Report on cocaine, heroin prices suggests U.S. is losing war on drugs

[thursday]

"If the government legalized weed, meth, heroin, coke, acid, and other common psychoactives, but controlled the substances so that kids couldn't purchase them how is that going to turn kids on to harder drugs?"

I already explained the scenario to you. I ran out of oxycontin and now I'm looking for heroin. I didnt say all kids will do that, many wouldnt try heroin that are willing to try oxycontin.

if you didn't want to imply that then why did you even bring it up and include it in your argument?
YOU: To people over 21? What the fuck? I like oxycontin too! Uh oh, I cant get any more though because I'm under 21 and my previous connection ran out. Okay then, I guess I'll start shooting H
Problem solved.

Then again, when I first tried oxy I didn't want to try heroin. Things change. I do know the risks of heroin addiction, I do realize it can make me turn into a homeless person living in a cardboard box. I do realize if I share needles, or use them incorrectly, I can get diseases. But, I am going to try and prevent risks, and if I fail, well, then I guess I'm fucked, now aren't I?

whatever, i do heroin too. i'm not one to judge. but earlier you sounded like you were going to pick up the habit just cuz you ran out of a supply of OC.

If oxycontin was legal for adults to buy, I really wouldnt do that, because then I would just pay an adult to get me the oxycontin in the first place, and I wouldnt need to look for heroin. If they have age restrictions I really dont care because it will still be easy as all hell to get any drug that I want. It will just be a pain in the ass to have to sit on the sidewalk and have to go around, asking random people (usually homeless people who probably wouldnt mind robbing me), bothering them, to try to give them $5 extra to try and get me drugs. Usually when I buy alcohol I dont resort to the random people thing, because I generally find people to get me some, since I have done drugs long enough that I met alot of people. Actually, I haven't done it in a very long time. But when I first started getting into drugs I did that. And, I will do it again if I ever encounter a time in which I really want alcohol but no one I know can get me some. It would be safer, cheaper, and easier to just let me go into the store and buy some alcohol.

oooh... ok. well, if you put it that way then i guess you're right. any person of any age should just be allowed to go buy whatever substance they want. i wouldn't want to cause any kind of difficulty for you.
no offense, but your "safer, cheaper, and easier" argument is retarded. we're talking about legalizing drugs so that people would stop getting locked up just for doing drugs, so people wouldn't have to worry about their ecstasy not being ecstasy, and instead being much more harmful substances that are unknown to them.
government drug policy should be formulated around these things--harm reduction, not how to make it easier for you to get drugs or to make drugs available for everyone.

Setting age restrictions will not keep teens off drugs, if anything it will make them more attractive to most teenagers since it just makes it seem more rebellious. Do you really think any of the teenagers in my high school care that there is an age restriction on alcohol? If you do, then your thinking is incorrect. Oops, I forgot, there is that one muslim girl in my physics class who wont drink. Oh yeah, now I remember, thats because of her religion, not the age restrictions.

no one said setting age restrictions would keep teens off of drugs. it's only designed to make it more difficult for minors to get drugs. it wouldn't make sense for the government to condone letting adolescents purchase controlled substances freely. your arguments are pretty weak and lack common sense

 

[gloggawogga]

You do make a good point. If I was five and used drugs I would probably say the same thing. But I still agree with my statement. Would I give PCP to a 5 year old? Probably not, but thats because I dont know any 5 year olds that could even possibly use PCP responsibly

So you do agree there is a cutoff age somewhere.

Also, judging by the fact that my parents sent me to rehab, I don't think they would approve of me indulging in PCP. But thats like saying as long as you live in the United States you live by the DEA's Controlled Substances Act rules. What would the police think about you doing PCP? I'm sure they wouldnt approve of it either.

No, because we were talking about legalizing drugs. In that situation, some might think that for dependent children it should be up to the parent or guardian for a 16 year old to use a psychedelic drug.

