As if driving in Mexico was not dangerous enough...

[Gan]

Mexico set to legalize personal amounts of pot, cocaine, heroin


Friday, April 28, 2006; Posted: 10:10 p.m. EDT (02:10 GMT)

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico's Congress on Friday approved a bill decriminalizing possession of small quantities of marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine and even heroin for personal use, prompting U.S. criticism that the measure could harm anti-drug efforts.




The bill says criminal charges will no longer be brought for possession of up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine -- the equivalent of about 4 "lines," or half the standard street-sale quantity (though half-size packages are becoming more common).
"No charges will be brought against ... addicts or consumers who are found in possession of any narcotic for personal use," according to the Senate bill, which also lays out allowable quantities for an array of other drugs, including LSD, ecstasy and amphetamines.
Some of the amounts are eye-popping: Mexicans would be allowed to possess more than two pounds of peyote, the button-size hallucinogenic cactus used in some native Indian religious ceremonies.
Mexican law now leaves open the possibility of dropping charges against people caught with drugs if they are considered addicts and if "the amount is the quantity necessary for personal use." But the exemption is not automatic. The new bill drops the "addict" requirement -- automatically allowing any "consumers" to have drugs -- and sets out specific allowable quantities.

[Apathy]

Elaborate how this makes Mexico more dangerous?

[RichardCranium]

Elaborate how this makes Mexico more dangerous?

I always make my best judgement calls with a good dose of heroin in my system.

[Sean of the Thread]

Elaborate how this makes Mexico more dangerous?

As Rick James once said.. Cocaine is a powerful drug.

OH and galavanting around Mexico legally tripping balls on peyote can't be good for the highways.

[Ravenstorm]

Alcohol is legal. Driving while drunk is not. I imagine that the possession laws won't change the fact that driving stoned will still get you jail time.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Alcohol is legal. Driving while drunk is not. I imagine that the possession laws won't change the fact that driving stoned will still get you jail time.


:yeahthat:

[Krendeli]

I don't see where legalization is a bad thing.

If it's legalized you remove overcrowding in prison, a potential new tax revenue, and one less thing for cops to patrol against. What will need to happen in conjunction with this is a strengthening of crimes involving someone being under the influence.

[Stanley Burrell]

I believe the concern of drug smuggling may not be an issue with how this may unfold, as certain parties shall surely be lured to epicenter of legal...ness.

If anything, this hurts the physical industry of smuggling.

I still advise peam to go to Amsterdam if he has not, already.

Stanley Burrell.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't see where legalization is a bad thing.Heroin is very, very good at killing people. People killing themselves is bad.

[Gan]

Elaborate how this makes Mexico more dangerous?

Drivers in Mexico drive like they are on crack as it is, without adding to the odds of someone carrying, using, and driving under the influence of the afore mentioned legalized narcotics.

Try taking a cab in Cancun sometime... makes where I live like driving around with a bunch of senior citizens cruising around in golf carts.

[Apathy]

Drivers in Mexico drive like they are on crack as it is, without adding to the odds of someone carrying, using, and driving under the influence of the afore mentioned legalized narcotics.

Try taking a cab in Cancun sometime... makes where I live like driving around with a bunch of senior citizens cruising around in golf carts.

You're getting decriminalized confused with legal.

Driving under the influence is not affected by this. And where do you drive normally? Do you live in a bigger city, on the outskirts of a big city, in the suburbs, in a town, in a village...?


Heroin is very, very good at killing people. People killing themselves is bad.
I don't like suicide either, but we should have the right as humans to decide how to kill ourselves.

[Sean of the Thread]

Legalizing the possession of hard core drugs is going to INCREASE the illegal use of those drugs.

[Marl]

Good bye America's illegal immigration problem.
Hello Mexico's new illegal immigration problem.

[Gan]

You're getting decriminalized confused with legal.
Not really.



Driving under the influence is not affected by this.
Actually, yes it is. This change in the law wont affect a change in the behavior of the hard core abusers. However, it will increase the odds that someone less likely to carry these substances in public in the past will now carry, and now use publicly, and since they were not home when they used it, will now drive home under the influence. Connect the dots.



