchens suggest that the war on drugs ended in these countries? How do the numbers compare for teen use prior to its end compared to countries with more relaxed drug laws during the same period?

An excellent, thought-provoking read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_We_Never_Fought

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

An excellent, thought-provoking read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_We_Never_Fought

Sounds more polemic than academic but I'll take a look when I have time.

[Coach]

I actually agree with peter's point about the war on drugs, but believe it illustrates the opposite of what he wished to do.

Yeah, it's hardly enforced. I've been caught smoking numerous times by police and the most that's ever happened is they tell me to put it out and get rid of it. It's not enforced because, honestly, cops don't give a what about a substance that 1/3 of adults use anyways. They know there's nothing to really do about it.

So, do you think that putting the drug behind counters with age limits would curb a lot of that teen use? Because, as it stands, they can throw a stone in their high school and hit someone who knows a dealer.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I actually agree with peter's point about the war on drugs, but believe it illustrates the opposite of what he wished to do.

Yeah, it's hardly enforced. I've been caught smoking numerous times by police and the most that's ever happened is they tell me to put it out and get rid of it. It's not enforced because, honestly, cops don't give a what about a substance that 1/3 of adults use anyways. They know there's nothing to really do about it.

So, do you think that putting the drug behind counters with age limits would curb a lot of that teen use? Because, as it stands, they can throw a stone in their high school and hit someone who knows a dealer.

Not really. I've kept a pretty strict stance on enforcement.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not really. I've kept a pretty strict stance on enforcement.

Enforcement of what? The smoking or the dealing? The smoking won't get stopped unless enforcement is prison time for possession (and for some not even then). Isn't the best way to enforce no black market dealing to eliminate the black market as best as possible?

So what do you think should happen to someone such as myself, minding my own business walking my dog through an empty park with a joint? (however, it's my understanding that most legalized states/countries have 'not in public" contingencies)

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by peter12

An excellent, thought-provoking read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_We_Never_Fought

Oh the book is about Canada and the UK? But primarily about Canada, right? That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is what point you and this person are trying to make. We should fuel the war on drugs because it is such a success in the countries other than the ones he was writing about (Canada, and a little bit on UK)?

It definitely is well-reviewed though, so there's that. Oh, nope, wait, completely torn apart as hysterical non-sequitur moralizing and trolling. Contemptuous for opposing thought and completely blind to the existence of anything that he disagrees with. And also, not even funny like his brother. I didn't know this guy existed until now, but it makes sense that you're a fan.

[Delthefunky]

This thread is a clinic on logical fallacies. Thanks Peter12!.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I actually agree with peter's point about the war on drugs, but believe it illustrates the opposite of what he wished to do.

Yeah, it's hardly enforced. I've been caught smoking numerous times by police and the most that's ever happened is they tell me to put it out and get rid of it. It's not enforced because, honestly, cops don't give a what about a substance that 1/3 of adults use anyways. They know there's nothing to really do about it.

So, do you think that putting the drug behind counters with age limits would curb a lot of that teen use? Because, as it stands, they can throw a stone in their high school and hit someone who knows a dealer.

Source?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by heep223

Source?

There's been a few sources in here that show audlt use upwards of 33% (i think that's any use at all). I believe it, especially for young adults. Not habitually, but if I'm at a party with a variety of people, and someone brings out weed. The amount of people who smoke definitely outweighs the number who won't. Even if that's the only time they smoke all year, they should probably be counted as someone who uses the product.

[Fuzz]

Maybe this?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mari...rvey-1.3312151

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe this?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mari...rvey-1.3312151

More evidence that legalization increases consumption.

[Izzle]

Did anyone else actually facepalm IRL after reading ^?

[Fuzz]

No, it's evidence that government policy controls citizens actions.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There's been a few sources in here that show audlt use upwards of 33% (i think that's any use at all). I believe it, especially for young adults. Not habitually, but if I'm at a party with a variety of people, and someone brings out weed. The amount of people who smoke definitely outweighs the number who won't. Even if that's the only time they smoke all year, they should probably be counted as someone who uses the product.

There are a lot of pot smokers in this thread rationalizing their usage.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by heep223

There are a lot of pot smokers in this thread rationalizing their usage.

Really? I would bet I'm one of the mroe regular users here and I don't see anyone rationalizing usage (particularly heavy usage) outside od those with medicinal prescriptions.

This has nothing to do with claiming the usage is all good, that there are no negative effects, or even that there are concrete positive effects. This thread in pretty much it's entirety has been about the best way to manage the use by youths and cut out the black market so the country can actually benefit from the usage of a mostly destructive product.

The only thing we have is incomplete studies on the effects of usage and theories about how the people will behave when legalization happens. Some people think it will go one way, some people think it will go the other way, and there are valid points on both sides of the reasoning. The problem is, the valid points on the side of don't legalize get holes poked because it's just a plain fact that a large subset of people use this product regardless of its legality. There's no rationalization of use there. So, you either have to make sentences for possession unpreportionally harsh, or you can try to make the best of a siutation you can't control (people using an illegal substance is pretty large quantities). Keep it illegal sure, but are we seeing benefits from it? All these claims about negative health effects are certainly valid, but only not really so against legalization, because you're not stopping it from happening as it stands. I've yet to see a person in this thread on the side of no legalization come up with a frame-work plan for how they would go about reducing usage (particularly among kids) while keeping it illegal. I'm happy to listen to one. All it is, is studies showing negative health effects. Great, I think we can all agree that's bad. But that's not the question here. The question is how we can best negate the negatives of the usage, understanding that a stance of "just don't smoke" holds exactly zero weight. It's just not going to happen.

What in my post rationalizes the use at all? It's just an anecdote noting how many people actually do use, regardless of legality.