Jump to content

US Politics - The Nuclear Option goes pfft


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Again with the moving of the goal posts? If you're talking about your specific community when making broad, sweeping generalizations, then it might help to point that out.

Oh, you mean that I should have said something like in post 419:

Shryke, I rather think I have a better appreciation than you do for how easy it it to get different substances in my area because I actually live here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if a kid really wants weed, they can get it. However, because it is illegal, it is riskier to obtain than it otherwise would be. There are fewer kids who will do it than alcohol because of the greater repercussions of having weed in the first place. That creates a different peer-pressure dynamic than exists for alcohol.

At least, that's true where I am. I have no idea what it is like in your communities, but then, I wouldn't presume to lecture you on them.

So your whole point is that you are in favour of restrictive drug policies because, along with all the other horrible effects, they also create some sort of peer-pressure to not do the drugs you admit they can easily obtain. And that this effect wouldn't exist if drugs were legal (even though it would still be illegal for said kids to get those drugs)

Despite the fact that the effect already does exist in absense of prohibition since, again as you admit, they can get the drugs in the first place.

So obviously, by your own logic, whether a kid does drugs or not is not related to a lack of supply. So why are you in favour of attacking the supply part of the drug issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...