Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gailbraithe wrote:Hey Phrxis and Monster Pain, you guys want to knock off the gross character assassination, or should I just sit here and proclaim from my perch that the two of you are mindless nationalist, unthinking zealots for America who are completely blind to even the possibility that there could be anything rotten in Denmark?

First they would have to actually engage in character assassination, though I think you pretty well covered the quota for this thread right there.

Gailbraithe wrote:
America does evil. Proclaiming that I hate myself and my parents failed because I can recognize that my country is not a Perfect Bastion Of Holy Goodness And Perfection only makes the two of you jackasses. Trolling jackasses.

Well, you do love your hyperbole, I guess that's something. Not a good thing, but a thing nonetheless.

Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.

I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.

It makes no sense.

Gailbraithe wrote: If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't,

I don't know what campuses you've been on, but both of those thing occur all the time. Hell, I knew some guys that paid for their own recreation by acting as unofficial middlemen between liquor stores and underage customers.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.

If the use of cheap consumer goods necessarily makes one an 'evil', then just about everyone on the planet is evil. An implication that essentially neuters your critique.

Agreed. Also, the use of consumer goods actually feeds a rather large amount into the American tax system, which funds social programs and international aid which is good.

The statement in red outlines the belief of a world class extremist. Just pointing that out for future reference.

Actually, US international aid is one of the lowest among developed nations, which was discussed in the thread on giving aid to the Pakistan floods.

That doesn't make all Americans evil, of course.

I think most Americans only do what a lot of us would do if we had the opportunity. Americans were brought up in that style of living, so it seems completely natural to them. Also it is difficult in the USA to live a European or Japanese lifestyle. For example, towns are very spread out and there is almost no public transport, so you need a car just for basic living.

My brother gleefully sold up his house in London for a massive profit, moved to Eugene, Oregon and is living the American dream, with a four bedroom house for a family of two, watching six NFL matches a week on cable, and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waagh!Balzsmasha! wrote:You still havent explained what your sarcastic remark meant. What does hyperbole have to do with a sarcastic remark about my country (drugs/country). You answered my question by making a completely different point. I suspect you wont attempt to answer it.

It's a fair question, and here is my response.

You made a claim that the USA has been completely undermined by drugs. What might that mean?

Increasing crime rate
Corruption of the political and legal processes
A declining economy
Inability to find healthy recruits for the armed force
Spreading poverty
Reducing educational attainment

What evidence is there that any of these things are happening in the USA? What evidence is there that drugs are causing it?

There doesn't appear to be any such evidence, so your statement looks very over the top.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
If you're American, you're an evil unto this world. Make your peace with that, or shut up.

If the use of cheap consumer goods necessarily makes one an 'evil', then just about everyone on the planet is evil. An implication that essentially neuters your critique.

Agreed. Also, the use of consumer goods actually feeds a rather large amount into the American tax system, which funds social programs and international aid which is good.

The statement in red outlines the belief of a world class extremist. Just pointing that out for future reference.

Actually, US international aid is one of the lowest among developed nations, which was discussed in the thread on giving aid to the Pakistan floods.

I don't think I ever compared the US's international aid to other nations'.

And Americans individually gave a gak ton of money to Haiti, so take that as you will.

This is a pretty good article on the subject.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/4-reasons-why-americans-arent-giving-for-pakistan-flood-relief/61898/

You implicitly compared the US's aid by saying that American spending on consumer goods raises taxes which are spent on foreign aid.

There's no doubt that Americans give generously from their private purses. There are many foundations such as the Getty Foundation and Bill Gates's.

Monster Rain wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.

If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.

As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.

There is always going to be someone willing to sell drugs to kids, as was stated earlier. If some of the statements here are true, it seems it's fairly organized within the schools themselves in some areas. The stores will only add another source along with the dealers already selling to kids.

I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.

Perhaps, but the stats on teen alcoholism show that kids are able to get the stuff in fair amounts. I think the same would be true for legalized drugs.

Gailbraithe wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.

Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.

After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.

That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...

It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.

Kilkrazy wrote:You implicitly compared the US's aid by saying that American spending on consumer goods raises taxes which are spent on foreign aid.

It wasn't my intention...

Just saying that US Foreign Aid comes from taxes, that's all.

Goliath wrote:That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...

It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.

You're also a Brit. We were discussing American teens.

Goliath wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:Look at the stats for teen age alcoholism and the damage it does. Alcohol isn't hard for kids to get, and the idea I get from people posting here that want legalized drugs is to make them as easy to get as alcohol. I lived in a crack house for 6 months and had several classmates that used drugs . I have a real good idea from first hand knowledge what drugs do to people, and it's worse than alcohol.

Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol. I know when I was in high school it was much, much easier to get weed and acid than whiskey and beer.

After all, drug dealers don't card check like convenience stores do.

That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...

It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.

When I was 16 it was easier to buy weed than alcohol. This is, of course, different to 'getting hold' of things, but stealing is wrong. If your parents don't mind you taking their booze that's different.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Goliath wrote:That only applies for drug dealers and people who have bought from them previously. I'm 16, and I can't really go around on the street asking to buy marijuana off of people, I would have to find out about a reputable one from some of m freinds, then contact him, then arrange a meeting place, whereas all it would take for me to get hold of alcohol, is to walk downstairs and take it out of the cupboard...

It's easier for me to get hold of alcohol than weed.

You're also a Brit. We were discussing American teens.

It's ridiculous to discuss it in the first place.

Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.

Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.

I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.

It makes no sense.

Monster Rain wrote:Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.

We were discussing the findings of a survey of American teens living under American laws. Given that the UK has different laws and different factors -- one of the most significant being the absence of large scale marijuana farming inside the UK's own borders, necessitating that marijuana be imported to the UK from the mainland -- one cannot reasonably expect a British teen to have the same experience as an American teen. Goliath was citing his personal experience as an exception to the point I made, but because he's in the UK and the studies I was referencing are of American teens, his experience as a UK teen can hardly be consider an exception.

It is neither dismissive or rude to point out that Goliath's apparent exception is not actually relevant. If we were discussing Islam, and I were to say "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim." and a poster from Syria said "Well, I'm a teen, and everyone I know is Muslim." would you consider that relevant to the point that "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim?" Would you consider it dismissive or rude

I think you're simply labeling my point as dismissive and rude because, absent a real argument, you simply want to attack my character and insinuate that I am dismissive and rude. Which makes you a raging hypocrite.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.

Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.

I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.

It makes no sense.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.

We were discussing the findings of a survey of American teens living under American laws. Given that the UK has different laws and different factors -- one of the most significant being the absence of large scale marijuana farming inside the UK's own borders, necessitating that marijuana be imported to the UK from the mainland -- one cannot reasonably expect a British teen to have the same experience as an American teen. Goliath was citing his personal experience as an exception to the point I made, but because he's in the UK and the studies I was referencing are of American teens, his experience as a UK teen can hardly be consider an exception.

It is neither dismissive or rude to point out that Goliath's apparent exception is not actually relevant. If we were discussing Islam, and I were to say "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim." and a poster from Syria said "Well, I'm a teen, and everyone I know is Muslim." would you consider that relevant to the point that "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim?" Would you consider it dismissive or rude

I think you're simply labeling my point as dismissive and rude because, absent a real argument, you simply want to attack my character and insinuate that I am dismissive and rude. Which makes you a raging hypocrite.

Gailbraithe wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.

Why? What possible rationale is there to believe that? What is it about marijuana that is in any way different than tobacco? That makes no sense at all.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Though for someone who claims to smoke occasionally, I'd think you'd be able to cite a few significant differences betwixt pot and cigarettes.

I can't think of any that have any bearing on the point in question. You can smuggle cigarettes onto a campus just as easily as joints. That's the relevant characteristics to this question: size and weight. If kids can buy tobacco and booze from a store and then smuggle them onto campus and sell them there but don't, then what possible reason would there be to believe that would magically change if the product was marijuana.

It makes no sense.

I notice that you aren't actually addressing the point at all, and rather you are rudely dismissing my argument.

If there is a relevant characteristic of marijuana that makes it far more likely to be re-sold from legitimate vendors by high schoolers than tobacco, then surely you can identify that characteristic. Facepalming in lieu of an actual point would seem to indicate you have no actual point.

Relapse wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:For every corner store there is more than likely many, many, many drug dealers. It really depends on how you define 'drug dealer' but the idea that stores replacing dealers would create more access, is flimsy at best. This all assumes that stores would in fact replace dealers, which is also a bit flexible, although, not particularly flimsy.

If large scale legal business can do anything, it can take a ton of money out of the pockets of the black market. You don't need to shut it down (which is probably impossible), just the ability to effectively disincentive the process of selling pot illegally. I have seen no information to suggest that teens even make up the largest part of the illegal pot market, and I would be surprised if it were in fact the case.

