Buzzby

"We" are not working to "eliminate" tobacco. A collective effort has been made to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco and, as a result, the use of this substance has been substantially reduced in our society. Similarly, a collective effort has been made to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol.

Does anyone see a major difference between the way these drugs have been handled and the way marijuana has been handled? No one is subject to criminal or civil penalties for the possession of a pack of smokes or a six-pack unless they're a minor. This "sends the message" that tobacco and alcohol are not appropriate for minors. A similar marijuana law would have the same effect.

This makes an assumption that has not proven to be true in other, similar situations. Penalties - or the lack thereof - have had no effect on the availability of marijuana. Marijuana could hardly be more available than it is now when its distribution is handled by black marketeers who will sell anything to anyone. 87% of high school seniors say that it's easier to get marijuana than beer or cigarettes. Why? Because beer and cigarettes are sold by licensed dealers who card any customers who appear to be underage.

Or he's a smart shopper who knows you get a better price when you buy the "big box". Or he's savvy enough to know that the fewer deals you have to make, the less risk you're taking. Or he's got an oz of schwag that cost $75.

Haskins didn't bother to report that the vast majority of these young people are in "treatment" only because it was a better alternative to getting a criminal record and spending some time in jail.

And, of course, the straw-man argument. The bill isn't a "move toward making marijuana a legal recreational drug". The bill is what it is: an effort to reduce the penalties for a victimless crime which 72% of voters surveyed believe warrants no more than a fine.

__________________