And to be honest, I really dont like my parents. My mom is a fucking bitch of a whore who cares more about her boyfriend than me, and when he was beating me and threatening to kill me, she didnt even care, and lied to my drug counselor about the event. Oh yeah, and she'll have sex with him when I'm in the other room and she'll still scream and moan nice and loud, just so I can hear. There are times when I wished that she would die, so I really think I'm far beyond worrying about what she thinks of my drug use. And my father, he used to beat me as a child, and even though he's kinda nice to me now, he's still kind of a prick, so I really dont give a shit what he thinks either.

Yeah sounds like a bitch, man. Like you already don't have enough to worry about being 16. But if you want your freedom, you gotta get out from under their support, and take care of your self.

 

[Real_Illusion]

Thursday - I did not imply I was actually planning on shooting the H. I was giving a scenario. In my scenario I wrote:

"To people over 21? What the fuck? I like oxycontin too! Uh oh, I cant get any more though because I'm under 21 and my previous connection ran out. Okay then, I guess I'll start shooting H
Problem solved."

Because, in our current point in time, it is illegal to sell oxycontin to anyone without a prescription, even anyone over 21, my scenario was obviously not based on fact. That's why I put in parenthesis below it that I am in real life looking for heroin dealers because I ran out of oxycontin. I don't know the proper way to shoot heroin, so I'm not even going to try it. And whats the huge difference? Yes, shooting it greatly increases risk, especially risks of infection and whatnot. But that wasnt the point I was trying to make.

I understand your points, that the government shouldn't be condoning drug use for children. But you must keep in mind that most drugs are generally unhealthy for just about anyone to use (there are exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule). With that logic, the government shouldn't be condoning them for anyone. Of course, it is worse for some people than others. And although I think age DOES indeed influence who it is worse for, it does not determine it. There are many teenagers who use drugs more responsibly than 35 year olds who use drugs. Of course, no one can tell how responsible you are on your ID. So, that cannot work.

Age restrictions aren't that big of a deal to me, I just dont like the conception that all teenagers use drugs irresponsibly. Many dont. And yes thursday, I am making a decision that carries a risk. But just because I'm using opiates, doesnt mean I'm using them irresponsibly. How you use the drug, not the drug itself, determines how responsibly you use this. I would think this would be common sense, especially since you use heroin yourself, as you said.

As long as I get my drugs, I guess I'm pretty much happy. I just dont like the stereotype.

Gloggawogga - I do respect your insight, as you are one of the most intelligent members (in my opinion) on the board. But I really do think that age restrictions really are pointless...because I do know one things for sure - that they aren't going to be stopping me, or 99% of all the other drug users I know. And it DOES increase risks. I know a girl who almost died, because she was puking all over, but her friends didnt want to get in trouble because they had to call 911 to pickup their drunk friend, while they were obviously drunk, and would therefore get in trouble. So they just dragged her into a bathroom and left her there. Fortunately, some random person just happened to go in the bathroom, who happened to be an adult that was trained in EMT type shit. She barely lived, and her head was face down in the toilet when the EMT found her, and she was unconscious. She would have drowned if she was in there a few minutes longer. All because a few teenagers were afraid of getting in trouble. Fortunately she lived, but if it weren't for that miracle, she would be a statistic all because of a non-effective age restriction.

EDIT - Thursday - there is no concrete definition on the definition between drug use and abuse. Alot of authorities on the issue believe abuse is any use of a drug for getting high, whereas drug use has some sort of practical use, such as medical, religious, study aid (like using adderall to help you study), etc. However, many authorities believe that drug abuse is when you use drugs to the point that they cause problems in your life. To be honest, I try to avoid the terms, and the argument, because there is no answer to it. It's totally opinionated. Words have whatever meaning you give them. Am I using oxycontin to get high? Yes. Am I using it to the point that it causes major problems in my life? No. It has caused a few problems here and there, and who knows, maybe it will ruin my life in the future. But so far, no major problems. I have made more money off of oxycontin than I lost, still got high plenty of times, and although I went through withdrawl for a bit at one point, I am not currently addicted to oxycontin. I rarely crave it, I just LOVE the high more than anything else in the world, except for shrooms (shrooms and oxycontin are my 2 favorite drugs).

