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:

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.

Yes, if you had a friend who was old enough it would be just as easy to get marijuana as it is to get tobacco or alcohol.

What are you on about?

Monster Rain wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

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.

Yes, if you had a friend who was old enough it would be just as easy to get marijuana as it is to get tobacco or alcohol.

What are you on about?

See point 1. Do you understand what point 1 means?

It means that if it was just as easy to get marijuana as it is to get tobacco and alcohol then it would have become harder to get marijuana than it currently is.

Have you read the CASA survey? Do you know their methodology? Whether or not the result was qualitative or quantitative? Right now you're expecting us to trust your anecdotal recollection of the survey. One survey among what I presume is a large field of surveys.

As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.

Adults 18-25 made up the largest portion to report using drugs ever, within the past year, AND within the past 30 days. That is the demographic that will see a significant rise if anything, not that I assume these statistics are rock solid. It would not be surprising to see a jump in drug use amongst 12-17 year old's but it would certainly be surprising if it jumped at the rate I would expect the 18-25 demographic to.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/

Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.

What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.

Alright, well, I can't seem to find the full study (I'm not really looking hard, though). However, from what I can see the issues is that some teens state that its easier to get marijuana than alcohol, or cigarettes. However, the percentage of teens stating this appears to be ~40%. As such, this study does not support the idea that alcohol and cigarettes are less readily available than marijuana, only that in some cases that may be true (quantitative studies of qualititative attitudes do not produce definitive results).

Look here and here.

Monster Rain wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.

What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

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.

I think I understand this but the conversation has kind of wrapped over itself a few times. While you believe that overall access to pot by minors will become more limited due to legalization/regulation, at the same time, those same minors will also be able to get pot from a store via an adult illegally; BUT that last point will NOT contribute significantly to the overall consumption of marijuana through pot dealers.

Short: pot dealers will lose business to legitimate businesses, necessarily addressing the point of this entire thread.

Right?

Wrexasaur wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.

What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

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.

I think I understand this but the conversation has kind of wrapped over itself a few times. While you believe that overall access to pot by minors will become more limited due to legalization/regulation, at the same time, those same minors will also be able to get pot from a store via an adult illegally; BUT that last point will NOT contribute significantly to the overall consumption of marijuana through pot dealers.

Short: pot dealers will lose business to legitimate businesses, necessarily addressing the point of this entire thread.

Right?

Yes! Yes! For feth's sake, yes!

Thank God and sonny Jesus that Wrexasaur is here to translate my posts!

Cool.

Time for a quick interlude.

Monster Rain wrote:

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?

The fine used to be $25 (first offence) which is peanuts, and that it was increased to $100, however we don't have any evidence of the impact of this on illegal sales to minors. (IMO $100 isn't a lot, actually.)

My idea is that if the fine were $1,000 for a first offence, it would have a considerable deterrent effect. Of course my proposal also lacks evidentiary support at the moment.

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?

Really likely, judging by days gone by...

Wrexasaur wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, Monster Rain (and others) are simply suggesting that while access to marijuana could become more restrictive, it would not stop a great deal of minors from gaining access by means of an adult. I personally do not agree with that.

What I'm suggesting is that it would make marijuana harder to get if there was no longer an illegal market for it, as in there would be less money for the dealers to sell it when anyone could just buy it at the store. For the same reason you don't see people dealing cigarettes and alcohol quite as much as you do other, more illegal substances.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

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.

I think I understand this but the conversation has kind of wrapped over itself a few times. While you believe that overall access to pot by minors will become more limited due to legalization/regulation, at the same time, those same minors will also be able to get pot from a store via an adult illegally; BUT that last point will NOT contribute significantly to the overall consumption of marijuana through pot dealers.

Short: pot dealers will lose business to legitimate businesses, necessarily addressing the point of this entire thread.

Right?

Wrex,

I also included harder drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and meth in the conversation on the premise that people here are saying these drugs should be legal also. Other posters are just talking about pot to the exclusion of the other drugs I mentioned. These are the ones I really worry about becoming as easily available to teens as alcohol now is. My 6 months of living in a crack house (not using drugs, just needed a really cheap rent at a realy bad time in my life) gave me a really good insight on how addictive and damaging these drugs are to people and how people get drawn into using this crap.
Gateway drugs are not a myth from what I saw there.

I am quite sure that most involved in this thread were aware that you are referring to drugs collectively. I personally have a problem with lumping all substances into the same concept, beyond the fact that they have an effect on people, of some kind. If you are considering pot a gateway drug, meaning that pot automatically includes addiction to substances further along the line (or in the majority of cases, whatever), then you have effectively shut the conversation down and left it at a point in which people must decide whether they want to agree with you or not. I think that is silly, if it is in fact what you are doing.

