The other day, a couple of teenagers approached me. With a liquor store right beside us, they asked if I would purchase them 12 coolers. This does happen on occasion (and, yes, I decline). Now and then it occurs to me that I have yet to be approached by a youngster saying: "Sir, could you please score me some grass. My high school's dry".
The reason for that is simple: illegal drugs are easier for young people to get than legal ones. True today, this was also true when I was a teen. Even at the age of 13, any illegal drug you wanted was just one 14 year old away. Alcohol purchases, on the other hand, required some work. Fake ID, a (much) older friend, a willing adult, clued out parents who leave something around for their kids to swipe - all such endeavors were more labor intensive than copping illegal drugs from other kids.
Still - and this is understandable - many oppose legalization in the (false) belief that the very young would then have easier access to dope. Yet everything we've learned over the last few decades would suggest the opposite: while the safeguards placed on legal substances are not perfect, they at least have the effect of forcing youngsters to jump through a few extra hoops before getting the desired product.
Some protection is better than none and, so far, that is the best we've been able to do. And it's not hard to understand why. As soon as a product is banned outright, it goes underground and travels through channels that don't care about kids at all.
If you really want to protect children, maybe your own, consider how much harder it is for youngsters today to get drunk compared how easy it is for them to get high on marijuana, or even crack for that matter.
Sorry folks, but your authorities (political and other) have been lying to you for some time now. Drug prohibition is motivated by many interests and objectives - religious and moralistic zeal, economic exploitation, racism, and others - but protecting children has never had much to do with it.
Anyone seriously concerned with juvenile substance use and misuse should wake up and smell the coffee: legalization would at least afford youngsters some protection, whereas prohibition provides no protection at all.
Follow Dr. Peter Ferentzy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterFerentzy
Vilifying cannabis may satisfy the small-minded, the ostentatious, and those with vested interests in maintaining (cannabis) prohibition, but that same revilement (of cannabis) stands like a beacon highlighting the absurdities of the arguments, excuses or rationale presented for maintaining status quo.
Considering the vituperation of cannabis has, ultimately, only led to its' (further) dissemination, there isn't a single viable reason for maintaining cannabis prohibition.
All Best
Peter
Mexican Drug Lord Officially Thanks American Lawmakers for Keeping Drugs Illegal
By David Henry Sterry
3-26-09
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html?view=screen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera reported head of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico, ranked 701st on Forbes' yearly report of the wealthiest men alive, and worth an estimated $1 billion, today officially thanked United States politicians for making sure that drugs remain illegal. According to one of his closest confidants, he said, "I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you."
No matter how much we lie/deceive our children-they know. And in the end all we do is to teach them to lie/deceive and ultimately violence from the fears we are creating by being dishonest.
Peace.
KC
Cheers
P
i am sure Al Capone felt the same way about 1920's Prohibition/Gambling.
Thanks for your time/writing...have you looked at writing for the GuardianUK. It is one of the only media outlets who runs off a trust fund. Therefore it is not beholding to advertisers. Other great writers/social change advocates/investigative journalists have moved over to them...Greg Palast, Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges etc...