 

[JTMarlin]

You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry. You're 16; When I was 16 I wasn't as responsible as I am at age 19. Once you get older you'll realize what the older people on this board are talking about. Life in high school and life after high school are a lot different. Even the summer right after graduation is a lot different than the spring before graduation. I've done Oc a few times, and it's great that's why I don't do the stuff...it's too good to be taken more than a few times. What's the point? Once you know how great it feels there's no real reason to keep taking it. Besides, it is a drug that has enough problems that makes it hard for REAL pain patients to get it legitimately, and I'm not going to fuck it up any more for them.

Kids will always be able to get drugs. But, with them illegal drug dealers don't ask for ID and they are making enough profit to risk selling to minors. *Most* 21-year-olds aren't willing to risk the harsh punishments of selling alcohol to a 16-year-old for $5 (at the most) in profit. Some are but the majority are not. The WHOLE argument behind prohibtion is to stop kids from getting drugs, and that doesn't work. Legalizing them with age restrictions would work, although not perfectly, a lot better than it is now. Legalizing them without restrictions would make the problem a lot bigger and drugs would never be legalized if that's a stipulation of legalization. Age restrictions is a part of regulation. You've got many many years to live, and can wait until you're 21 to start doing drugs...I'm not going to keep prohibtion in place so a bunch of minors who can barely drive can get all fucked up on morphine, drive mom's SUV on their learners' permit, and kill people. That's another thing. With drugs legal, penalties for misusing the drugs would need to be increased. You sell stuff to a minor and you're fucked. You sell the stuff on the black market, you're fucked. You drive around high, you're fucked. People still have to keep going to jail, but not people whose only crime is responsible drug use. Personal responsibility is the whole reasoning behind this. Minors don't have personal responsibility even if they think so. Maybe a few do, like those that have been working since they were 12 and raising their younger siblings because their mom's a crackhead, but most aren't.

I'm sorry this is a little incoherent, but I've been up awhile and can't think. Get back to ya later in detail...

 

[Real_Illusion]

You can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry. You're 16; When I was 16 (I know I'm more responsible than you as far as drugs are concerned, but it doesn't matter) I wasn't as responsible as I am now, at age 19. Once you get older you'll realize what the older people on this board are talking about. Life in high school and life after high school are a lot different. Even the summer right after graduation is a lot different than the spring before graduation.

Kids will always be able to get drugs. But, with them illegal drug dealers don't ask for ID and they are making enough profit to risk selling to minors. *Most* 21-year-olds aren't willing to risk the harsh punishments of selling alcohol to a 16-year-old for $5 (at the most) in profit. Some are but the majority are not. The WHOLE argument behind prohibtion is to stop kids from getting drugs, and that doesn't work. Legalizing them with age restrictions would work, although not perfectly, a lot better than it is now. Legalizing them without restrictions would make the problem a lot bigger and drugs would never be legalized if that's a stipulation of legalization. Age restrictions is a part of regulation. You've got many many years to live, and can wait until you're 21 to start doing drugs...I'm not going to keep prohibtion in place so a bunch of minors who can barely drive can get all fucked up on morphine and kill people.

I'm sorry this is a little incoherent, but I've been up awhile and can't think. Get back to ya later in detail...

Yeah, I guess I can at least wait 2 more years. Because til then, I'll be laughing at you because you cant get any drugs either. HA!

From your posts, and the conversations we've had over AIM, I'm surprised that you don't think you're responsible enough to handle most drugs. Because you most definitely are.

 

[JTMarlin]

I am, and have handled them responsibly, but most kids my age can't. I see all these college cokeheads high 24/7 because they have unlimited funds and nobody is there to stop them from buying the stuff. You think a dealer is going to say "well, man I'd love to make $3,000 off you but you're doing too much coke". No, the high price of the stuff makes sellers and buyers very uptight and violent over a cheap drug from South America.