And where do you drive normally? Do you live in a bigger city, on the outskirts of a big city, in the suburbs, in a town, in a village...?
When I'm home, I drive in the 4th largest city in the US. When I'm on the road for work or visiting my parents I'm driving in rural East Texas or through rural areas to get to larger metropolitan areas where hospital clients would be located. So I usually experience all modes of driving that one can experience, from the 80 year old farmer who things 40 mph on the highway is about all his pickup can do, or the 12 year old who is driving dad's truck to town for feed and supplies all the way to driving 70 to 80 mph on a freeway and getting my doors blown off by those who think loop 610 is the autobahn around Houston or loop 820 in Dallas.



I don't like suicide either, but we should have the right as humans to decide how to kill ourselves.
As long as you limit it to just yourself and not the people you hurtle your car headon into while enjoying your now legal to carry (mobile) narcotics. If we could trust those who use the drugs to use them responsibly where it would not IMPOSE upon the rights of others (to live safely, etc.) then I would not have a problem. Unfortunately thats not the case, and historically we have been able to prove that.

[xtc]

This will certainly help Mexico's tourism industry!

[Atlanteax]

Heroin is very, very good at killing people. People killing themselves is bad.

I think it's great if people kill themselves and effectively remove themself from society. They *usually* are not contributing individuals.

The problem is when they injure other people doing so.

Drink yourself to death via alcohol poisoning... fine... but don't get behind a wheel and drive.

[ElanthianSiren]

So, you're all for decriminalizing drug usage within the person's domacile but reacting with strict punishment should they leave it intoxicated then?


-M

[Tsa`ah]

Sounds good to me.

Though I would like to see some rather harsh penalties for buying/selling/possessing/using anywhere near children.

[Latrinsorm]

Though I would like to see some rather harsh penalties for buying/selling/possessing/using anywhere near children.Why?

[Landrion]

Well, strange to jump in feet first all the way to heroin. Id probably have gone with a more gradual tryout for weed first, then ecstasy, then maybe coke and see how all that worked out first.

[Gan]

Surely you dont mean that weed is a gateway drug?

[Warriorbird]

Alcohol and tobacco and caffeine are also gateway drugs.

[Hulkein]

Yeah WB!

You make a lot of sense none of the time!

[Apathy]

Weed is to heroin like Playboy is to snuff

[Alfster]

Weed's not even a drug!

edit - wtf does this have to do with driving?

[Hulkein]

Weed is to heroin like Playboy is to snuff

True, if the people selling you Playboys would also sell you snuff if you asked, and/or if the people selling you Playboy would hang out with you and with their friends who sold snuff.

[peam]

This is EXCELLENT news!

[Warriorbird]

Yeah WB!

You make a lot of sense none of the time!

I dunno. I was always more receptive to doing other stuff when drunk.

[Sean of the Thread]

I dunno. I was always more receptive to doing other stuff when drunk.

i.e. anal.

I am however 10x more likely to eat mass amounts of food when drunk.

[Gan]

Its been over 10 years since my last fall down drunk episode. I've been buzzed a few times at parties when at a friend's house... but not drunk.

Not a smoker either, hate pills... sounds depressing I suppose, but I'm too busy to seek that kind of escape.

[Warriorbird]

i.e. anal.

I am however 10x more likely to eat mass amounts of food when drunk.

-Xyelin

:shrugs: With the right woman. The women you are with seem to merely intake too much liquid in those same situations.

[Alfster]

:shrugs: With the right woman. The women you are with seem to merely intake too much liquid in those same situations.

Just an FYI, women don't have nuts.

Remember that in the future.

[Snapp]

Let's get back on topic please.

[Tsa`ah]

Why?

You're fucking kidding with that question right? Tell me you're fucking kidding.

[Latrinsorm]

I know why *I* wouldn't want kids to be exposed to drugs, but it's for the same reason I wouldn't want anyone exposed to drugs. You seem to have a reason that applies to one group but not the other, hence my curiosity.

[Warriorbird]

Just an FYI, women don't have nuts.

Remember that in the future.

I'm sorry. I don't like guys (much to several gay friends' chagrin). That means I don't sleep with men. I also, curiously enough, don't sleep with women who urinate on my car seat. I'm not particularly insulted by your comments, but you do seem a bit obssessed. Sleep with a post op transsexual and have flashbacks or something?

It's okay. I mean, we can all be like, "Oh, Xyelin's not gay, he just loves the cock."

