Marijuana

[honoraryjapanesegirl]

Originally Posted by futurebeast

I would say that communities should decide on what is sold to who too. If someone is irresponsible enough to sell weed to a 9 year old, I as a parent (which I am not) should form a citizen group to boycott and kick that retailer out of my neighborhood. That would cause everyone to think twice before doing that again.

Anyways, this should not be a war between you and your children or your children and the state. If your children don't trust or listen to you, you have already failed. They will probably be able to find weed somewhere somehow.

So true...
That I agree with you on...it's the Jesus of Suburbia syndrome...for those of you who are Green Day fans know what I'm talking about.

Basically, there's this guy, and he has this awful home life, and doesn't trust anyone especially from his home. So he goes out and drinks, and does drugs and such (he is underage mind you)...it's the rebellious kinda thing where they (kids) feel they have no where to turn, so they go out and do stuff that is questionable. I think things should be done, not to the kids, to prevent that from happening, but to the parents.

Just my cuchara...XD I shall end my piece there...

~HonoraryJapaneseGirl~

[futurebeast]

Understood. More debate is needed all around.

[futurebeast]

Originally Posted by MMM

I am still trying to figure out how your argument it is bad for you means it should be legalized for children.

I don't think anyone in the pro-marijuana movement would be behind you on this one. A child's brain is growing, so things like nicotine, alcohol, THC, etc can have permanent and irreversible effects, which isn't necessarily true of adults. Children are also not responsible or mature enough to make educated decisions about things like cigarettes and drugs...another reason society makes the collective decision to keep them out of the hands of children.

Isn't being a parent today hard enough without society abandoning parents and opening access to marijuana to children? Should I assume tobacco and alcohol should also be accessible?

I think giving marijuana to a growing child is the epitome of irresponsibility.

It is not really about whether it should or shouldn't be available. It is. Even if it is not sold in the store to a child, they can still get it. Many do everyday. They can also get porn, knives and guns. Where I grew many had all of those things. And there were many laws and steroid pumping cops to go along with them. We need cops that give us directions and solve homicides. The parents role will never be changed. They must educate their children.

The only way to solve the problem using the methods you seem to support would be a world like the matrix. Where you could control every aspect of life. It is just not possible. Prison is just not a solution for anything.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by futurebeast

It is not really about whether it should or shouldn't be available. It is. Even if it is not sold in the store to a child, they can still get it. Many do everyday. They can also get porn, knives and guns. Where I grew many had all of those things. And there were many laws and steroid pumping cops to go along with them. We need cops that give us directions and solve homicides. The parents role will never be changed. They must educate their children.

The only way to solve the problem using the methods you seem to support would be a world like the matrix. Where you could control every aspect of life. It is just not possible. Prison is just not a solution for anything.

In one sentence you talk about the parent's responsibilities, and the next how you know kids who had knives, guns and porn. Which is it?

Many parents either can't or don't take responsibility, so society should not step up?

Are you saying laws should only be reactive and not proactive? Cops should solve murders, but not prevent murders?

The parent's role has completely changed, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. On one hand you have an idealized view of parenthood in 2009, but again, talk about the poor parenting you saw first-hand.

[futurebeast]

Originally Posted by MMM

In one sentence you talk about the parent's responsibilities, and the next how you know kids who had knives, guns and porn. Which is it?

Many parents either can't or don't take responsibility, so society should not step up?

Are you saying laws should only be reactive and not proactive? Cops should solve murders, but not prevent murders?

The parent's role has completely changed, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. On one hand you have an idealized view of parenthood in 2009, but again, talk about the poor parenting you saw first-hand.

Cops don't usually prevent murders except in the sense that they arrest someone who has committed a murder so that they will not commit another. They are only preventing murders when they get to the bank robbery and either shoot or take down and arrest the guy that is about to kill everyone which is not as common. Communities prevent murders by having well constructed social programs like churches and temples so people can have hope and faith, community centers so people have places to turn if they are distressed and jobs so people don't have to rob each other.

I am talking about how even though there are laws so children will not have access to porn, drugs, guns and knives. They still are all able to get them if they are so inclined. These days everyone wants to rely on the state to make sure their kids don't do anything wrong. Which, as clearly shown in the examples I have cited from my life, does not work at all. So what should we do? Parents need to realize their role. That means it would make more sense to put money into parent training programs or websites dedicated to teaching parents how to prevent these situations and also letting parents know it is their responsibility. The state is not going to step in until it is too late and the kid is already a hard criminal. That will light a fire under their butt.

Laws against murder and robbery are not the same as laws limiting personal choice. Laws as such are more akin to thought crimes. Just because you don't do drugs does not mean others should not be allowed too. The same goes for owning guns and knives. The fact that, as I have stated, many kids who have access to drugs etc. do not participate in them is a testament to good parenting. No law is necessary. With that said, if you want to say something to the effect that cops who see a kid with a joint should take it away and call his parents, it would be more of an acceptable situation. A fine, penalty, jail or prison time is, in my opinion, way overboard.

Remember, lately we have seen an increase of police going into peoples homes to deal with situations they should plainly have no part in. Just recently a girl got tased for not going to bed. The mother even condoned it. That kind of president is completely insane and without merit. You see, the state is often much worse at teaching or dealing with children than the parents. It is not you who will take custody of the child if the parents are deemed unsafe or unworthy. It is some faceless government bureaucracy.

So no, I do not believe that the Minority Report is a good standard for the future of law and government.

[burkhartdesu]

I'm neither here nor there, but read this article by an honest, and what seems to be caring, mother:

Why I am giving marijuana to my 9-year-old autistic son.


Also:

Medical Marijuana: No Longer Just for Adults - NYTimes

[futurebeast]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

I'm neither here nor there, but read this article by an honest, and what seems to be caring, mother:

Why I am giving marijuana to my 9-year-old autistic son.


Also:

Medical Marijuana: No Longer Just for Adults - NYTimes

This does not prove my point or anything; I thought I should point that out. But I will say that it does give a very interesting perspective.

Thanks to burkhartdesu.

[MMM]

futurebeast, I understand all your arguments but the foundation one: the justification for the legalization of marijuana use by children.

[futurebeast]

Originally Posted by MMM

futurebeast, I understand all your arguments but the foundation one: the justification for the legalization of marijuana use by children.

I'll make it simple: parents should take responsibility for their own children. People should take responsibility for themselves. The state is there to provide opportunity and protect it, not to tell people what to do. Advise, don't terrorize.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by futurebeast

I'll make it simple: parents should take responsibility for their own children. People should take responsibility for themselves. The state is their to provide opportunity and protect it, not to tell people what to do. Advise, don't terrorize.

Anything I would say would just be repeating the arguments you haven't addressed, so on that note....