 

[thursday]

there is no concrete definition on the definition between drug use and abuse. Alot of authorities on the issue believe abuse is any use of a drug for getting high, whereas drug use has some sort of practical use, such as medical, religious, study aid (like using adderall to help you study), etc. However, many authorities believe that drug abuse is when you use drugs to the point that they cause problems in your life. To be honest, I try to avoid the terms, and the argument, because there is no answer to it. It's totally opinionated. Words have whatever meaning you give them. Am I using oxycontin to get high? Yes. Am I using it to the point that it causes major problems in my life? No. It has caused a few problems here and there, and who knows, maybe it will ruin my life in the future. But so far, no major problems. I have made more money off of oxycontin than I lost, still got high plenty of times, and although I went through withdrawl for a bit at one point, I am not currently addicted to oxycontin. I rarely crave it, I just LOVE the high more than anything else in the world, except for shrooms (shrooms and oxycontin are my 2 favorite drugs).

the DARE definition of drug abuse, or the definition that the use of any illegal substance is abuse is clearly invalid. just because there's disagreement on the definition of abuse doesn't mean it's not a valid point. if you can't differentiate the difference between the two then recreational substances could not be legalized. generally people know to not abuse alcohol and though there's no strict definition of it, the idea is that you should try to use alcohol responsibly. don't let it ruin your life, and don't let it negatively affect others.

 

[JTMarlin]

Ohh, this is what I meant to say: If you're under 18 your're LEGALLY a minor, meaning your parents are responsible for you. Laws are completely different for minors because of this. Get arrested two days before you're 18 for being drunk, you get to keep calling home until you get a ride home from mom and dad. Get arrested on your birthday and you get one phone call and bail. Skip school for a month when you're 17? Parents go to jail even if they dropped you off and you went and got high instead of going into school. Being between the age of 18 and 21 is the worst, as far as alcohol-related punishment goes. Same goes for murder, rape, etc... Allowing drugs to be sold to anyone under 18 would require revamping the entire legal system and that won't happen.

I did a lot of shit senior year of high school, but I NEVER missed school or let grades slip. My parents didn't make me, I was conditioned to do that stuff because my younger years were spent focusing on school, not getting fucked up. Sure, it did affect my personality and I probably did somethings mean to people, but didn't let the things that mattered most slip.

 

[Leg]

I think what's really at issue here is parenting.

For example, if you have good parents, you will probably not even want to do drugs until you become "of age".
Your parents should provide the mental support instead of drugs.

I'm not exactly where I stand on this age debate right now...

But I see the issues like this:
Parents don't want their kids doing drugs. Parents are the voters who determine the drug laws.
I think parents SHOULD be responsible for their children until some certain age. I think bad parenting is really the root of most of our bad problems in this society.
I know way too many people who are depressed or otherwise mentally unstable because of horrible parents.

Anyhow...I'm getting off track. These are issues very close to my heart, and it's very hard to put into words what I really feel/think about them...(I'm trying to combine my thinking and feeling into one...)

Parents are afraid of their kids doing drugs "legally" under their nose, basically.

Now, what is wrong with this scenario!??!?!

First, your kids shouldn't WANT to do drugs. If they do, it's your fault.
And if you catch your kids doing drugs, you shouldn't just blindly punish them.
There is a psychological REASON for your kid doing drugs.

You gotta ask your kid why he's doing the drug, and then help him with his problems as best as you can.
Until parents take responsibility, the drug issue can't really be settled.

I know that if I ever have kids, I will take the drug issue seriously with them. I'll explain where I stand on the matter. If my kids become interested in drugs, I will not be afraid to let them try it. But I will obviously watch for signs of abuse/addiction, and try to help my kids out if that happens, which I hope it won't. That's all I can say...man...

This is a good thread.