[Tsa`ah]

I know why *I* wouldn't want kids to be exposed to drugs, but it's for the same reason I wouldn't want anyone exposed to drugs. You seem to have a reason that applies to one group but not the other, hence my curiosity.

Call it adult influences in a child's life. It's child endangerment to say the least.

Adults can make their own decisions, or should at that point in their life. If they want to get stoned out of their fucking gords in the privacy of their own home in the absence of children and only come outside when they're sober ... that's their choice.

A child doesn't have a choice in being endangered or not, that decision is made by the adult.

Thus ... call selling/buying/possession/use in the presence of a child "children endangerment" and make the penalty for that crime extremely harsh.

[Latrinsorm]

Adults can make their own decisionsIf this is (at least part of) how you define adult, how do you establish adulthood legally? Further, why do you think letting "adults" use drugs in their residences won't affect children?

[Tisket]

Why do you always insist on pouncing on a point that is only marginally relevant to a discussion? I suppose you understand quite well that staying on topic will always work to your disadvantage...

[Latrinsorm]

What is discussion, if not a gain in understanding? Tsa`ah believes that in-home drug use is permissible, therefore the Mexican legislation is ok. I don't believe that, and I can't think of any way to justify that position. Tsa`ah doesn't generally string random letters together when he makes a post, so it stands to reason that he has some sort of reasoning to back up his position.

Hence, I ask him about it. Rather than being marginally important, the point of whether or not "adult" in-home use affects children is of central importance to Tsa`ah's stated philosophy. If he cannot demonstrate that it probably will not, it is hard for him to justify it with his stated philosophy. I'd say "not self-contradictory" is a fairly important quality for a line of reasoning to have, wouldn't you?

[HarmNone]

As I read Tsa`ah's post, he said that if adults wish to get stoned in their own homes "in the absence of children", and not come out until they're sober, it was their own business. If an adult is in his/her own home and no children are there, use of drugs or alchohol is not affecting children. As long as that adult stays in that house until sober, his/her actions will not affect children.

[Alfster]

I'm sorry. I don't like guys (much to several gay friends' chagrin). That means I don't sleep with men. I also, curiously enough, don't sleep with women who urinate on my car seat. I'm not particularly insulted by your comments, but you do seem a bit obssessed. Sleep with a post op transsexual and have flashbacks or something?

It's okay. I mean, we can all be like, "Oh, Xyelin's not gay, he just loves the cock."

I think you got me confused with Xyelin. He can be gay all he wants, and i've never had a women urinate on my car seat.

I did that myself.

[Back]

I need to plan a trip to Mexico. No car rental involved.

[Latrinsorm]

If an adult is in his/her own home and no children are there, use of drugs or alchohol is not affecting children.I disagree, and here's why: society and society's rules affect children. The mere existence of the law itself affects children, even if no adults happen to partake in any previously illegal substances. Adults actually partaking in said substances results in even more effect, as adults' privately executed but publicly known behaviors have nontrivial affects on children.

In short, a child (and in a more general sense, a person) does not have to be physically present for an action to have an effect on them.

[Daniel]

Tell that to Amstersdam.

[HarmNone]

Heh. Good point, Daniel. I've known quite a few Dutch children. They seemed pretty well balanced to me...

[Hulkein]

Well then they all are!

(Not taking a stance on the issue, but come on, you always are lecturing on not going off a few personal experiences ;) )

[Tsa`ah]

I disagree, and here's why: society and society's rules affect children. The mere existence of the law itself affects children, even if no adults happen to partake in any previously illegal substances.

You mean like the Catholic church's stance on birth control? Homosexuality? Sex in general?

You're confusing moral sets with social rule.

I can easily argue that laws regarding vehicular operation and traffic have little to no influence in the social development of children and into adulthood. Those speed limits, the documentation and licensing requirements, seat belt laws ... and anything else regarding the use of a motor vehicle will do nothing to stop an adult from speeding.

Laws prohibiting armed robbery will do nothing to dissuade developing children to not hold up gas stations when they're adults.

Laws prohibiting the use of fireworks in certain states will do nothing to prevent developing children to not use illegal fireworks as adults.


Adults actually partaking in said substances results in even more effect, as adults' privately executed but publicly known behaviors have nontrivial affects on children.

