Let me go a step further and point out we still have partial prohibition in the United States regarding alcohol. It is still illegal if you are under 21.
Is that just? I would say not. An 18 year old can decide he wants to serve in the Army and fight overseas and possibly die...but he can't decide to drink a glass of bourbon?
Does the law keep teenagers from drinking alcohol? No, they can get their hands on it if they want to do so.
The argument that partial alcohol prohibition and the drug war have failed is a good reason to get rid of these laws. But IMO not the best one.
The best one is that these laws are not the laws of a free society. Either we are a free society or we aren't one. In a free society the individual has the freedom to make almost any decision about his or herself without interference from the law. If you don't have a free society than you have some kind of police state...which will become more of a police state as time goes by and the laws just keep piling up.
I concur. As adults do we own ourselves or not? It's utterly absurd that that a 20 year old infantry sergeant with 2 combat tours can't buy a beer.
|
I concur. As adults do we own ourselves or not? It's utterly absurd that that a 20 year old infantry sergeant with 2 combat tours can't buy a beer.Let me go a step further and point out we still have partial prohibition in the United States regarding alcohol. It is still illegal if you are under 21.
Is that just? I would say not. An 18 year old can decide he wants to serve in the Army and fight overseas and possibly die...but he can't decide to drink a glass of bourbon?
Does the law keep teenagers from drinking alcohol? No, they can get their hands on it if they want to do so.
The argument that partial alcohol prohibition and the drug war have failed is a good reason to get rid of these laws. But IMO not the best one.
The best one is that these laws are not the laws of a free society. Either we are a free society or we aren't one. In a free society the individual has the freedom to make almost any decision about his or herself without interference from the law. If you don't have a free society than you have some kind of police state...which will become more of a police state as time goes by and the laws just keep piling up.
I love how the state can go against the age of majority (ie.-prosecuting minors as adults), but will throw people in jail (or fine them at least) for consuming alcohol underage. If the state is going to enforce an age of majority, it should be enforced across the board, not selectively.
|
Let me go a step further and point out we still have partial prohibition in the United States regarding alcohol. It is still illegal if you are under 21.
Is that just? I would say not. An 18 year old can decide he wants to serve in the Army and fight overseas and possibly die...but he can't decide to drink a glass of bourbon?
Does the law keep teenagers from drinking alcohol? No, they can get their hands on it if they want to do so.
The argument that partial alcohol prohibition and the drug war have failed is a good reason to get rid of these laws. But IMO not the best one.
The best one is that these laws are not the laws of a free society. Either we are a free society or we aren't one. In a free society the individual has the freedom to make almost any decision about his or herself without interference from the law. If you don't have a free society than you have some kind of police state...which will become more of a police state as time goes by and the laws just keep piling up.
I thought there was compelling evidence that making the legal age 21 significantly reduced motor vehicle deaths by people DUI, It's been a while so I could be wrong, but if I'm right then that would be proof in fact that the partial prohibition does have a result. In fact I favor legalization where drug use laws mirror alchohol laws and make the legal limit 21. However, there is no such study that proves that drug laws have had the same effect as the laws that increase the legal limit.
I thought there was compelling evidence that making the legal age 21 significantly reduced motor vehicle deaths by people DUI.
You've got to be careful with that logic, though. After all, there's very compelling evidence that if no one drove, there would be no drunk driving accidents at all -- but yet no one is proposing making automobiles illegal. To my mind, when in doubt, it's better to err on the side of greater liberty, except when the cost-benefits ratio is so outrageously skewed that there's no way to justify it.
|
|
I thought there was compelling evidence that making the legal age 21 significantly reduced motor vehicle deaths by people DUI.You've got to be careful with that logic, though. After all, there's very compelling evidence that if no one drove, there would be no drunk driving accidents at all -- but yet no one is proposing making automobiles illegal.
As I recall though (IIRC), it was a study of traffic fatality #s before and after the increase in the legal age, and then a subsequent study done when one state tried to lower it back down to 18, in both cases it showed that the before/after numbers where almost cut in half or more (please keep in mind this is all memory and could be very wrong). I think in cases like that it is a justified thing to do, as I know correlation =/= causation, but the correlation is to significant to ignore when your dealing with hundreds of lives every year. And don't get me wrong, I understand and endorse adults being free to make their own choices, but in this case where there's numerical evidence, I'm happy to wait 3 more years to drink (granted at 28, I'm way past the time that would be a concern).
|
|
I thought there was compelling evidence that making the legal age 21 significantly reduced motor vehicle deaths by people DUI, It's been a while so I could be wrong, but if I'm right then that would be proof in fact that the partial prohibition does have a result. In fact I favor legalization where drug use laws mirror alchohol laws and make the legal limit 21. However, there is no such study that proves that drug laws have had the same effect as the laws that increase the legal limit.