 

[thursday]

But I really do think that age restrictions really are pointless...because I do know one things for sure - that they aren't going to be stopping me, or 99% of all the other drug users I know. And it DOES increase risks. I know a girl who almost died, because she was puking all over, but her friends didnt want to get in trouble because they had to call 911 to pickup their drunk friend, while they were obviously drunk, and would therefore get in trouble. So they just dragged her into a bathroom and left her there. Fortunately, some random person just happened to go in the bathroom, who happened to be an adult that was trained in EMT type shit. She barely lived, and her head was face down in the toilet when the EMT found her, and she was unconscious. She would have drowned if she was in there a few minutes longer. All because a few teenagers were afraid of getting in trouble. Fortunately she lived, but if it weren't for that miracle, she would be a statistic all because of a non-effective age restriction.

well, this is more of a problem of education and parenting that government policy. you can't be punished by law for admiting someone to the hospital even if they consumed an illegal drug or illegal consumed a controlled substance. the only possible repercussions in this case would be from the parents of the participants. this just means that parents should let their kids know that they can come to them for help in any situation.

 

[Real_Illusion]

well, this is more of a problem of education and parenting that government policy. you can't be punished by law for admiting someone to the hospital even if they consumed an illegal drug or illegal consumed a controlled substance. the only possible repercussions in this case would be from the parents of the participants. this just means that parents should let their kids know that they can come to them for help in any situation.

The kids who were with her were high and drunk as well, thats not why they were afraid to call an ambulance. It wasn't because they were afraid of getting in trouble for HER being drunk. They just didnt want to be drunk when the police showed up. If they weren't afraid of getting in trouble, they probably would have dealt with the situation in a more responsible manner.

Leg - I do agree with you in some ways, but I dont think bad parenting is the cause of every drug addiction, there are often several factors involved. Did my mother and father do a bad job at parenting me? Definitely. But, I think I would still enjoy being high on drugs even if they were good parents. Maybe there is a chance I wouldn't use them so obsessively if I was parented better, but I think that I would still be a drug user.

 

[JTMarlin]

I've got really good parents and used to do a lot of drugs. I didn't spiral out of control because I had parents who knew when to crack down: college or a job and drugs? You pick. What do you think I said? I haven't ever been to rehab, per se, but they've provided me with the raising to know my limits. I can do an 8--ball of coke over a week, and then never ever touch the stuff again. Most people would go out an buy another, I don't know if it's solely parenting or your choice but I'm sure it has something to do with it. We're kind of getting off-topic, because this is a legal discussion and not a psychological one.

 

[gloggawogga]

Age restrictions aren't that big of a deal to me

They really shouldn't be. Right before I turned 18, they changed the drinking age to 19. Then, right before I turned 19, they changed it to 21. Oh I was pissed at the time, even though fake ID's were easy to get. But I'm 42 now....and so I've had like 21 years to get over it. My point being, once you are over 21, you will be over 21 for the rest of you life, and you will never look back.

I just dont like the conception that all teenagers use drugs irresponsibly. Many dont.

What is "responsible"? I'll bet you and I have completely different standards for what "responsible" is. I mentioned in a previous post about independance, i.e. supporting your self, paying your own bills, etc. To me, that would be an indicator of responsibility. If someone can use drugs, not only measuring his dose correctly, etc., etc., but also still keep his health, his job or business, pay his bills, maintain healthy social relationships and not become a burden on others, thats responsibility.

In your case, at age 16, I'd like to know how you're doing in school. What is your GPA. What are you aspirations for college or a career? Do you have any such aspirations or plans for your future? If you're failing out of school, or don't have aspirations for your future, or are in dysfunctional relationships, or are harming your health, then I would have a hard time considering your drug use "responsible".

I know a girl who almost died, because she was puking all over, but her friends didnt want to get in trouble because they had to call 911 to pickup their drunk friend, while they were obviously drunk, and would therefore get in trouble. So they just dragged her into a bathroom and left her there.

For her to get that drunk it totally irresponsible to begin with. Isn't it. Yes or no??

And for you guys to call 911 and ship her to ER, would you guys have had the money to pay the bill? 911 and ER services aren't for free you know. They cost money, typically $500 or more for an ER visit. If you need 911 and the ER to do drugs, you really aren't very responsible.