In short, a child (and in a more general sense, a person) does not have to be physically present for an action to have an effect on them.

You mean like masturbation is bad? Anything involving Sex, sexual stimulation, sexual thought, sexual impulse is bad? The result of that sort of philosophy ... guilt and sexual repression as adults.

Again, you're going on a moral set and pawning it off as a societal factor. It doesn't work like that. A child is only likely to become a user in the event of drug abusing or absent parents. They're not going to turn into drug users because Mr Roper down the road gets burned on ganja every Thursday night and everyone knows it.

[Latrinsorm]

Tell that to Amstersdam.Amsterdam, where marijuana use is 52.3% more likely in the high school aged population (as of 2001)? Thanks for proving my point.
You mean like the Catholic church's stance on birth control? Homosexuality?Yeah, nobody's ever repressed homosexuality in the face of societal disapproval.
and anything else regarding the use of a motor vehicle will do nothing to stop an adult from speeding.I agree that societal pressure is stronger than legal pressure. I disagree that legal pressure is nonexistent.
You mean like masturbation is bad? Anything involving Sex, sexual stimulation, sexual thought, sexual impulse is bad?Why would I say that?
They're not going to turn into drug users because Mr Roper down the road gets burned on ganja every Thursday night and everyone knows it.In the absence of all other forces, I doubt that societal consent would be enough to cause drug use. People do not exist in a vacuum. In the conflict between all the forces people are subjected to, societal consent can and does tip the balance.

[Sean of the Thread]

For Christ's sake Eric.. take a step back.

[Alfster]

Amsterdam, where marijuana use is 52.3% more likely in the high school aged population (as of 2001)?

Who fuckin' cares? I'd rather have a school full of stoners than a school full of drunks.

Drunks get mean, stoners don't give a shit.

[Sean of the Thread]

I dunno I pissed off a few stoners playing hacky sack one time by running in and snatching their hacky sack and they turned into Ted Bundy.

[DeV]

Why would I say that?rofl x 10000000000

[Tsa`ah]

Amsterdam, where marijuana use is 52.3% more likely in the high school aged population (as of 2001)? Thanks for proving my point.

I didn't prove anything. You intentionally left out where I defined what should be considered child endangerment. I'm pretty sure if you really looked into that particular situation ... every one of those teens were EXPOSED to pot at some point in their childhood.

Exposure via an adult influence, not exposure through hushed whispers about Mr Roper smoking pot in his home every Thursday.


Yeah, nobody's ever repressed homosexuality in the face of societal disapproval.I agree that societal pressure is stronger than legal pressure. I disagree that legal pressure is nonexistent.

Your premise was that societal approval is just as harmful. I pointed out where societal disapproval (thus negating your argument of approval) has no effect. Societal disapproval in my example was in the form of the law.


Why would I say that?In the absence of all other forces, I doubt that societal consent would be enough to cause drug use. People do not exist in a vacuum. In the conflict between all the forces people are subjected to, societal consent can and does tip the balance.

Not in the least. Societal tolerance does not equate to use in adult hood. We tolerate hunting to a great degree, yet every 5 years or so you can chart the decline of hunting permits applied for.

Use of any substance comes from 2 primary influences. Genetics and NUCLEAR environment. A secondary influence would be exposure by pier groups. The secondary influence is almost completely nullified by parental/guardian influence in the absence of a genetic predisposition.

Societal acceptance really has nothing to do with it. Exposure has everything to do with it.

[Sean of the Thread]

If the number hunting permits goes down.. the number of government contracts to kill said animal go up. Lets all boycott hunting and eventually get paid for doing it.

[Tsa`ah]

If the number hunting permits goes down.. the number of government contracts to kill said animal go up. Lets all boycott hunting and eventually get paid for doing it.

This really has nothing to do with the debate. The point was simply that fewer people able to apply for permits (18 year olds) are applying because ... shocker ... their parents didn't hunt or they showed no interest in hunting with parents that did hunt.

It was an illustration of exposure. Less exposure equates to less interest. It doesn't really matter what the interest is, be it drugs, alcohol, or hunting.

[Sean of the Thread]

Sorry.. I skip over your garbage "know it all pompous arrogant ass I'm right you're wrong posts" and I didn't see that my post wouldn't have as much relevance.