I remember that, too. Teenagers still ran to higher accident rates in general, though, so in recent years we've seen increased restrictions on younger (ages 16-17) drivers. (I'm in Illinois, btw.) Right after my daughter turned 16 the number of logged driving hours before a teen could get a driver's license doubled to 50 (ten of which had to be at night). They're also under restrictions as to the number of unrelated other teenagers in the car even after they get their licenses. It's cut down the number of accidents involving teenagers--I don't remember by how much, or if it seems to have been matched by an increase in accidents involving kids in their late teens/early twenties (the argument would be that by reducing the number of miles driven by teenagers, you're extending the time it takes them to get better at driving by reducing their opportunities to practice).
All that is background to a suggestion that reducing the drinking age back to 18 probably wouldn't result in a return to the previous DUI accident rates, because (at least in Illinois, and I've heard that other states are doing something similar) teenagers are getting consistently better training before they get their licenses. At 17, my daughter was a better driver than I was at that age. (Pay no attention to the shoe-shaped dent on the passenger's side floor!)
The other kind of cool thing that her high school did with driver's ed is that since the classroom part was only a quarter, they paired it with a quarter of emergency response training--first aid, CPR, how to use a defibrillator, roleplaying through emergencies, etc. It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.
It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.
You mean other than the religious intolerance and homophobia?
I'm happy to wait 3 more years to drink
I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't switch the drinking and driving ages -- give people some experience with alcohol, to learn their limits, before they start driving.
It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.You mean other than the religious intolerance and homophobia?
I was a cub scout, went through Webelos, got my Arrow of Light award, and no one asked or even so much as mentioned religion or sexual orientation. Sad to see what the scouts have decided to focus on since then.
It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.You mean other than the religious intolerance and homophobia?
I really don't recall this coming up when I was a Cub Scout back in the '70's in West Texas. Is this really the focus today?
As I recall though (IIRC), it was a study of traffic fatality #s before and after the increase in the legal age, and then a subsequent study done when one state tried to lower it back down to 18, in both cases it showed that the before/after numbers where almost cut in half or more (please keep in mind this is all memory and could be very wrong). I think in cases like that it is a justified thing to do, as I know correlation =/= causation, but the correlation is to significant to ignore when your dealing with hundreds of lives every year. And don't get me wrong, I understand and endorse adults being free to make their own choices, but in this case where there's numerical evidence, I'm happy to wait 3 more years to drink (granted at 28, I'm way past the time that would be a concern).I thought there was compelling evidence that making the legal age 21 significantly reduced motor vehicle deaths by people DUI.You've got to be careful with that logic, though. After all, there's very compelling evidence that if no one drove, there would be no drunk driving accidents at all -- but yet no one is proposing making automobiles illegal.
At what threshold of statistical impact is it OK to take the rights of adults?
|
It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.You mean other than the religious intolerance and homophobia?
Way to Troll it up.
My children are both doing quite good in Scouts and are very proud of it. They learn a lot. Neither Child is homophobic or intolerant of any religious choice.
Maybe you should start checking your facts before posting or you and I are going to go round on things.
It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.You mean other than the religious intolerance and homophobia?Way to Troll it up.
My children are both doing quite good in Scouts and are very proud of it. They learn a lot. Neither Child is homophobic or intolerant of any religious choice.
Maybe you should start checking your facts before posting or you and I are going to go round on things.
Perhaps not, but if your children were atheists or gay, they'd receive the boot. I believe that was the point, perhaps not so succinctly, Bugley was trying to make.
It's the sort of thing that kids would learn in Scouting, but not many kids are involved in that any more.You mean other than the religious intolerance and homophobia?Way to Troll it up.
My children are both doing quite good in Scouts and are very proud of it. They learn a lot. Neither Child is homophobic or intolerant of any religious choice.
Maybe you should start checking your facts before posting or you and I are going to go round on things.
No trolling required. Since the mid-eighties, it has been made quite clear by the BSA that atheists and homosexuals are explicitly not welcome.
"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."
"Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."
As it happens, several local chapters have pretty much made it clear that they aren't going to play these games. Your children may be part of one such chapter. For their sake, I hope so. But the fact that your children aren't intolerant, or haven't personally experienced intolerance, doesn't mean the Boy Scouts aren't intolerant.
As for us "going round on things," I hope not, but if that's the price of truth, so be it.
My children are both doing quite good in Scouts and are very proud of it. They learn a lot. Neither Child is homophobic or intolerant of any religious choice. Maybe you should start checking your facts before posting or you and I are going to go round on things.
Like I said, I did well in Scouts and learned a lot; I contributed to the organization, and didn't hurt it in the slightest bit. But that was in the late '70's. Today, if I had a son he wouldn't be allowed in, on the basis of the religious "litmus test" that's been added -- they're terrified he'd sacrifice them to Cthulhu or something. If you think that's perfectly reasonable, maybe you and I should go round and around a bit.
