Top message: legalize marijuania YES or NO? by weaselbitmypancake
Replying to: Re: WRONG by Thales
You wanted to see a study that showed addictive substances become less desirable if they become readily available. I'm telling you that such a study does not exist and will never exist because those two things are not dependent. Now, if you want to see a study that showed a persons desire for something changing based on whether they are able to have it, sure. Want to see a study showing the differences between a physically addictive substance and a psychologically addictive one - why not. But something being addictive has nothing to do with whether a person will desire it more if it is illegal or if it is legal. Their initial desire for a product, or so the argument goes (not one I necessarily agree with) is that people will desire to try a substance more, or less, based on it's legality. It's addictive nature might have a role to play all things being equal (Note the point you just raised in your post), but in the larger discussion on Marijuana and addressing the question of "if it's legal will people want it more or less than they do when it's illegal?" it's addictive or lack of addictive qualities don't have any role to play.
"Child Psychology", or developmental psych as it's normally called in universities groups anything from a zygote to 18years as a 'child'. It's not about comparing a 16 year olds brain to a childs brain. There are inherent differences, physiological ones, in a child's brain and a teens brain. Just as there is differences between a 16 year old and a 26 year old. No one was suggesting we compare anything.
I don't remember anyone with a clue suggesting that legalization would act as a deterrent to use. There is an argument to be made that it's controlled status plays such a small deterrence role that it's unnecessary - Or that the substance itself should be re-classed based upon it's effects and the defacto limits we've set in society for what we can place into our bodies with the states permission.
And no Thales, this last one isn't a "poor argument"; It's a pretty striking example of how the social contract can be altered without consent and without regard for equality to all citizens. I've been involved with and listened to some pretty lively and extremely intelligent debates where people with doctorates and decades of experience in constitutional law found this argument compelling so excuse me if I don't find your dismissal adequate.
Has anyone ever told you it's obscenely pretentious to end your posts with "fin". This isn't an art house cinema and nothing you wrote had the insight or profundity to warrant it.
- Re: WRONG by Thales