As soon as the illegal market loses it's largest share, you will see the beginning of a massive loss of profit, probably over the course of 6-12 months.

There is always going to be someone willing to sell drugs to kids, as was stated earlier. If some of the statements here are true, it seems it's fairly organized within the schools themselves in some areas. The stores will only add another source along with the dealers already selling to kids.

I think the point is that you don't see a lot of dealers selling alcohol and tobacco to kids, which legalization would ostensibly cause to happen with marijuana.

Perhaps, but the stats on teen alcoholism show that kids are able to get the stuff in fair amounts. I think the same would be true for legalized drugs.

I am not entirely sure what the confusion outside of your point is about but I will attempt to clarify on my point to you, Relapse.

I would rather see and fully expect to see via legalization/regulation, the loss of profits for drug cartels, concerning marijuana. I do not follow the concept of regulation leading to greater access, as regulation would seemingly reduce the availability of a substance. A person can choose to get alcohol for a minor, yet they face some pretty serious consequences if caught. There is no reason to say that some adults wouldn't be willing to purchase regulated substances for a minor illegally, as is the case with alcohol and tobacco. What is important to note, as I have mentioned many times now, is the very reasonable assumption that removing the profit from marijuana out of the hands of cartels equals putting it into the pockets of legitimate businesses. That would be a good thing IMO.

While the access to a regulated substance should be no less than unavailable to a minor, there just aren't serious ways to go about stopping it altogether. A few kids will get pot from a few people, just like a few kids get alcohol from a few people. I personally think that minors become adults at age 18, along with extended responsibility from age 16. That is another subject entirely but it goes to the point of what we are actually talking about when we say kids. Should 16 year old's smoke pot and drink? Meh, no, not really. 18+ though, that is a different story. If I were to say that I actually consider a 19 year old drinking a beer, or a 25 year old that bought them that beer, serious criminals, I would be kidding myself. Even more so if it were a cousin visiting from a country where it was in fact legal to do just that.

It would not surprise me in the least if the majority of underage drinking and promotion of that illegal activity, took place in a format not unfamiliar to a great many people currently going to college. I have seen friends get absolutely trashed (dangerously so) on their 21st birthday, which in my opinion presents a greater threat to our society as a whole. If not a greater threat, it provides an acute pain in our collective backside. I would rather 18 year olds knew that getting trashed as all hell all the time, is a bad idea, and I would prefer if they learned that early. Just my opinion.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Different areas are going to have different availability of different things. That said, why wouldn't similar issues in the UK be applicable to the discussion? That was a little dismissive and rude, IMHO.

We were discussing the findings of a survey of American teens living under American laws. Given that the UK has different laws and different factors -- one of the most significant being the absence of large scale marijuana farming inside the UK's own borders, necessitating that marijuana be imported to the UK from the mainland -- one cannot reasonably expect a British teen to have the same experience as an American teen. Goliath was citing his personal experience as an exception to the point I made, but because he's in the UK and the studies I was referencing are of American teens, his experience as a UK teen can hardly be consider an exception.

It is neither dismissive or rude to point out that Goliath's apparent exception is not actually relevant. If we were discussing Islam, and I were to say "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim." and a poster from Syria said "Well, I'm a teen, and everyone I know is Muslim." would you consider that relevant to the point that "Studies demonstrate that most American teens are not Muslim?" Would you consider it dismissive or rude

I think you're simply labeling my point as dismissive and rude because, absent a real argument, you simply want to attack my character and insinuate that I am dismissive and rude. Which makes you a raging hypocrite.

Well you were dismissive and rude.

Check your post.

At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?

Because otherwise, you were being dismissive and rude, because my experience differs from your own, because mine is relating to current teenagers, whilst yours is relating to teenagers from a few years ago. (as pointed out by your "when I was in high school" which would indicate a few years ago).

Check your own rhetoric before criticising others or being snide about their comments.

I can honestly state that as an American who has spent most of his life as a minor (so far) that it would have been much easier to get alcohol than drugs.

I mean, more people drink than do drugs and far fewer people object to anyone having a drink or two than to that same person doing drugs. That's my anecdotal evidence.

Monster Rain wrote:Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.

It's illegal to sell tobacco to minors. The majority of high school teens are minors. Thus if you're a minor then you can't go to a corner store and buy them. Likewise, it marijuana was legalized, it would still be illegal to sell to minors -- the vast majority of pro-legalization proponents favor age restricted sales, and I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana should be legalized and completely unregulated.

