|
Eh I really don't see an issue with cops confiscating weed and calling the parents of minors. It's a purely paternal service as parents aren't omniscient and when their kid leaves the house, I'm 100% fine with having different rules governing them that wouldn't apply to adults. Confiscation + Notifying parents seems like a good policy decision. It has the added benefit of forcing the Police to interact with citizens (the parents) in a non-adversarial way.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Eh I really don't see an issue with cops confiscating weed and calling the parents of minors. It's a purely paternal service as parents aren't omniscient and when their kid leaves the house, I'm 100% fine with having different rules governing them that wouldn't apply to adults. Exactly. Why does everything we object to have to be illegal? Truancy? ILLEGAL! Cannabis use by minors, ILLEGAL! It demonstrates a severe poverty of reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
One thing I will concede is that, at some point, parents take responsibility for how to raise their kids. We can prevent stores from selling to minors, but it's up to parents to let kids know why smoking large amounts of weed or getting drunk a lot could be detrimental to their future prospects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Just to throw it out there, a fine of a $100 can be a really big deal for some households. That kind of money makes a big difference between two meals a day and going hungry at the end of the month. It's sometimes hard to imagine the damages that a seemingly small amount of money or extra time or energy requirements can cause to households already on the edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
AYC posted:One thing I will concede is that, at some point, parents take responsibility for how to raise their kids. We can prevent stores from selling to minors, but it's up to parents to let kids know why smoking large amounts of weed or getting drunk a lot could be detrimental to their future prospects. The natural order of things is that parents make anything they do look entirely unappealing to their kids, hence the need for legalizing drugs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Confiscation + Notifying parents seems like a good policy decision. It has the added benefit of forcing the Police to interact with citizens (the parents) in a non-adversarial way. This is a really good and complete idea, in fact it has decreased my tolerance for any punitive measures as a part of legalization (not that I really tolerated them to begin with). And if the police say that they don't have time to talk to kids' parents we will definitely know that they are bullshitting, because they certainly have time to drive the kids down to juvie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I love that AYC and KillHour have completely ignored me calling them out on their claim that it is illegal to consume alcohol as a minor, despite it only being true in 5 (12 if I am being super generous) states at most. I would be fine with pot having the same rules as alcohol, which is to say (in large part) its okay for them to consume with parental permission even below the age which they can buy it. (the drinking age being 21 is stupid as gently caress but thats another topic)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I love that AYC and KillHour have completely ignored me calling them out on their claim that it is illegal to consume alcohol as a minor, despite it only being true in 5 (12 if I am being super generous) states at most. I agree with you; put the drinking age at 18 or 19 and legalize smoking w/ parental supervision, while keeping purchasing restricted to adult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
AYC posted:Sorry, I must have skipped that post. I'd rather have purchasing governed by emancipation, actually. So 18 years old (since that's the age of emancipation) or emancipated minor, which you could mark somewhere on your license or something. Once you're an adult, and able to enter into contractions of your choice of your own free will, I think you should also be able to participate in drugs of your choice recreationally. But I'd be fine with what you're saying as well. I think the drinking age being at 21 is just because a lot of older adults are jealous of 18-21 year olds and want to feel justified in thinking they are bad people doing wrong things even when they do the same thing the older people do. Otherwise it just plain doesn't make any sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I love that AYC and KillHour have completely ignored me calling them out on their claim that it is illegal to consume alcohol as a minor, despite it only being true in 5 (12 if I am being super generous) states at most. I didn't ignore you. I was at work, and didn't have time to write a more thorough post on the matter. According to Wikipedia, your numbers are low: quote:As of January 1, 2010, 15 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. So, the majority of states ban consumption of alcohol by minors (with about half of those states having exceptions, but this is still true in a general sense). I think, in principle, I don't have a huge objection to exceptions to underage bans. In practice, however, any law that lets a minor smoke pot is going to be a non-starter, politically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Since the drinking age was lowered at different times in different states, research should be able to clearly show whether not it reduced traffic fatalities involving alcohol for people in the 18-20 age group at times corresponding to various drinking law changes. That should isolate various other factors that could cause reduced fatalities, like increasing car safety. Everything I've googled seems to indicate that this is the case. The Young and Likens study in 2000 sounds pretty good, but I can only read the abstract and things that cited it. (abstract here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818800000235 ) The looked at data across states and controlled