A few days ago Andrew Sullivan had a post on The Dish about marijuana & the drug war and included this comment “I have always maintained that marijuana is not for minors. And if it were legal and regulated, we’d be better able to keep it from them.”
Mark Kleiman responded on his own blog and he based his reply on the unspoken assumption that is in virtually every argument in favor of marijuana prohibition. The assumption is NEVER examined or even acknowledged. The assumption is that the drug war works. It prevents the streets being littered with addicts and zombie stoners. It is believed without question that if we ended the drug war it would cause a drug-apocalypse where every playground would be Needle Park.
http://www.samefacts.com/2012/08/drug-policy/wishful-thinking/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RealityBasedCommunity+%28The+RBC%29
How, precisely [would we keep drugs from children]? What’s the mechanism? What about legalization for adults would make it harder for minors to get cannabis?
But the truth is likely to be even worse. How do you make something way more available to adults and not have it become more available to minors as well? Yes, many kids today have better access to cannabis than adults do. But (despite frequent assertions to the contrary) nowhere near as much access as they have to alcohol, which is dirt-cheap and available from the wino outside any liquor store, or (in most cases) at home.
The drug war is NOT working. It does NOT keep marijuana out of the hands of children. Pot is cheap, plentiful and EVERYWERE. I could go to the local high school at lunch time and fill a shopping bag with the pot the kids have in their pockets and purses.
Legalization would not make it easier for kids to get pot because it would be impossible to get any easier.
No comments:
Post a Comment