Prompted by “New Research Suggests How to Curb Pot Use by Kids”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/new-research-suggests-how-curb-pot-use-kids
“…four distinct strategies, culled from examining the alcohol and tobacco industries, have been suggested by researchers from John Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, though not all of the proposals are likely to please cannabis consumers and retailers.”
I am a stickler for negating hypocrisy (logic dictates that reason abuse in any form always sends the wrong message to children), and I will not compromise that quality here. The judicially regulated (as opposed to naturally regulated) age threshold is pathetic and infringes upon individual rights, which have been defined as equal without any age discrimination.
There are terribly immature adults (selfishly abusing drugs, money, law, etc.) above the rights-infringing age hard-line, and there are children unfortunately facing life’s toughest challenges to the point of premature maturity (if you will). Maturity is not triggered by age, but experience (the natural transition from ‘what about me?’ to ‘what about you?’).
Teens (the youngest group one mainly needs to be concerned about regarding premature drug consumption) have demonstrated the ability to acquire cannabis (and other illicit drugs) better than apparently any other age group, despite an outright ban — and can often secure alcohol for themselves, despite similar judicial “remedy” in the alcohol industry (e.g. yours truly had basically no problem securing and riskily consuming ample alcohol as a teenager). Worth adding is children can buy many household items that remain seriously dangerous (if not deadly) upon abuse — but I thankfully see no news regarding that abuse potential to any unreasonable degree (i.e. all people intentionally/unintentionally do stupid things, as proven by the fact that some form of stupidity — e.g. decision that intentionally/unintentionally leads to deadly disease, etc. — kills each one of us at some point, regardless of any rule-of-law structuring).
“The first strategy advocates heavy taxation to drive prices up, which has reduced cigarette smoking by young adults.”
For the oddly excited (and sadly apparently rather large) crowd championing the proposed benefit in taxing cannabis, “heavy taxation” resonates beautifully, but I understand something that nobody will discuss at least in the mainstream news — responsibly used cannabis is a vastly superior stress management tool compared to alcohol (and even many, if not all, [often expensive] pharmaceuticals), and in the case of the serious stressors involving poverty… even sobriety at times (sobriety is equal to being mentally naked, and properly used cannabis effectively functions as mental clothing — likely the mental version of the crotch-covering leaf that ultimately leads to technological brain protection — i.e. more advanced mental clothing — upon the inevitable integration of computers within the average, including any children’s, brain).
Respectfully putting aside the need for sobriety (that is obviously the natural state of being for any healthy person — being naked is not always bad) for brevity, alcohol is devastating as a hideous (albeit sadly popular) “tool” for managing stress. Part of the hideous quality is a natural increase in stupidity (including drunken violence), which obviously is horrible for children. While you can read all of the dominating benefits of cannabis in my highly refined Respect Cannabis campaign introduction, I simply state here that responsible cannabis use is a blessing for high-unhealthy-stress communities, and raising the price by “heavy taxation” also works against that serious community benefit (so against the children therein) by taking more precious financial resources in the now informal (but — despite heavy taxation in general for financial equality — obviously still failing) ‘war on poverty’.
“Second, enact rigid regulations on pot shops, which includes strict enforcement and severe penalties for violations, with regular compliance audits.”
Of course, the taxation crowd also loves their “rigid regulations”, because they believe (without basis) that such regulations are divine in effect (e.g. regulators are always competent, never can be bribed, and always instantly address loopholes; regulations are worth the extra taxpayer and small business owner burden, and so much more).
“The third policy proposal could be dubbed the ‘Joe Camel Strategy,’ as it espouses regulations to avoid utilizing colorful and cartoon-like imagery on cannabis products to limit their appeal to children. For pot edibles crafted as candy or pastries, child-proof packaging and clear labels are necessary.”
“The fourth and final strategy calls for limiting the marketing presence of recreational pot, like cigarettes and hard liquor being prohibited from TV ads, as research has linked advertising exposure to increased use of tobacco and alcohol products by minors. While these strategies all have their merits, even the study’s lead author Brendan Saloner admitted that given the relative infancy of marijuana legalization, flexibility must play a role in implementing any of the suggested policies.”