for all sorts of variables, like the similarly time-varying seatbelt laws introduced around the same time. Their findings included that raising the drinking age to 21 had a statistically significant effect on alcohol-related fatalities. To me this is by far the largest concern with regards to the drinking age - I couldn't care less about rights when the tradeoff to granting them is more traffic fatalities. I believe marijuana would have the opposite effect, especially if allowed to be consumed in bars/clubs similar to alcohol. It is far less impairing on one's ability to drive and probably would cause a statistically significant number of people to use it instead of alcohol, also most likely reducing fatalities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Since the drinking age was lowered at different times in different states, research should be able to clearly show whether not it reduced traffic fatalities involving alcohol for people in the 18-20 age group at times corresponding to various drinking law changes. That should isolate various other factors that could cause reduced fatalities, like increasing car safety. Everything I've googled seems to indicate that this is the case. The Young and Likens study in 2000 sounds pretty good, but I can only read the abstract and things that cited it. (abstract here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818800000235 ) The looked at data across states and controlled for all sorts of variables, like the similarly time-varying seatbelt laws introduced around the same time. Their findings included that raising the drinking age to 21 had a statistically significant effect on alcohol-related fatalities. To me this is by far the largest concern with regards to the drinking age - I couldn't care less about rights when the tradeoff to granting them is more traffic fatalities. If you believed that banning alcohol entirely would reduce traffic fatalities by a statistically significant amount, would you also support that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you believed that banning alcohol entirely would reduce traffic fatalities by a statistically significant amount, would you also support that? Well obviously that would have significant other detriments that would have to be weighed against. Banning bars might well be a net win even if it's a weird thing to come out supporting, but jailing people for it almost certainly would not. Nothing should be considered in a vacuum, that goes without saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you believed that banning alcohol entirely would reduce traffic fatalities by a statistically significant amount, would you also support that? No, because the prohibition of alcohol (as we have seen) leads to much worse consequences than drunk driving. The ends aren't worth the means, in that case. The only negative thing banning underage drinking leads to is 17 year olds that think they're cool 'cause they stole a light beer out of dad's fridge or gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy to buy them a 6 pack of Smirnoff Ice. I'm not in favor of legalizing weed because I give a poo poo about your rights to smoke it. I'm in favor of legalizing it because the effects of prohibition are a horrible blight on society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
With the advent of self-driving cars, the primary justification for a higher drinking age will disappear within a generation or two. For now though, it's here to stay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
KillHour posted:No, because the prohibition of alcohol (as we have seen) leads to much worse consequences than drunk driving. The ends aren't worth the means, in that case. The effects weren't actually that bad - alcohol consumption genuinely did drop a lot. There was more binge drinking on the high end but the curve was flattened for sure. I think the common view of prohibition as a failure of enforcement is a false one. It was repealed mostly because it was unpopular, not because it was unsuccessful. There is certainly room for a government to ban things even if it is unpopular - the US does it on plenty of smaller scales, like kinder eggs. Establishing trust in the forces that enact such things is hard, for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:The effects weren't actually that bad - alcohol consumption genuinely did drop a lot. There was more binge drinking on the high end but the curve was flattened for sure. I think the common view of prohibition as a failure of enforcement is a false one. It was repealed mostly because it was unpopular, not because it was unsuccessful. There is certainly room for a government to ban things even if it is unpopular - the US does it on plenty of smaller scales, like kinder eggs. Establishing trust in the forces that enact such things is hard, for good reason. Prohibition's main negative consequence was the creation of modern organized crime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
AYC posted:Prohibition's main negative consequence was the creation of modern organized crime. It definitely grew a lot during that time, but it existed before then(mainly for gambling and prostitution), and has persisted long after. Even if a law as extreme as the Volstead act was established today, I doubt you'd see the same sort of growth - organized crime now has established structures and would simply move into a new industry without much need for disproportionate new growth. Things might have been a lot different if the law passed hadn't been so severe - the prohibition amendment didn't set a particular threshold amount of alcohol, it was congress who set it to 0.5%. There's little doubt in my mind that we'd be better off than we are now if cannabis prohibition had been repealed and alcohol prohibition had stuck around. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:organized crime now has established structures and would simply move into a new industry without much need for disproportionate new growth. That is absurd. If there was obscene money to be made from other types of crime they'd already be involved in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