So if the argument against legalization is that having marijuana available at the corner store will make marijuana more accessible to teens than it already is, then why is marijuana already more accessible to teens that the two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are currently sold in corner stores? Why would anyone assume that marijuana would become easier to obtain if it were sold in corner stores, when the legal drugs sold in corner stores are already harder to obtain?

My contention is that if marijuana were legalized, it would significantly alter the nature of the distribution networks for marijuana sales. The profitability of underground markets would be severely damaged -- adult users are far more likely to buy from the corner store (or marijuana clubs, which seems to be the direction the market is heading) than to deal with shady street vendors and dealers. With the loss of the adult user market, I don't think the teen market is sufficient to make maintaining the black market networks profitable for those who supply the dealers who deal out of the schools. It's simply not a large enough customer base to keep the cartels functioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:Well you were dismissive and rude.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and it certainly wasn't my intention, but I don't think a fair reading of my comment support taking offense.

At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?

And if you continue to follow the conversation, you'll see that the evidence I was referring to is the CASA surveys of American teens.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.

It's illegal to sell tobacco to minors. The majority of high school teens are minors. Thus if you're a minor then you can't go to a corner store and buy them. Likewise, it marijuana was legalized, it would still be illegal to sell to minors -- the vast majority of pro-legalization proponents favor age restricted sales, and I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana should be legalized and completely unregulated.

So if the argument against legalization is that having marijuana available at the corner store will make marijuana more accessible to teens than it already is, then why is marijuana already more accessible to teens that the two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are currently sold in corner stores? Why would anyone assume that marijuana would become easier to obtain if it were sold in corner stores, when the legal drugs sold in corner stores are already harder to obtain?

My contention is that if marijuana were legalized, it would significantly alter the nature of the distribution networks for marijuana sales. The profitability of underground markets would be severely damaged -- adult users are far more likely to buy from the corner store (or marijuana clubs, which seems to be the direction the market is heading) than to deal with shady street vendors and dealers. With the loss of the adult user market, I don't think the teen market is sufficient to make maintaining the black market networks profitable for those who supply the dealers who deal out of the schools. It's simply not a large enough customer base to keep the cartels functioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:Well you were dismissive and rude.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and it certainly wasn't my intention, but I don't think a fair reading of my comment support taking offense.

At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?

And if you continue to follow the conversation, you'll see that the evidence I was referring to is the CASA surveys of American teens.

Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.

The tobacco laws were not so strict back in the 1620s.

True that, but your opportunity costs were higher. Luckily genetics helped insure I was not a scalping priority...

Frazzled wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Why would you smuggle cigarettes into a campus anyway? The point is that if you can go to a corner store and buy them it cuts down on the need for underground traffic.

It's illegal to sell tobacco to minors. The majority of high school teens are minors. Thus if you're a minor then you can't go to a corner store and buy them. Likewise, it marijuana was legalized, it would still be illegal to sell to minors -- the vast majority of pro-legalization proponents favor age restricted sales, and I don't think anyone is arguing that marijuana should be legalized and completely unregulated.

So if the argument against legalization is that having marijuana available at the corner store will make marijuana more accessible to teens than it already is, then why is marijuana already more accessible to teens that the two legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are currently sold in corner stores? Why would anyone assume that marijuana would become easier to obtain if it were sold in corner stores, when the legal drugs sold in corner stores are already harder to obtain?

My contention is that if marijuana were legalized, it would significantly alter the nature of the distribution networks for marijuana sales. The profitability of underground markets would be severely damaged -- adult users are far more likely to buy from the corner store (or marijuana clubs, which seems to be the direction the market is heading) than to deal with shady street vendors and dealers. With the loss of the adult user market, I don't think the teen market is sufficient to make maintaining the black market networks profitable for those who supply the dealers who deal out of the schools. It's simply not a large enough customer base to keep the cartels functioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:Well you were dismissive and rude.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and it certainly wasn't my intention, but I don't think a fair reading of my comment support taking offense.

At no point do you mention that you were discussing American teens, you merely stated "Actually, all of the evidence I've seen indicates that it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than to get alcohol" Can you please point out where it says "US Minors"?

And if you continue to follow the conversation, you'll see that the evidence I was referring to is the CASA surveys of American teens.

Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I had ample smokes for the entirety of my high school career, though weed could be difficult to get at times. If they were selling it legally any of my 18+ friends could get me a dimebag any day of the week.

yep.

I have found that nearly every store I have been in ID's me if they do not know me as a regular customer. There have been a couple of occasions where I could not buy alcohol because a mate didn't have ID as well, which I found ridiculous. Besides all of that, it is much easier to report an individual for illegal activity if the action is taking place within a specific store and not where any given dealer feels like conducting business.