AT any rate my post about getting paid for hunting is 100% accurate. If the citizens fail to kEEEEELll the gov't would subsidize the keeling in one way or another.

[Tsa`ah]

And it has nothing to do with the debate, nor did I insult you.

But if that's the way you want to go ... don't you have a sister to fuck and another tooth to get pulled?

[Sean of the Thread]

Well it was in the thread so I felt like responding to it. I also thought that you would take "know it all pompous arrogant ass I'm right you're wrong posts" as a compliment since you strive so hard to attain that image.

[Tsa`ah]

Let's get something straight ... your perception of me vs reality .... very poor track record.

[Latrinsorm]

You intentionally left out where I defined what should be considered child endangerment.You haven't defined anything in any meaningful sense until you answer my prior request (the one about your legal definition of adulthood, not the one about your tangential attack that didn't have anything to do with anything).
Your premise was that societal approval is just as harmful.Just as harmful as what? I said "society and society's rules affect children".
Societal tolerance does not equate to use in adult hood.Nor did I say "equivalent" or "equate". I said "affect".
Societal acceptance really has nothing to do with it.You're free to try and prove that if you want. It doesn't look like the data backs up what you say, but that's nothing new.
rofl x 10000000000:)

[Daniel]

Tell that to Amstersdam.
Amsterdam, where marijuana use is 52.3% more likely in the high school aged population (as of 2001)? Thanks for proving my point.

^^

What point? You would have to prove that the usage of Marijuana has a negative effect on someones life.

What are the percantages for hard drug usages, that are documented to harm someones life in a place like amsterdam compard to the US?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<What point? You would have to prove that the usage of Marijuana has a negative effect on someones life.>>

No, he wouldn't. Marijuana is more accepted in Amsterdam than in the United States; more children smoke marijuana in Amsterdam than in the United States. The severity of smoking marijuana isn't the issue, but the influence that adults have on children is.

[MrFeature]

My idiot friend once burned off his hair while trying to smoke a bowl. God damn that kid is an idiot.

I told him he can't smoke pot again untill he has a full head of hair again.

[Daniel]

No, he wouldn't. Marijuana is more accepted in Amsterdam than in the United States; more children smoke marijuana in Amsterdam than in the United States. The severity of smoking marijuana isn't the issue, but the influence that adults have on children is.

^^

No. The issue is the effects it has. Usage does not imply negative conontations.

For an example you can see the usage of Crack cocaine in African American youth is practicly non existant despite the fact that large amounts of adults use it. The reason being that it has a severe impact on peoples life.

Unless of course all you care about is people using htis evil substance and nothing else. Than by all means go off usage.

[Tsa`ah]

You haven't defined anything in any meaningful sense until you answer my prior request (the one about your legal definition of adulthood, not the one about your tangential attack that didn't have anything to do with anything)

What legally defines an adult in this case? An 18 year old.

The age in which you can first purchase an addictive substance (tobacco) and enter into a legal contract.


Just as harmful as what? I said "society and society's rules affect children".Nor did I say "equivalent" or "equate".

No, you implied that societal acceptance is equally endangering to children as exposure ... yet you failed to support that suggestion. In fact, you disproved yourself the entire way.


I said "affect".You're free to try and prove that if you want. It doesn't look like the data backs up what you say, but that's nothing new.:)

Please ... once again you took my post and read selectively. Feel free to re-read it and rephrase your rebuttals because you have yet to validate your stance.

In no way, and not even in your only example (Amsterdam) have you demonstrated that social acceptance equates child endangerment, nor have you proven that social acceptance leads to usage.

Exposure in a nuclear setting and exposure in a pier setting that lacks parental involvement are pretty much the only culprits leading to use.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<No. The issue is the effects it has. Usage does not imply negative conontations.>>

Then you find nothing wrong with children smoking marijuana, as there is no negative impact that results from such behavior.

<<The age in which you can first purchase an addictive substance>>

I can very much purchase caffeine without a problem.

[Tsa`ah]

Caffeine is only addictive in the sense of excessive consumption that leads to a certain level of tolerance. While there are withdrawal symptoms ... none of those are cravings one would experience with tobacco.

If one were to experience a caffeine craving ... it would be psychological and not physiological.

In fact, once the physical withdrawal symptoms of caffeine have run their course ... you're no longer "addicted" in the sense you are suggesting.