KingEup posted:That is absurd. If there was obscene money to be made from other types of crime they'd already be doing it. Only if the cost to enter a new market is relatively small. If you have a golden goose there's no reason to find others until it dies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
KingEup posted:That is absurd. If there was obscene money to be made from other types of crime they'd already be involved in it. I don't understand what this is a response to. My claim is that, if alcohol prohibition were passed today, alcohol trafficking would be mostly taken up by existing organized crime organizations with their existing infrastructure, and would not cause the large increase in the size of such organizations that 1920s prohibition did. Unless you think that organized crime is no longer around?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if the cost to enter a new market is relatively small. Yes, they do. Greed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
size1one posted:Yes, they do. Greed. Greed and apathy tend to go hand in hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
This is a conversation based on a misunderstanding I think. I'm gonna respond anyway. Companies don't always enter new markets because there is opportunity cost. Sometimes they will get more leverage out of putting money into their existing business instead. Apple computer could probably have inferred that there is money to be made by say, opening a hamburger restaurant like five guys did, but they don't because their money is better spent improving their existing products and making other products that further synergize with their own. Either way, a criminal organization moving into illegal alcohol sales would certainly increase their revenue, but that's not really the same as the size of their organization, which I think is a better proxy for the negative impact such crime has on society. Like sure, maybe they hire more accountants, but it would probably fit nicely into their existing, uhh, sales pipelines. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Greed and apathy tend to go hand in hand. True. But apathetic isn't how I would describe a massive drug cartel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Well obviously that would have significant other detriments that would have to be weighed against. Banning bars might well be a net win even if it's a weird thing to come out supporting, but jailing people for it almost certainly would not. Nothing should be considered in a vacuum, that goes without saying. You can't reduce everything to a cost benefit analysis. Some policies are unjust and ought to be dismantled for that reason alone (see women's suffrage and abolition). The policy of drug prohibition is morally bankrupt. No further argument for repeal is necessary. KillHour posted:I'm not in favor of legalizing weed because I give a poo poo about your rights to smoke it. Democracy is ordered liberty and must be restricted in some ways. However liberty must be protected equally, or at least roughly equally. Where the law creates a presumption of liberty, each person has a vital interest in not having his liberty denied while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty. Drug prohibition violates this principle. It has less to do with the liberty to do whatever the gently caress you want and more to do with protecting equal liberty. The cannabis user poses no greater harm to legitimate state interests than does the boozer or tobacco user and yet the cannabis user is punished more harshly than the former. KingEup fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
KingEup posted:You can't reduce everything to a cost benefit analysis. Some policies are unjust and ought to be dismantled for that reason alone (see women's suffrage and abolition). The policy of drug prohibition is morally bankrupt. No further argument for repeal is necessary. This kind of gets at the root of how to define a moral truth - I don't see value in "rights" in and of themselves, only the positive and negative consequences for the people they are granted to. The morality of an action, in my eyes, is strictly defined by its consequences. Right now it seems clear that marijuana prohibition, along with that of many other drugs, causes more bad consequences than good ones, so you're right, those should be repealed on moral grounds. However, that doesn't mean that it is impossible for any prohibition regime to have more good consequences than bad ones, and thus be morally right, as I believe setting the drinking age to 21 instead of 18 to be. So yes, I can reduce everything to cost-benefit analysis, or at least I would have to in order to make a moral statement on it with any meaning. (Cost in some abstract notion of happiness/utility, certainly not dollars.) I don't think you need any more than what I've described to advocate for women's suffrage or abolition, unless you think those things actually were a net benefit to society. You're free to disagree on how to define morals in the first place - lots of others do, but I think the notion of some things being right and wrong by some abstract truth in the universe and not their actual consequences should stay the domain of the religious. This is probably beyond the scope of this thread but I can pose moral quandaries all day to try and root out how you feel here. Like, say you had a society which was perfectly law-abiding when sober, and every person would obey a law that says not to drink. However, if they could legally drink, they would lose their law-abiding nature when drunk, and drive home drunk, and frequently get in fatal car accidents. Obviously this is contrived and nothing like our actual society, but wouldn't you support prohibition in that case? Some way to quantify the suffering caused by not drinking is probably in order here, but I think it would be pretty reasonably less than the suffering caused by the loss of human life. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Democracy is ordered liberty and must be restricted in some ways. However liberty must be protected equally, or at least roughly equally. Where the law creates a presumption of liberty, each person has a vital interest in not having his liberty denied while others are allowed an equal or more harmful liberty. Drug prohibition violates this principle. It has less to do with the liberty to do whatever the gently caress you want and more to do with protecting equal liberty. The cannabis user poses no greater harm to legitimate state interests than does the boozer or tobacco user and yet the cannabis user is punished more harshly than the former. This presumes that I believe that liberty, in itself, has inherent value. Nearly all people will say that they believe this, but my experience shows otherwise. People only appreciate liberty inasmuch it matches their social moores. The prevalence of blue laws proves this. Arguing the personal freedoms angle will only get you anywhere with libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
To people like SedanChair who seem to be arguing "pot is literally incapable of causing any problems and has no downsides", how much of it would you say you smoke in an average week? It's a drug. Some people have destructive/addictive relationships with it. In my experience, that's only a controversial opinion among people who have destructive/addictive relationships with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:To people like SedanChair who seem to be arguing "pot is literally incapable of causing any problems and has no downsides", how much of it would you say you smoke in an average week? I would never admit to using prohibited substances. But it doesn't matter regardless; what matters is that people have functional lives. Having a "destructive relationship" with cannabis doesn't involve anyone dying period. It doesn't even make you indolent; those people were always going to be indolent. The inchoate harm schoolmarms, prudes and scolds love to point to is couch-locked people without ambition. But "couch-locked people without ambition" describes a majority of citizens of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I would never admit to using prohibited substances. But it doesn't matter regardless; what matters is that people have functional lives. Having a "destructive relationship" with cannabis doesn't involve anyone dying period. It doesn't even make you indolent; those people were always going to be indolent. Sure; I don't think that people being indolent or risking their lives is, intrinsically, a prerequisite to rationally thinking that particular behaviors should be discouraged or illegal. That sounds like a moral judgement. That's not really what I was speaking to, though. I think there is an undercurrent to the current legalization movement which overlooks or downplays actual risks of cannabis use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Sure; I don't think that people being indolent or risking their lives is, intrinsically, a prerequisite to rationally thinking that particular behaviors should be discouraged or illegal. That sounds like a moral judgement. Go ahead on those actual risks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I think there is an undercurrent to the current legalization movement which overlooks or downplays actual risks of cannabis use. What risks, exactly? Unlike others I'm not afraid to talk about my cannabis use: I've been smoking nearly every day since 2008. I graduated college with honors, I moved halfway across the country for work (I hate my job and everything about the industry but that's beside the point) and consistently receive positive performance evaluations, I go to the gym, I bike; I am, for all intents and purposes, healthy. The only risks I've faced come from draconian anti-labor law that grants employers the right to force me to piss in a cup or take a sample of my body hair for the express purpose of firing me or eliminating me from the hiring pool, and from authoritative, militarized police forces whose first instinct is to pull a gun, and from the subsequent societal fallout of being booked for drug possession. The risks associated with cannabis come solely from the punishments that are doled out by those who are against my using it. The actual risks of cannabis use are Negligible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
The big battle in Oregon is coming down to local taxes. Cities and counties want to pile on taxes in addition to the state tax. Since the bill was explicitly worded to be exactly like the alcohol bill the state would be in charge of all taxes. It's pretty obvious that they're doing this to scare away potential businesses in certain locales. There is also a provision that allows for citizens to vote for weather or not to ban alcohol in their cities. The legislators of some towns are trying to overstep this and say that if the legislature votes to ban marijuana sales then it should be banned weather or not the people actually want it. Money quote: "Nobody is going to call the state of Oregon if (marijuana) smoke is drifting into their yard from a neighbor's house." The danger of weed smoke drifting into yards and killing people is evident in the 80's documentary Wes Craven's The Fog. Fuckt Tupp fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:The big battle in Oregon is coming down to local taxes. Cities and counties want to pile on taxes in addition to the state tax. Since the bill was explicitly worded to be exactly like the alcohol bill the state would be in charge of all taxes. It's pretty obvious that they're doing this to scare away potential businesses in certain locales. I'm fine with this if we put the exact same restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What risks, exactly? Unlike others I'm not afraid to talk about my cannabis use: I've been smoking nearly every day since 2008. I graduated college with honors, I moved halfway across the country for work (I hate my job and everything about the industry but that's beside the point) and consistently receive positive performance evaluations, I go to the gym, I bike; I