This is what I'm saying as well, but I feel like you think I'm saying something different. Nothing is "100% harmless"... not sure anyone said that it was totally harmless. (I've frequently said it's a 'victimless crime', but 100% harmless, no.)

Anything is potential dangerous, addictive, and could lead to someones death; but this does not merit its complete prohibition (especially when the benefits may out way the risks).

I wasn`t replying to you with that post. :) It was a reply to xyzone.

Anyway though - I support legalization, but I find it a bit hard to support someone when they say that it never harms anyone.

I've seen people in all walks of life who have let addiction ruin their lives.

Addiction is tragic, but education is key.


There's actually a anti-pot commercial by the Partnership for a Drug Free America that says something to the effect of:


"I smoked weed and nobody died.
I didn't get into a car accident, I didn't O.D. on heroin the next day, nothing happened.

(Shot widens to show the guy with two friends sitting on the couch)

We sat on Pete's couch for 11 hours.
Now what's going to happen on Pete's couch? Nothing.

(Shot now shows the guys on the couch in the middle of the woods with some mountain bikers riding by. Then to a basketball court. Then an ice rink.)

You have a better shot of dying out there in the real world, driving hard to the rim, ice skating with a girl. No, you wanna keep yourself alive, go over to Pete's and sit on his couch til you're 86.
Safest thing in the world. "

YouTube - Pete's Couch


Which I find to be slightly more honest, but unrealitic and hilarious since a lot of smokers I know are avid "outdoorsman" (could just be the Alaskan lifestyle)

Is this [commercial] sarcasm, or are they really acknowledging the lack of risks associated with it? They know kids are more educated these days, I suppose.

lol hilarious!

the "adults" who made that commercial obviously have no clue who their kids are.

Life kills you every time. Might as well enjoy it.:ywave:

Burkhartdesu, you left off probably the most important line of the commercial, "Me, I'll take my chances out there. Call me reckless."

I think this commercial is trying to tell the smokers, "Hey, this might not be doing anything bad to you, but there's something a lot better that you could be having" kind of thing. Hope that made sense...

But like I said, most of the recreational smokers I know are avid sportsman.

But teenagers, sure... they should be out playing sports and living life :rolleyes:


And in other news, a relatively new law was proposed to the U.S. Congress:


Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 - Prohibits the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use. Deems the possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana as personal use (one ounce or less for a not-for-profit transfer between adults). Allows the imposition of a civil penalty under the Controlled Substances Act for the public use of marijuana if such penalty does not exceed $100.


Read The Bill: H.R. 2943 - GovTrack.us

Yeah, people deemed underage by their society should NOT use pot.

But dog cartoons they play in America are not going to stop them while it's still cool-rebellion-weed, they will do the opposite.

Anyone who want's to use cannabis should be able to. If you want to stop babies from smoking then start a website telling people how bad it is. Print up shirts for all I care. Don't ask the state to fine and arrest people for it.

And if you were wondering, I do not smoke and certainly don't inhale.

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power."

and

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, 1775

Gotta love the founding fathers.

You really think 8-year-olds should have the right to smoke marijuana if they want to?

Not entirely...
 

And their parents the right to stop them. The cops and the court can stay out of it. If your kid is buying weed, you already screwed up pretty bad. They will probably get CPSed anyways and then they will be doing hardcore stimulants and mind altering drugs like Prozak. I hear 60% of all kids managed by the state are on SSRI's. Now tell me that is much better than THC....

But how do the parents have the right to stop them if it isn't illegal. Eliminating the law only undermines their authority. Instead of the cops and the courts helping control out-of-control kids, you are now saying let's take that away.

But you are contradicting yourself.

If you say pot should be legal for everyone, then how did the parents screw up? Or are you really saying that pot shouldn't be available to children?

Parenting VS Police
 

It is not a contradiction. Parents can have their kids do whatever they want. That is why they are the parents. The police are not your parents, nor should they dictate how you should or should not raise your kids. Your parents can make you go to church and eat breakfast before school, but it is not illegal not to do either. They can also ground you for not doing your homework. Last time I checked, doing homework was not the law, just the law of the house.

I am saying that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids what they should and should not do. Making it illegal usually complicates the situation.

Again, it is not illegal to sit at home and eat french fries and candy all day. Even if you will eventually get diabetes. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach the child otherwise.

Yes, but not doing homework becomes illegal when the parent gets presistant warnings of the students' failure, and nothing happens.

The question here is...where to draw the line? I, personally, am against the use of marijuana, except for limited and controlled medical use. Parents are parents to teach their childern the ways of life, let the ways of life vary considering the parent, but they are there to guide and teach, not to supervise, and stand out of the picture. That time will eventually come, but not when the kid's young and naive still. The parent should be able to decern the limits, and be able to tell their child no when the time calls for it.

Marijuana is a drug and addictive drug, that can lead to some serious damage. There needs to be some kind of law, so that the world doesn't spin out of control like one big huge addict...

~HonoraryJapaneseGirl~

So you can acknowledge that smoking weed is not a healthy or wise choice for an 8-year-old, but it should be legalized?

I think "it should be the parent's responsibility" is an argument that has lost credibility the last few decades. In the 50's when mothers didn't work and people didn't get divorced (and the economy was strong) this sort of notion made more sense.

But in 2009 if we really put all responsibility of the raising and caring of children solely on blood parents it would be absolute chaos out there. I can't see anything positive coming from the decriminalization of marijuana use for children. Without this, drug use is not something teachers, doctors, or other authorities and intervene in. I don't think you can equate marijuana use with not doing homework, especially in growing children. And "not doing homework" is not a fair comparison, anyway, as truancy is illegal. Should we make going to school optional as well? What good would come from that?

Smoking Marijuana can definitely be equated with eating lots of junk food. It is unhealthy, destroys your teeth, it is addictive (I think that anything can be addictive) and it effects the way your mind and body works ie a drug.

Marijuana is illegal right now and it is a crazy blood bath on the streets of LA. I don't think that making it legal would make that any worse. In fact it would likely make it much better as the profit would be sucked out of the trade overnight. If you want to say that neglect of a child should be dealt with by some government agency. I would say that is a more rational argument, not that I agree with it. I think the better choice would be to have jobs available, so that children can support themselves if the need be.

Otherwise, government agencies can be involved to the extent that they help the children deal with their hardships. Housing, food and work assistance etc. would be nice. I have plenty of friends who were orphans and the state did not help them much. My mother in fact has no parents and would not have been better off in a government facility. Let the cop drive the kid home, not arrest him and hand him over to CPS. I want the cop making sure the kid does not become a prostitute. Don't much worry if he smokes or something that benign.

Hey, if the parents want to give pot to their kids, that's fine in their home. My dad gave me beer when I was a kid and the world didn't end. And no, I didn't become an alcoholic. I just hate and never touch "pisswater" beer now.

(but if pot becomes legal it shouldn't be sold to kids, obviously)

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.

Well that could certainly be debated, but either way, if nothing else, the important and key first step is rolling back the illogical prohibition. Although I do think there is some sense to laws meant to protect children, because messed up children grow up to be burden adults.

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.

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~

Understood. More debate is needed all around.

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.

Question of Responsibility
 

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.

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

Interesting....
 

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.

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

Simplicity....
 

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.

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