Caffeine, I'm afraid, does not count.

[Daniel]

Then you find nothing wrong with children smoking marijuana, as there is no negative impact that results from such behavior.

^

I don't consider high schoolers Children. So, no. I don't find anything wrong with people who know the effects it will have making a personal decision. As long as it does not effect others in anyway.

[Sean of the Thread]

Kids on drugs don't kill people. Kids on drugs with guns kill people.. or something.

[Latrinsorm]

You would have to prove that the usage of Marijuana has a negative effect on someones life.On the contrary, all I have to do is show that drug use increases in a non-drug-prohibitive environment. As you've noted, this is not the same as showing that the lax environment causes increases in drug use, but unless and until Tsa`ah provides an alternate hypothesis (besides that dockworker thing), his vague responses have no rational power. The point I'm addressing is that Tsa`ah doesn't think adult use affects children. Reference: "Call it adult influences in a child's life." Nowhere does he say "negative influences" or "deleterious influences" or anything of that sort, therefore I have no need to show that marijuana is an especially harmful substance. It is drug use per se that's the issue. In general, I don't think marijuana is harmful (compared to any number of legal activities), but it is certainly a drug.
What are the percantages for hard drug usages, that are documented to harm someones life in a place like amsterdam compard to the US?I don't know. I imagine that given marijuana's "documented" gateway characteristic, a bit higher. I don't see how it's relevant though, for the reasons stated above.
An 18 year old.How can you go from "Adults can make their own decisions" to "[a]n 18 year old"?
No, you implied that societal acceptance is equally endangering to children as exposure Inferences on your part are not necessarily implications on my part. To paraphrase Maverick, this is one of the not necessarilies. What was that about selective reading?

To reiterate, here is my main point:
[A]dults' privately executed but publicly known behaviors have nontrivial affects on children.
To that end, I cited data comparing the United States and Amsterdam, a very well-known drug use locale.

[Warriorbird]

So... why aren't you arguing against tobacco and alcohol, Latrin?

[ElanthianSiren]

Stastical correlation, Eric, isn't causation. I'm not even sure if the term/idea of the gateway drug is accepted anymore by scientific therapists for that reason. I could show you many examples of addicts counseled in Philadelphia in the early 90s, who were not gateway users, meaning they did not take the nice steppe progression the U.S. likes to say happens.

I agree that there should be very stiff penalties for using/dealing drugs in front of children. You then run into the problem of "what is a drug" -- aka S. America, where people chew the coca leaf to alleviate pain, give energy, seal pacts, and so on. Is that a drug, or is it not a drug? It's an integral part of their culture and used, from what I've seen/heard, responsibly, but it definitely has drug-like properties. If you penalize the person selling marijuana, is the person selling coca leaves guilty also?

Then, what constitutes a child? Is it age? -Maturity? One of my best friends growing up was thrown out of his house at 15. He did foster care til 16. Was back at his house that year and thrown out again. He quit school, worked, got an apartment, got his GED, and went into the army. He was more mature than many adults I've met, so it's a tough call, in my opinion.

Someone mentioned alcohol and tobacco, which studies have found to be more addictive than heroin. Do you then, under our model, place the baseline age/maturity age to do less addictive (psychologically addictive) substances like weed or LSD lower and tobacco much higher? As someone else pointed out, there are psychological and phsyiological addictions, but all drugs have physical consequences, though they may not be physically addictive. Another tough call.

While I don't think that a blanket policy of letting people do whatever drugs they like, whever they like is a good idea, I think the U.S. war on softcore drugs is a waste of resources that could be put toward better goals, as I don't believe it effective. I do believe that it saves the system time and confusion to criminalize all well-known drugs similarly, but the backbone of people who pay for that has historically been the casual user, not the large drug dealers that we would seem to want to target if we were really interested in curbing the flow of drugs into a country. Mexico and Canada have both realized this, it seems. I don't believe I read in that article that Mexico would cease pursuit of large volume suppliers.

-M

[Tsa`ah]

How can you go from "Adults can make their own decisions" to "[a]n 18 year old"?Inferences on your part are not necessarily implications on my part. To paraphrase Maverick, this is one of the not necessarilies. What was that about selective reading?

I swear, you could probably compose indemnity clauses for insurance underwriters.

