Is it right, if I am a parent, to offer my child one joint and only one joint of marijuana so they can experiment in a controlled environment?
This is somewhat inspired by last night's House; the parents gave their kid a joint in the past (not a factor in the show or diagnosis) and my parents, when I was in high school (1998-99ish), said they were OK with me smoking weed at home or with friends, just so long as I got home safe and nobody did really bad drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc.
I am a total victim of DARE. I won't touch the stuff myself for fear of health concerns, but I disagree with the War on Drugs as it pertains to casual use of marijuana. There's worse things out there and we could use the boost in tax revenue. I want my kids to understand that as far as I'm concerned, when they're teenagers, they're basically young adults, and if they want to make the choice to break the law, they should know both sides, good and bad. They need to realize that if they risk their future, they should have a safe shot at it from me, their father, and not from some stranger or dealer with ill will in mind.
Opinions? This is just a thought that popped into my brain. (I don't have kids, don't worry)
Listen, >>1, before I answer you I'm going to hijack the thread and say something related:
I hate it when people say doing drugs is a "victimless crime." Maybe if they just lived in isolation in a little glass box it would be. But other folks have to deal with people who are drunk and high, and often drug users will commit crimes when high and not thinking straight, and if not that, they'll get addicted and lose their jobs and become a drain on the community. All of society is a victim in these cases. So I'll take none of that "victimless crime" nonsense.
Certainly, it's better if you let your children think for themselves rather than say "This is right and this is wrong, end of story." Which they'll ignore anyway, in the teenage stages. But I think actually supplying a drug isn't necessary and is probably a bad idea.
>>2
Drugs are a victimless crime. Your argument was just to say that they cause non-victimless crimes.
sorry it's a test
sorry it's a test
>>3
Uh okay. Firing a gun is a victimless crime. It just happens to cause a non-victimless crime if the bullet collides with someone. Is this a sensible way to think?
More like firing a gun at yourself is a victimless crime.
>>9
Note that I didn't suggest banning drugs was the best way to solve the problem!
All I wanted to point out was that they are a problem, and that using them is not a victimless activity. I don't really know what the best way to solve the problem is, but Prohibition offers strong evidence that banning the relevant substances is not it, at least not in all cases.
>>8
But this is a fallacious analogy. When someone uses drugs, all the other people who have to deal with that person are frequently victims.
So we should criminalize personality disorders? Continue down the road we are on with sexual harrasment where offending or hurting anyone is illegal? I'm really not sure what you are aruging here >>10.
>>12
Because you have to be insane to take drugs or shoot someone with a gun? There is no perfect answer to solve people's shortcomings.
>>13 you have confused me even more.
>>10, >>2 seem to say that drugs, in some cases, hurt people other than the user. >>11 goes along with this "all the other people who have to deal with that person are frequently victims."
Is their argument that because people may be hurt emotionally by someone's drug use that it is a non-victimless crime? Do they mean physically? My response (in >>12) is that someone with a personality disorder might hurt other people emotionally or physically as well. Does this mean we should make it illegal to have a personality disorder? Put them all in insane asylums? We are already partially on that track with the way sexual harrasment and political correctness are going. Offending someone is being criminalized.
Someone might become disabled or need medical care as a result of drug use? Someone might need welfare as a result of drug use? How does that demonize drug use? Someone might become addicted to gambling, lose their job, and require welfare. Someone might Enjoy woodworking and cut their hands off with a tablesaw, thus needing welfare. Should we outlaw woodworking and table saws? Someone might break their legs after a rock climbing fall in the same vein. Should we outlaw rock climbing?
Just discusing this with terms such as crime is already predujical.
>>14
Yes you are obviously confused. There are no (or few) absolutes. Your argument is going down the slippery slope saying that even small grievances are to be addressed by judicial means on the basis that they are "similar" in nature to large ones.
A number of the consquences on the rest of society from someone's drug use are also tied in to it being illegal, such as criminal activity to get money for expensive drugs, and dangerous impurities in drugs sold illegally.
All generalizations are false. You say slippery slope I say reductio ad absurdum. I'm actually arguing against criminalizing these behaviors. That doesn't change the fact that I'm not sure what everyone else is trying to prove either.
Personaly i think pot should be legal cos its not realy that bad. Sure its worer then smoking but somking is legal. why not weed?
>>14
People CANNOT choose to have a personality disorder or not, while people CAN choose to use drugs or not. This is not a fair comparison.
Breaking your leg while climbing or cutting your hand off are accidents and for the most part are very preventable.
While drug use for MOST (not ALL) people lead to addiction. There are millions of people who can uses saws and whatnot all their lives and not have one single accident, but out of the millions of people who try/use drugs I'd say at least 50% become addicted.
So one activity has a predicable outcome (addiction) while another has a unlikely outcome (self injury). You cannot compare these either.