It seems reasonable enough to separate pot from the long list of other, harder illicit substances. Where it could be considered unfair to lump tobacco, alcohol, and pot together in a category of 'acceptable substances', it is far from being completely unreasonable. If you simply won't consider substances on an individual basis, this conversation has very few outcomes, most of them no more than limited entirely, by what you think personally. It becomes a matter of hand-waving the differences between various substances out of the conversation, which again, I consider silly.

It would be no less than shocking if the majority of posters in this topic used hard drugs on any sort of regular basis, to the exclusion of perhaps trying some of the drugs mentioned in one form or another. Amphetamine = Adderall for instance, Opium = various forms of pain medication, etc...

There are drugs that I simply do not support for legal, recreational use, but pot is just not among those substances. As far as I understand it, the only reasonable way to make the gateway drug argument make any sense at all, is if the drug itself is only part of the actual problem. By this I mean, the fact that one smoked pot is not the reason an individual moved onto slamming heroin and snorting coke regularly; it is more for the fact that they did so in an environment which offered further substances that were readily available in that environment.

It would make more sense to work with a concept of a 'gateway environment', rather than try to brand a specific drug such as marijuana, as a significant reason individuals would use hard drugs. You are left assuming that people start off with pot, where many would argue that alcohol could be seen as the primary actor in that role. I think that is silly as well, simply because it seems to ignore the main factors involved in the onset of addiction within a large part of our society.

My opinion.

@Wrex,

True enough, gateway enviornment is a better term. From what I've seen at parties and the like, it always seemed that people had harder drugs present as well as pot. Before long there would be others that came looking for pot trying out the new stuff, and from personal observation it bacame a habit with some of them.

One of the things that always bothered me about the place I lived was the regular exposure young children had to drugs because of their parents usage. I saw kids of toddler age up to teens sitting in the middle of adults smoking pot, crack, meth and using other drugs.

Gateway enviornment is a very good description for where I was living at the time. It was not uncommon to see people of all ages showing up there looking for drugs or the people living there to go out dealing.
Most people there couldn't get a conversation going beyond how high they'd gotten the night before or how high they were going to get. For a change of pace, there were epic tales of how high they'd gotten a few years before, when they were in high school or college.
I had a conversation about this with a friend of mine who is a volunteer fireman. From the number of accidents he's had to go out to involving drugs or alcohol, he agrees with me that drugs have no business being legalized.
This brings me back to the original point of the thread where I stated that buying cocaine, crack and other similar drugs is basically enabling the cartels to continue murdering and terrorizing people in Mexico and other countries. Some of the posters on the thread have compared prohibition of alcohol to the government outlawing drugs and called for their legalization as a means to stop the cartels.

Relapse wrote:@Wrex,

True enough, gateway enviornment is a better term. From what I've seen at parties and the like, it always seemed that people had harder drugs present as well as pot. Before long there would be others that came looking for pot trying out the new stuff, and from personal observation it bacame a habit with some of them.

One of the things that always bothered me about the place I lived was the regular exposure young children had to drugs because of their parents usage. I saw kids of toddler age up to teens sitting in the middle of adults smoking pot, crack, meth and using other drugs.

Gateway enviornment is a very good description for where I was living at the time. It was not uncommon to see people of all ages showing up there looking for drugs or the people living there to go out dealing.
Most people there couldn't get a conversation going beyond how high they'd gotten the night before or how high they were going to get. For a change of pace, there were epic tales of how high they'd gotten a few years before, when they were in high school or college.
I had a conversation about this with a friend of mine who is a volunteer fireman. From the number of accidents he's had to go out to involving drugs or alcohol, he agrees with me that drugs have no business being legalized.
This brings me back to the original point of the thread where I stated that buying cocaine, crack and other similar drugs is basically enabling the cartels to continue murdering and terrorizing people in Mexico and other countries. Some of the posters on the thread have compared prohibition of alcohol to the government outlawing drugs and called for their legalization as a means to stop the cartels.

Thats the key, pot doesn't lead to harder drugs but since most kids are introduced to pot be people who already do harder drugs they are more likely to try said harder drugs. There's a big difference between pot and crack, one is will quite literally melt your brain and can be incredibly dangerous, while pot is less dangerous then alcohol.

Most of the people I knew that started with pot at some point or another tried more exotic stuff. Now most of them didn't become crack addicts, they all did experiment with other things. Of the people I know that never smoked pot, almost none of them have tried harder drugs.

That is because some people are more open to new experiences than others.

You will probably find you know people who have visited a foreign country are more likely to have visited multiple foreign countries.

Kilkrazy wrote:According to this US government web page, the US imports about 4.5 million tons of coal a year from south American countries.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t18p01p1.html

I know this is from way back but couldn't let it pass.

That's enough coal to supply an average 1.5 gigawatt power plant for a year. The US has 335 gigawatts of coal power in the US. So we are importing about 0.45% of our coal from South America. Put another way, we burned over a billion tons of coal last year so 4.5 million tons is pretty much nothing.

If 0.45% is pretty much nothing, is 0.2% less?