AT WHAT FUCKING AGE IN THE US ARE YOU, AND NOT YOUR PARENTS, HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS DIP SHIT?

It's 18, barring extenuating circumstances such as premeditated murder.

At 18 fucking years old you are considered an adult


To reiterate, here is my main point:
[A]dults' privately executed but publicly known behaviors have nontrivial affects on children.

Your assertion lacked foundation. You have YET to point out ANY case where this is true.


To that end, I cited data comparing the United States and Amsterdam, a very well-known drug use locale.

And in doing so you only proved my assertion of exposure, not your assertion of social acceptance.

Until you can prove that teens in Amsterdam had NO PREVIOUS EXPOSURE, you have done nothing more than fail in your attempt.

Amsterdam's youth smoke pot because they were exposed to it, not because they know Mr Roper gets baked every Thursday night.

[Latrinsorm]

So... why aren't you arguing against tobacco and alcohol, Latrin?You've misunderstood my posts. I'm not arguing against marijuana, I'm arguing against the claim that society's consenting to adults indulging in marijuana has no effect on children indulging in the same. If it were up to me, a citizen would simply have to prove themselves capable of responsibly handling one of a certain set of drugs to permit legal use. What makes up that certain set would be determined by a panel of medical folks well-versed in the effects and characteristics of drugs up for consideration. If I had to guess, tobacco wouldn't make it on the list due to the nature of nicotine and the current tobacco industry. I'm pretty sure alcohol could make it though.
AT WHAT FUCKING AGE IN THE US ARE YOU, AND NOT YOUR PARENTS, HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS DIP SHIT?Of course, my original question was not "what does the law currently consider adulthood?", my original question was "If [decision-making] is (at least part of) how you define adult, how do you establish adulthood legally?". In effect, you've given me a descriptive answer to a normative question. I'm aware of what is, I'm asking how what you think should be can be transformed into legal reality.

Further, the existence of a juvenile criminal designation causes issues with your depiction of legal adulthood.
Amsterdam's youth smoke pot because they were exposed to it, not because they know Mr Roper gets baked every Thursday night.Depending on what you mean by "exposed", I don't think there's much difference between American and Amsterdamonian exposure to marijuana. Who here (within the past two generations, sorry PB) hadn't heard of pot by the time they graduated middle school, let alone high school?

Is "Mr. Roper" some kind of oldschool reference of which I'm unaware or what?
Stastical correlation, Eric, isn't causation.I agree wholeheartedly. However, I am bereft of plausible alternate hypotheses. Of the many differences between Amsterdam and the United States, the best choice to me looks like societal consent (as opposed to longitude, for instance). I'm always open to new ideas though.
I'm not even sure if the term/idea of the gateway drug is accepted anymore by scientific therapists for that reason.Yeah, my usage of quotes around documentation was meant to imply sarcasm, but that should have been clearer. I think it's crazy to suggest that marijuana can't harm anyone's life, though clearly not to the extent of heroin or whatever.
You then run into the problem of "what is a drug"I imagine that's best left to the medical panel I suggested above.
Then, what constitutes a child?I don't see how anyone can suggest age, because I don't see how anyone can not know someone like you know just on the basis of probability. Maturity is the way to go.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<[A]dults' privately executed but publicly known behaviors have nontrivial affects on children.>>

<<Your assertion lacked foundation. You have YET to point out ANY case where this is true.>>

Sex. I know what it is; I haven't been present during it (where it included adults).

[Tsa`ah]

<<Your assertion lacked foundation. You have YET to point out ANY case where this is true.>>

Sex. I know what it is; I haven't been present during it (where it included adults).

No Bob.

The urge to pass along your genetic material is a naturally occurring thing. You could have been placed in a box at birth and fed through a hole your entire life and you would have started masturbating no matter what.

If you're implying that you know what sex is but don't do it ... you either support my argument or just can't get any at your age.

If you're implying you have heard about sex but never been exposed to it, and have sex now ... I'm calling bullshit because you spank it to pron to the point of chaffing.

If you're implying you have heard about sex but never been exposed to it and don't have sex now ... see point 1.

In the end, arguments pertaining to naturally occurring desires are irrelevant. Those urges will manifest if you're exposed or not, unlike drugs where an urge does not exist outside of addiction.