Save yourself the headache and avoid trying to reconcile “rigid regulations” with “flexibility”. Abusive favoritism and other conflicts of interest (all to secure power as the historically suggested — if not confirmed — primary agenda to the obvious corruption of judicial regulatory results applying unhealthy stress ultimately against childrens’ health) likely ensures the net-resulting rigid regulations will fail to effectively honor responsible (i.e. healthy) flexibility — such honor only occurring from a justly uncompromisingly realized unalienable right to liberty.
What we have here is yet another example of suggestive research being inaccurately leveraged for liberty-infringing law (and the “slippery slope” towards tyranny that undeniably accompanies such rigid regulations to ‘protect the children’). If that research matches the quality (or lack thereof) of suggestive cannabis research pertaining to psychological impact (my Respect Cannabis campaign introduction fully debunks such research as pure junk science), then dismissal is publicly warranted (come back to the public interest, when you have conclusive research).
What is horribly absent from these proposed four strategies is the perpetual need for basic education on the matter. Kids should never talk to (nor take candy from) strangers, but we do not have any “rigid regulations” against that unwise speech or candy-taking. Putting aside the cannabis concern, kids should never consume anything when they are uncertain about the source (simple message worth often repeating by leading parental presence). No annoying (and more costly) childproof containers needed, no marketing restrictions against free speech needed, no heavy taxation needed, no rigid (i.e. taxpayer expensive and business owner burdensome) regulations needed, etc. — just good old fashioned common sense in honor of liberty as an unalienable right by judicial mandate (the ultimate judicial remedy to increase childrens’ health along with the rest of us) — full logical grounding without reason abuse available in my introductory Liberty Shield essay.
The problem with suggestive research is the terribly narrow spotlight effect. For nice example, heavy taxation (claimed to reduce use rates) corresponds with an increase in the mainstream media regarding the dangerous effects of tobacco. In the late 1990’s (memory serving with respect to that basic timing), the tobacco industry came under fire in prominent lawsuits. As such, the mainstream news boldly put the dangers of tobacco front and center in the mainstream public mind. After that, usage rates for tobacco have declined. Confirmed causation has never been contained in any suggestive science I have been exposed to — just cheap-and-easy-public-manipulating correlation (e.g. 100% of people eating cucumbers will die — and that is not even suggestive, but definitive).
Allowing suggestive research to form the basis for liberty-infringing law is intolerably dangerous for children and anyone else (just ask the millions of people, and their loved ones — including children typically in poor communities — having their lives ruined from non-violent and responsible cannabis possession due to suggestive-but-actually-junk science for the sake of law madness), because we all have to navigate a truly enormous regulatory (and financially consuming) minefield throughout our lives, and take on the enormous burden (i.e. unhealthy stress — what conventional wisdom concludes is the real source of drug abuse at any age) that comes with that attempted adherence brought on by the constant (and baseless) insistence that judicial regulations provenly provide society a net reduction in overall tragedy.
Healthy kids are not idiots (despite their age group’s sometimes questionable risk assessment — noting most kids reasonably healthily survive drug, including alcohol, experimentation — e.g. yours truly), and teens almost unintentionally beg for adults to tell them ‘no’ during their natural growth towards independence, so they can immediately naturally embrace ‘hell yeah!’ (“Just say no to drugs!” was a powerful and ironic invitation for teens to party hard in drug-based perception alteration land, logically speaking). Therefore, logic suggests (if not concludes) a reverse psychological ‘meh’ approach would save taxpayers a lot of money, and would be far more effective in keeping kids away from premature drug intake. But then the people constantly pushing for their powerful piece of the judicial regulation pie (via ironically dangerous fear tactics cheaply triggering maternal/paternal instincts) would not get their law abuse fix (including financial compensation for the necessary elitist group dictating strictly how to live a safe life to the public — defining risk is always subjective, so naturally unfair and therefore unjust — such dictation always problematic, according to history and the currently wildly uncontrollable rule-of-so-called-law that ruins the lives of way too many people — including children).
Judicially regulating stupidity is ironically tragically as stupid as it gets, because stupidity is inherent within reality and never effectively honors humanity’s judicial line drawing (i.e. stupidity always equally exists within the halls of oligarchical rule). The only enemy of stupidity is objectivity, so conclusive research confirming harm negating use (i.e. confirming the possibility of abuse alone — e.g. murder, assault, theft, etc.) for the sake of law makes sense.