I do note that my friend Adam's boys are happily active in Scouting, despite being Jews rather than Christians, so apparently any Abrahamic religion other than Islam (and maybe that, too) is OK.
Like I said, I did well in Scouts and learned a lot. But that was in the late '70's. Today, if I had a son he wouldn't be allowed in, on the basis of the religious "litmus test" that's been added.
I do note that my friend Adam's boys are happily active in Scouting, despite being Jews rather than Christians, so apparently any Abrahamic religion other than Islam (and maybe that, too) is OK.
They don't differentiate between religions, even non-Abrahamic ones, at least as far as I can tell. Why should they? After all, it's the dirty atheists (and gays -- always those damn gays) that are unravelling our national moral fiber. ;)
Anyway, my apologies for the derailment. Let's get back on drugs. :P
|
|
What about the Girl Scouts? Do they have discriminatory mandates in their By-laws? My daughter was looking that way but I won't allow it if they discriminate against people's sexual preferences.
Oh and, Big Pot Smoker here, like the stuff. I manage to be an adult and raise good, well-mannered children who are held as examples to their peers consistently by teachers, parents, and clergy.
I treat my indulgences in the leaf in the same manner as I treat my alcohol indulgences- not around the kids, not if I need to drive, not if I have something important to do, etc....basically if I have free time and want to unwind I make sure everything important is done and then have some fun.
Get wise, legalize!
What about the Girl Scouts? Do they have discriminatory mandates in their By-laws? My daughter was looking that way but I won't allow it if they discriminate against people's sexual preferences.
Actually, they don't. Yay cookies! :)
BTW, Penn and Teller did a BS! episode on the BSA. It can be found @ http://bullsh!tlinks.blogspot.com, where the ! is an i (Paizo's profanity filter seems to break the URL if I try to link it). Look under season four.
By the way, CJ, I apologize for this bit of dickery:
I was laughing at your assertion that legalizing drugs wouldn't affect dealers (econ 101 -- please!), not at the negative effects of addiction. I give you 8 stars (out of 10) in the category of deliberate misinterpretation.
What can I say? My knickers were in a twist. ;)
|
|
By the way, CJ, I apologize for this bit of dickery:
I was laughing at your assertion that legalizing drugs wouldn't affect dealers (econ 101 -- please!), not at the negative effects of addiction. I give you 8 stars (out of 10) in the category of deliberate misinterpretation.What can I say? My knickers were in a twist. ;)
Part of the issue was my miss reading exactly what you wrote and how you wrote it. I would have and should have approached it better.
Key word I read which you did not write was the word Teaching.
The Scouts for 100 years this year have promoted faith in God and duty to country. While this has only recently been a big issue and has formed a Litmus test. It was always something supported by Scouts.
I'd like to throw a link about mortality stats, and reiterate my question, "How many people have to be impacted before it's OK to take away the rights of adults?".
|
|
The War Against the ‘War on Drugs’
I can't remember where I read this (it was in the last month or so, though)--it was an opinion piece talking about how the foundation of the War on Drugs and generally expanded police powers, at least in the US, is that District Attorneys are elected officials. The argument was that DAs can't get elected without 1) the support of law enforcement agencies and 2) the perception by the public that they are "tough on crime." In practice, this translates into 1) not aggressively pursuing police misconduct, and 2) aggressively prosecuting individuals accused of drug crimes. I don't think that's the whole story, but it was a structural aspect of US society that I'd never thought about before (even after working with a whole lot of assistant DAs in a previous job).
ETA:
You have to get rid of the idiots before you go after the masterminds or it's a mess, trust me.
That, I could deal with. It's getting rid of the idiots and then stopping until a new crop of idiots shows up that's the problem.
LEAP
I endorse this message.
Not to resurrect something that should in fact die a horrible death.
I found this interesting.
"Since the 1970s the war on drugs has cost more than two trillion taxpayer dollars, but it hasn’t eliminated marijuana. In fact, cannabis use is so widespread that 41 percent of Americans admit trying it, including President Obama. In the 1930s Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger began America’s war on drugs. He created a moral panic, claiming cannabis use led to insanity, rape, and murder. Despite objections from the American Medical Association, Anslinger persuaded Congress to outlaw the drug in 1937. Since Cannabis was outlawed in the 1930s, stopping its use has been the main focus of America’s War on Drugs. While medical marijuana patients can legally consume their medicine in 14 U.S. states, more than 800,000 people are arrested for illegal cannabis use every year."
|
|
Not to resurrect something that should in fact die a horrible death.
I found this interesting.