 

[Real_Illusion]

They really shouldn't be. Right before I turned 18, they changed the drinking age to 19. Then, right before I turned 19, they changed it to 21. Oh I was pissed at the time, even though fake ID's were easy to get. But I'm 42 now....and so I've had like 21 years to get over it. My point being, once you are over 21, you will be over 21 for the rest of you life, and you will never look back.



What is "responsible"? I'll bet you and I have completely different standards for what "responsible" is. I mentioned in a previous post about independance, i.e. supporting your self, paying your own bills, etc. To me, that would be an indicator of responsibility. If someone can use drugs, not only measuring his dose correctly, etc., etc., but also still keep his health, his job or business, pay his bills, maintain healthy social relationships and not become a burden on others, thats responsibility.

In your case, at age 16, I'd like to know how you're doing in school. What is your GPA. What are you aspirations for college or a career? Do you have any such aspirations or plans for your future? If you're failing out of school, or don't have aspirations for your future, or are in dysfunctional relationships, or are harming your health, then I would have a hard time considering your drug use "responsible".

Last year, I was failing out of school, had dysfunctional relationships, and overall I do think my drug use was somewhat irresponsible, not to mention the fact that I was also suicidal (I no longer am, I dont cut myself anymore either). However, this year I have a B average. My lowest grade is a C+, and my highest grade is an A-. Thats not amazingly high, but that's still decent. I am in a vocational tech program for culinary arts, and that's the career I would like to go into, I enjoy cooking, and often cook for myself and my family. I have noticed a large shift in maturity from last year to this year. I actually do more types of drugs last year, but I can control my usage much better, and dont spend all my money on drugs. I also have a girlfriend this year, and a healthy social life.

For her to get that drunk it totally irresponsible to begin with. Isn't it. Yes or no??

And for you guys to call 911 and ship her to ER, would you guys have had the money to pay the bill? 911 and ER services aren't for free you know. They cost money, typically $500 or more for an ER visit. If you need 911 and the ER to do drugs, you really aren't very responsible.

I wasn't there at the time. The people involved weren't even good friends of mine, simply acquantinces. So, don't use their actions to judge my personality. And yes, it is irresponsible for her to get that drunk. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make - age restrictions probably wouldn't have made her decide to drink more responsibly, but would have at least probably gotten her the proper medical attention. She still lived, but it was a close call.
No, they wouldn't have had the money to pay the bill, but the parents could pay for that. I do not know the specifics of how the whole system works, but I'm sure that if they didn't have to be afraid to go to other people for help, the situation would have probably went alot smoother.

 

[gloggawogga]

And yes, it is irresponsible for her to get that drunk. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make - age restrictions probably wouldn't have made her decide to drink more responsibly, but would have at least probably gotten her the proper medical attention. She still lived, but it was a close call.

No, they wouldn't have had the money to pay the bill, but the parents could pay for that. I do not know the specifics of how the whole system works, but I'm sure that if they didn't have to be afraid to go to other people for help, the situation would have probably went alot smoother.

Well I don't think any of us think the police should contacted for drug related ER visit. But by your own argument the parents would have to be contacted because they are paying for it. And that lends back to what I originaly said, which is that if you are a dependant child your parents are the one's who have a legitimate say in whether you should be allowed to use drugs or not. They are the ones who will pay the bill for your mistakes.

 

[Real_Illusion]

Well I don't think any of us think the police should contacted for drug related ER visit. But by your own argument the parents would have to be contacted because they are paying for it. And that lends back to what I originaly said, which is that if you are a dependant child your parents are the one's who have a legitimate say in whether you should be allowed to use drugs or not. They are the ones who will pay the bill for your mistakes.

This isn't really getting to the point......I wasn't trying to discuss whether the kids or the parents have a legitamate say as to whether or not the do drugs. In a way, I do think that it should be the parent's choice. But that debate has little to do with whether age restrictions decrease or increase problems. And I also wasn't trying to go into specifics about who to contact for an ER visit either. That wasn't the point of my post.

