McGentrix wrote: Yes, you and I do, but little Johnny in middle school does not. It's bad enough they have access to cigarettes, a legal drug, but do we need them smoking dope as well?
No, but I don't see why Johnny in middle school should be the benchmark for what's appropriate to sell to grown-ups. I can agree to a minimum age for legal drug use, but not a general ban based on what's appropriate for children.
McGentrix wrote:I know the counter argument is that it's already in the schools, but imagine how much worse it could be if it were as readily available as tobacco is? I do not want a generation of stoners.
Neither do I, and if criminal law was the only way of enforcing moderation in drug usage, I might agree with you. But it isn't. After travelling through Europe observing a variety of regimes with regard to alcohol across different countries, my impression is that liberal laws on alcohol (as in our romantic countries) yield much more attractive results than the tough laws they have in Scandinavia. For example, it is common in Italy to have a glass of wine with your lunch, even if you're a teenager. But being drunk is frowned upon, and I observe it much more rarely in Italy than I do in Sweden. I made similar observations at college, where smoking pot was well-received but perpetual stoners were written off as losers. The result was a climate in which many people smoked pot, but few people abused it.
Based on all these observations, I oppose tough drug laws, whatever the drug in question.