"Since the 1970s the war on drugs has cost more than two trillion taxpayer dollars, but it hasn’t eliminated marijuana. In fact, cannabis use is so widespread that 41 percent of Americans admit trying it, including President Obama. In the 1930s Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger began America’s war on drugs. He created a moral panic, claiming cannabis use led to insanity, rape, and murder. Despite objections from the American Medical Association, Anslinger persuaded Congress to outlaw the drug in 1937. Since Cannabis was outlawed in the 1930s, stopping its use has been the main focus of America’s War on Drugs. While medical marijuana patients can legally consume their medicine in 14 U.S. states, more than 800,000 people are arrested for illegal cannabis use every year."
Link?
|
|
Marijuana
Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug on the planet. To many, it's an evil weed, but to some, it's a sacred herb, even a lifesaver. For decades the global supply was controlled by criminals, but now a quasi-legal industry worth billions of dollars is booming. Visit growers who are leading a horticultural revolution, hear from users consuming for medicinal purposes, go inside the "Green Rush" of medical marijuana in cities across the U.S. and the violent marijuana cartels in Mexico.
Cannabis is a psychoactive plant commonly known as marijuana, grass, pot, or weed. Cannabis is the most widely used drug on the planet. For decades the global supply of cannabis has been controlled by ruthless criminals. But now there is a quasi-legal industry worth billions of dollars — and business is booming.
* Used by 167 million people worldwide, cannabis polarizes public opinion. On one side, there are cannabis revolutionaries trying to legitimize the plant. On the other, law enforcement is trying to wipe it off the planet.
* In 1970, the U.S. Federal Government passed the Controlled Substances Act classifying cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, just like heroin. This designation identifies the drug as having a high potential for abuse with no medicinal value.
* In defiance of Federal law, 14 U.S. states now allow patients to grow or purchase cannabis on a doctor’s recommendation. Chief among these rebel states is California.
* Cannabis contains a complex mixture of more than 60 unique active compounds known as cannabinoids. The two most abundant of which are Tetrahydro-cannibinol, or THC, and cannabidiol, or CBD.
* When ingested, the compounds attach themselves to cannabinoid receptors, molecules affecting neural signals in parts of the brain governing memory, anxiety, appetite, coordination, and pain.
* California’s tolerance of cannabis for medical use dates back to the early outbreaks of AIDS in the 1980s.
* In 1996, California passed Proposition 215, a state law allowing doctors to recommend cannabis to patients.
* Once a patient has a doctor’s recommendation, they can legally grow their own or purchase cannabis from a dispensary. The so called “Cannabusiness” is booming. Like ordinary goods, cannabis is subject to a sales tax and it’s underpinning California’s economy.
* California has up to 400,000 medical cannabis patients, serving them are an estimated 2,100 dispensaries and co-operatives — a total that outnumbers the state’s Starbucks, McDonald’s and 7-11s combined.
* The last 15 years have seen a medical revolution across America. Doctors are recommending cannabis for everything from cancer to stress. But critics say the system is abused by recreational users who exploit medical endorsement to bypass the law.
* Despite being legal under State law, dispensary owners still risk prosecution under Federal drug laws, which don’t recognize medical cannabis.
Read more:Website
Link?Not to resurrect something that should in fact die a horrible death.
I found this interesting.
"Since the 1970s the war on drugs has cost more than two trillion taxpayer dollars, but it hasn’t eliminated marijuana. In fact, cannabis use is so widespread that 41 percent of Americans admit trying it, including President Obama. In the 1930s Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger began America’s war on drugs. He created a moral panic, claiming cannabis use led to insanity, rape, and murder. Despite objections from the American Medical Association, Anslinger persuaded Congress to outlaw the drug in 1937. Since Cannabis was outlawed in the 1930s, stopping its use has been the main focus of America’s War on Drugs. While medical marijuana patients can legally consume their medicine in 14 U.S. states, more than 800,000 people are arrested for illegal cannabis use every year."
|
|
linkLink?Not to resurrect something that should in fact die a horrible death.
I found this interesting.
"Since the 1970s the war on drugs has cost more than two trillion taxpayer dollars, but it hasn’t eliminated marijuana. In fact, cannabis use is so widespread that 41 percent of Americans admit trying it, including President Obama. In the 1930s Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger began America’s war on drugs. He created a moral panic, claiming cannabis use led to insanity, rape, and murder. Despite objections from the American Medical Association, Anslinger persuaded Congress to outlaw the drug in 1937. Since Cannabis was outlawed in the 1930s, stopping its use has been the main focus of America’s War on Drugs. While medical marijuana patients can legally consume their medicine in 14 U.S. states, more than 800,000 people are arrested for illegal cannabis use every year."
I knew I was missing something, thank you.
|
|
'Digital drugs' at Mustang High School have experts warning of slippery slope
*facepalm*
Wow. Just...wow.
Drugs are bad, Mmmkay.
|
|
'Digital drugs' at Mustang High School have experts warning of slippery slope
*facepalm*
Wow. Just...wow.
+1