Answering the Libertarian argument for drug legalization

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

You did however omit some crucial portions of the study. Namely this chart and the fact that both Cigarette use and Alcohol use have been dropping. It's my position that these abuses are decreasing because they are legal, regulated, and thereby kept out of the hands of teens.

I think the increased regulation of alcohol and tobacco have played an important role in reducing use by teens, both in showing teens that society believes they are dangerous and because their use has been more tightly restricted since the late 1980s.

Recall that the drinking age has been raised from 18 to 21 in most states over this period. This means that almost no high school students may legally buy alcohol, but it also raises the access bar because other parties supplying alcohol to teens need to be 21 to legally purchase. I would be curious to know if the libertarian-minded advocates of marijuana legalization are hoping to put the access age at 18 or 21. Your analogy argument with alcohol ("legalization would reduce teen access") is only valid if you intend to make the age of access 21. Drunk driving laws are also tighter and more strictly enforced, with much stiffer penalties for those under 21 driving under the influence.

Public smoking has also come under much tighter restrictions in the US over the past 20 years, and several states have raised their ages for legal purchase.

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think the increased regulation of alcohol and tobacco have played an important role in reducing use by teens, both in showing teens that society believes they are dangerous and because their use has been more tightly restricted since the late 1980s.

Recall that the drinking age has been raised from 18 to 21 in most states over this period. This means that almost no high school students may legally buy alcohol, but it also raises the access bar because other parties supplying alcohol to teens need to be 21 to legally purchase. I would be curious to know if the libertarian-minded advocates of marijuana legalization are hoping to put the access age at 18 or 21. Your analogy argument with alcohol ("legalization would reduce teen access") is only valid if you intend to make the age of access 21. Drunk driving laws are also tighter and more strictly enforced, with much stiffer penalties for those under 21 driving under the influence.

Public smoking has also come under much tighter restrictions in the US over the past 20 years, and several states have raised their ages for legal purchase.

They believe its dangerous because Alcohol and tobacco are toxic and addictive.
It's not enforcement that slowed it down it's education.
Of course the legal age for cannabis would be 21 years of age no ones advocating recreational use for kids.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Clampy

Of course the legal age for cannabis would be 21 years of age no ones advocating recreational use for kids.

Two voters in the poll have advocated reducing penalties for access to minors.

In post #281, Goooh wrote that weed being illegal for Tryann Mathieu (20 at the time Les Miles kicked him off the team) was the cause of his woes rather than the negative effects of cannabis on teenagers.

The inference that marijuana should not have been illegal for the 20 year old was clear.

Maybe some LSU fans did not realize that Tryann Mathieu was only 20 when Les Miles kicked him off of the team and when (two months later) he got into trouble with the law for possession.

All those who really think cannabis use should remain illegal for all teenagers can go ahead and positively affirm the statement:

The athletic and legal consequences for Tryann Mathieu were completely reasonable because he was only 20 at the time and cannabis use should have been illegal for him! He should have known better. I hope drug laws remain strictly enforced for teenagers!

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Two voters in the poll have advocated reducing penalties for access to minors.

In post #281, Goooh wrote that weed being illegal for Tryann Mathieu (20 at the time Les Miles kicked him off the team) was the cause of his woes rather than the negative effects of cannabis on teenagers.

The inference that marijuana should not have been illegal for the 20 year old was clear.

Maybe some LSU fans did not realize that Tryann Mathieu was only 20 when Les Miles kicked him off of the team and when (two months later) he got into trouble with the law for possession.

All those who really think cannabis use should remain illegal for all teenagers can go ahead and positively affirm the statement:

The athletic and legal consequences for Tryann Mathieu were completely reasonable because he was only 20 at the time and cannabis use should have been illegal for him! He should have known better. I hope drug laws remain strictly enforced for teenagers!

Look we can agree. Kids shouldn't smoke pot. After all those detrimental effects of weed made him a terrible football player.