am, for all intents and purposes, healthy. The only risks I've faced come from draconian anti-labor law that grants employers the right to force me to piss in a cup or take a sample of my body hair for the express purpose of firing me or eliminating me from the hiring pool, and from authoritative, militarized police forces whose first instinct is to pull a gun, and from the subsequent societal fallout of being booked for drug possession. I don't know you or your situation, so none of what I'm about to communicate reflects my opinion of you per se. That said, basically I think that marijuana is far less toxic than alcohol, and less prone to cause use-related accidents or crashes, but that in other ways the risks of the two substances have some similarities. Meaning, that people without addictive tendencies, are largely able to use these drugs in a way that does not interfere with their success in life, but that for people from problematic backgrounds or with generalized addictive behaviors, such use generally exacerbates their existing problems and makes them less functional. I know a lot of people who do or have used marijuana with no problems whatsoever. I also have interacted with a good number of people going through substance abuse recovery programs of one kind or another who feel that they were harmed by their pot use and that it was, to them, more or less the same as any other problematic compulsive behavior. Finally, I know a handful of people who still use pot on a regular basis, obviously prioritize it over other things that a non-addict would not (food, rent, time spent with family, etc). My other, probably more controversial opinion, is entirely based on my observations of myself. I know for a fact that any time I smoke weed on a daily basis for more than about a week, there are obvious deficits in my short-term memory and attention span, compared to times that I don't smoke. I have even documented this as objectively as possible by doing things like keeping a log of how many times I don't know where my keys/wallet/phone are over a space of months, along with how much I smoke. Shockingly, I lose my keys on average about once a month if I don't smoke at all, and up to 5-6 times a week if I do. Because I observe this so strongly in myself, and also recognize the same obvious tendency among other people that I interact with closely, I assume that it is a typical pattern even if it does not necessarily apply to all people and all things. I am absolutely not suggesting that any of this is a good reason to keep pot illegal, because all of these problems seem pretty petty compared to the problems associated with the war or drugs. That doesn't mean that they're not real concerns, though, and I think that pot users who do espouse the view that there's literally no downside to smoking pot multiple times a day, are part of the problem because when this view is presented to the average person who has never used weed, it seems illogical and therefore 'addled'. I realize that nearly everything I've said here screams out loudly to how biased I am by my own experiences. I will gladly concede that, but point out that this bias comes from interacting with a large number of users over a dispersed geographic area, over a period of decades. edit: TL;DR the point I was trying to make was that I've never met anyone who took the hard-line "pot is totally safe and completely without downsides and the only problems surrounding it relate to its legal status", who was not themselves a regular user. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I think that pot users who do espouse the view that there's literally no downside to smoking pot multiple times a day, are part of the problem because when this view is presented to the average person who has never used weed, it seems illogical and therefore 'addled'. Hit the nail on the head. Marijuana, like anything else, should be enjoyed in moderation. I wouldn't support promoting endless marijuana usage among teenagers anymore than I would tell a teenager to drink a 2-liter of Pepsi once a day. The key to ending prohibition is to support responsible, regulated usage of a drug, rather than trying (and failing) to ban it. "Free-for-all" legalization is a horrible idea that should not, and will not, be implemented in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
I agree that most things should be enjoyed in moderation, but I think we should begin by banning the consumption of soda, junk food and fast food for minors. You currently have children of 8 or 9 year old developing diabetes because their parents give them free access to terrible food purposely designed to be addictive. A life long health condition that young, on top of the vastly increased risk of heart disease later in life, seems worse to me than memory lapses and laziness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I agree that most things should be enjoyed in moderation, but I think we should begin by banning the consumption of soda, junk food and fast food for minors. You currently have children of 8 or 9 year old developing diabetes because their parents give them free access to terrible food purposely designed to be addictive. A life long health condition that young, on top of the vastly increased risk of heart disease later in life, seems worse to me than memory lapses and laziness. Completely and utterly unenforceable on an incalculable number of levels. Education is the best we can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I agree that most things should be enjoyed in moderation, but I think we should begin by banning the consumption of soda, junk food and fast food for minors. You currently have children of 8 or 9 year old developing diabetes because their parents give them free access to terrible food purposely designed to be addictive. A life long health condition that young, on top of the vastly increased risk of heart disease later in life, seems worse to me than memory lapses and laziness. I didn't know the "starving children in Africa" routine was kosher here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 00:26
|
|