 

[gloggawogga]

I wasn't trying to discuss whether the kids or the parents have a legitamate say as to whether or not the do drugs. In a way, I do think that it should be the parent's choice. But that debate has little to do with whether age restrictions decrease or increase problems. And I also wasn't trying to go into specifics about who to contact for an ER visit either. That wasn't the point of my post.

Well, these things are related. You're saying you want no age restrictions and what? Kids OD all they want and the parents pay all the medical bills? Even without age restrictions, kids will still be afraid to call 911, because their parents will find out. The problem of being afraid to call 911 is already there without the age restrictions, unless you get your parents permission to do the drugs.

 

[Real_Illusion]

Well, these things are related. You're saying you want no age restrictions and what? Kids OD all they want and the parents pay all the medical bills? Even without age restrictions, kids will still be afraid to call 911, because their parents will find out. The problem of being afraid to call 911 is already there without the age restrictions, unless you get your parents permission to do the drugs.

Once again....I wasnt trying to go into the legal specifics of the issue. I have not fully developed my idea as to how society would work without age restrictions. I simply have a view that believes that the choice should do drugs should be everyone's own choice, and nobody elses. Harm reduction and whatnot is involved in this issue too, but thats not the fundamental idea. And no, ultimately I dont think the parents should decide if their children do drugs. I think that if they want to, they can punish their children for it, but I dont think it should be illegal for children. It just really isn't the parent's decision as to whether or not their children do drugs. Should it be? Maybe. But it just isn't. Each individual person decides what substances he or she wants to put into their body. Thats what my view consists of. This argument is too controversial and subjective to ever end up at a real answer. But, we have both argued our points well, and gave valid points to both of our arguments. And in the end, there's not much more we can do, since this is not an issue of fact, this is an issue of opinion.

 

[JTMarlin]

It's more of an issue of politics/philosophy, and by looking at historical facts one will notice that age restriction laws have been in place since the 1920's. That's not something that's going to change, and it doesn't need to. There are no reasons to allow kids to buy drugs. Kids ARE their parents' responsibility until age 18, this will never change and so neither will age restrictions. The age 21 limit is set by the federal government, because if a state lowers it to, say, 18 they won't get any Federal money for roads. In Wisconsin it's legal for someone under 18 to drink, as long as parents are with you, but from 18-21 you can't. This is because if your parents get you drunk at 16 and you drive drunk, it can be blamed on them. If they get you drunk at 18 and you drive drunk, you will be punished by law. Now, if the law allowed anyone under 21 to get drunk with their parents, people 18-20 could get drunk under their parents' watch, get in a car wreck, and sue the parents because they're seperate legal entities. This is why the law ends at 18: parents are not LEGALLY responsible for you.

Here's how responsibility for welfare is judged, age and who is responsible respectively: 0-18: Parents and government,18-21: Government and you, 21+: You.

Again, you're only 16 and you don't know what its like to even be out of high school. When you're, say, 30 you can determine whether kids can drink or do drugs. When you're 16 you can't say that 16 year olds should be able to. Once you hit age 18 the world is much different, and I'm sure 21 is more so.

Wanting to remove age restrictions from drugs is a pointless little issue (it would also stop drugs from becoming legal), aimed solely at kids getting high. Kids SHOULDN'T be getting high. Being young is something that's limited and amazing it itself, and clouding that whole period with drugs shouldn't be condoned. It has no benefits and only downfalls, so why are we even discussing this?

 

[gloggawogga]

I simply have a view that believes that the choice should do drugs should be everyone's own choice, and nobody elses. Harm reduction and whatnot is involved in this issue too, but thats not the fundamental idea. And no, ultimately I dont think the parents should decide if their children do drugs. I think that if they want to, they can punish their children for it, but I dont think it should be illegal for children. It just really isn't the parent's decision as to whether or not their children do drugs. Should it be?

If you want your freedom, you have to accept the responsibility that goes with it. If someone else has to pay your bills, and pay for your mistakes, you have to play by their rules. If you don't like it, get a job and move out.