Nearby there is a corner store that was shut down and heavily penalized for selling alcohol to minors. The fine was nearly enough to shut down that business forever and I am frankly surprised that they had the resources to eventually re-open. Stores getting shut down for selling to minors is not exactly uncommon.

It is certainly more difficult to stop adults from buying substances that are illegal for minors, specifically for the purpose of giving those substances to minors. I do not feel that it would honestly be easier for minors in general to gain access to pot, simply if it were available in a store. It is reasonable to assume there would be much the same problem that is presented by alcohol and tobacco but I have a hard time seeing the possibility as an epidemic of grand proportions.

Depending on your area, drug dealers are no less than walking the streets pursuing their sales. Stores tend to stay in one place, offering the same things from that one location. You don't have to chase down a store for breaking the law, where you would need to in the case of an actual dealer. Stores tend to avoid shooting at each other when business goes wrong, where drug dealers are generally more likely to resort to the use of firearms to resolve disputes. While many pot dealers specifically could be considered middle men, their illegal practices are harder to track and more difficult to punish. I would suggest that the cost involved involved in keeping pot illegal and unregulated, outweighs the potential for a rise in the use of marijuana among teens.

It would be interesting to see whether or not that actually happened, even if I do consider the possibility that a drastic increase seen years on end would be very unlikely. I would guess that an increase could be connected quite strongly with the advertising that would inevitably come with the legalization/regulation of pot. I also see few reasons why that problem could not be addressed when such a situation occurs.

What ways are there to discourage the act of buying drugs for teenagers? Heavy fines, jail time and other forms of direct punishment are the most obvious. I am not entirely sure how effective anything beyond that would be. Does anyone know how effective current anti-pot campaigns are? Would they become more or less effective as pot is legalized, mainly, would advertising from companies selling pot flood the market in a way that necessarily neutralized anti-pot campaigns? Doesn't seem all that unlikely it would in fact be the case.

If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?

Kilkrazy wrote:If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?

They're punished pretty severely for selling tobacco and alcohol to minors IIRC.

Not very much apparently.


http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social-assistance-lifestyle/ethics-misconduct/13907177-1.html

Kilkrazy wrote:If a cornershop owner could make a good profit from selling cannabis to adults, and would be very severely punished for selling to minors, how likely would be he to sell to minors?

It's no trick for teens to get alcohol where fines and punishment can happen. Why would it be any harder to get drugs?

Kilkrazy wrote:Not very much apparently.


http://www.allbusiness.com/society-social-assistance-lifestyle/ethics-misconduct/13907177-1.html

You say apparently not, bit then post a link that shows the law being significantly stiffened...

Did I miss something?

Frazzled wrote:Wait are you claiming that because cigarettes theoretically can't be sold to minors that it won't be easier for them to get weed if its also at the local store? That belies reality. Its easier to get ciggies than weed when I was younger. There was no issue getting ciggies from the local 7/11.

Follow along:

1. According to the CASA survey the average teen can get marijuana easier than tobacco or alcohol (henceforth legal drugs). The survey is the aggregate of thousands of anecdotal self-reports such as yours, and if we're being reasonable should be considered better evidence than our anecdotes.
1.1 The primary difference is average length of time it takes to procure the drug. 24 hours in the case of legal drugsl, one hour in the case of marijuana.
1.2 The primary reason for this difference is cited as the presence of marijuana vendors (aka dealers) on campus and the lack of alcohol and tobacco vendors.
1.3 A secondary reason for this difference is cited as ever stricter enforcement of age limit policies.
1.3.1 Enforcement varies from city to city and region to region, so YMMV. But that's the danger of anecdotes.

2. Legal drugs are sold in corner stores.
2.1 Marijuana is not.

3. The argument was made that if marijuana was sold in corner stores, then it would be easier for teens to get marijuana.
3.1 It was argued that marijuana would be easier to get on campuses if it were sold in corner stores.

4. I rebutted that if marijuana being sold in corner stores would make it easier for teens to acquire marijuana than it currently is, then legal drugs would currently already be easier to get than marijuana.
4.1 Legal drugs are sold in corner stores. See 2.
4.2 Legal drugs are not currently easier to get than marijuana. See 1.

There is no logical reason to assume that it would be easier for teens to get marijuana if it were legalized and sold in corner stores when it is currently harder for teens to get the stuff that is currently sold in corner stores.