Peterkin

Agreed. Couple of problems with that: One - In the political organization of some countries, lobbying - by economic, militaristic and religious factions - holds more sway than scientific expertise does. Politicians would make more sound decisions if they only had expert advisors' and constituents' voice in their ears. Two - as to the effects of electronic media, the experts have not (afaik) reached a consensus on television and video games, let alone ubiquitous cellphone use and virtual social networks. (This is not simple! And Covid doesn't help.) Philosophically, too, we have far too much diversity to reach a consensus. Very few nations, anymore, have a single, consistent world-view. (I blame St. Paul and Descartes -- but then, they're my personal whipping-boys from way back.) That's another reason it's so difficult for any government to represent a national stand on any issue.

As far as I know. We've all heard of the Inuit practice of old people "going out on the ice" in times of famine. I've read about other pre-civilized societies wherein the severely injured and mortally ill were eased out of their pain (assisted suicide) - alongside susbsitance-level societies that nurtured and cared for their damaged members. We know about the honourable Roman who falls on his sword, rather than bring disgrace upon his family, etc. Even Christians celebrate religious martyrdom - just as Muslims do, and Christian nations all award posthumous medals to soldiers who sacrifice their own life for their comrades... and while condemning private murder, have no quibble with institutional murder. Christians can't quite wrap their morality around the value of human life, or decide who owns it - God, man or the state.

He's not alone. Most Government officials and judges are paternalistic: if they were not before, the job makes them so. Political power doesn't always corrupt; often it just convinces ordinarily intelligent people that they are wise. They want what's best for us; they often sincerely believe they know better what's good for us than we know ourselves. And since they cannot all agree among themselves what that is, they make piecemeal, lopsided, unenforceable laws, and waste a huge amount of the polity's resources in half-assed attempts to slap the polity into their notion of good behaviour.

But what if it is? The kids are never exactly where we think they are, any more than we were where our parents expected us to be.

That wasn't so much an assertion as a dig at Beecee. Sorry - a skinny young man with no mask came to fix the satellite dish today; my internet is back in full operation and I'm a little drunk on streaming old BBC productions.

So, less likely to drive stoned and hit an abutment; more likely to die virgins....

It doesn't show what they're doing instead. There is always a social lubricant, even if it's only herb tea and incense.... unless they've entirely given up in-person socializing and connect only through their phones. Is that possible - a generation hooked on nothing but electronic media? That's a semi-genuine question. I don't know any young people now and haven't for some time, but I don't really expect any adult to have the answer. We're doing our best to die off before the US Supreme Court rescinds every civil liberty we fought for.

Why not ban handguns altogether. Even the long barrel ones can kills somebody. Even the legal hunting rifles can kills somebody. Even a shotgun can kill somebody. And all of them do - especially in the hands of people who mix guns and alcohol, which is not at all unusual. But guns and alcohol are social necessities in North America, so they can't be banned. Only no-no'd along the fringes.

It's not quite unique to this generation. But as to the why, I can see several reasons. {just brainstorming: not an expert!} Social media, and how they're increasingly dependent on a small, conformist, judgmental social structure for their sense of self-worth; unable to gain any kind of recognition or status, or even achieve anything, in the real world; being surplus to requirements in the economy, increasingly bereft of a future for themselves and their world... I can see why the young might be looking for escape - or causes - and how either of those may lead some of them to the extreme of self-destruction or self-sacrifice. Not all societies have the same attitude. The suicide as a mortal sin idea is distinctly Christian (nothing to do with Jesus, BTW; much later). When you persuade large numbers of people to obey you with the promise of heaven after death, and then make their lives miserable, you have to find some way to keep them from seeking the reward before you've wrung all the work out of them. In the OT, suicide is no problem: Job's friends counselled him to seek relief from from his suffering: "Why do you not curse god and die?", the assumption being that Jehovah would co-operate. It was honourable in Japanese culture, as well as Roman and Hindu. Morality is largely a question of world-views. What the society considers to be the role of an individual in relation to the rulership, the society and the supernatural. It's a question of who owns whose ass. And what each one is worth. Yes. But it's like the abortion issue. The young are precious; we shouldn't kill them. But are we prepared to make the necessary effort to make their lives worthwhile?

It seems to work pretty well in Japan. But there is not much point in Canada trying that, while the US situation is as it is: the border is impossible to patrol.

All handguns are not banned. Some types of handgun are banned. People find ways to get around the law and buy the illegal ones anyway. All drugs are not banned. Some types of drug are banned. People find ways to get around the law and buy those drugs anyway. Is there something to be learned from this mulberry bush?

I do. Cars, gasoline, cigarettes, motorcycles and handguns are all dangerous. They are subject to limitations and regulations. Each of the limitations and regulations was legislated after a long, hard fight over the issue. Each of the dangerous things is, in spite of regulations and limitations, still misused by people who make stupid decisions (not exclusively made by stupid people, BTW) and yet the dangerous things themselves are still not utterly banned.

Apparently. They're still collecting data. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/5-truths-you-need-to-know-about-vaping

OK, I can see that. But I can also glimpse a problem with decriminalization: it puts whole classes of drugs and drug use in a sort of grey zone, where the users can still be discriminated-against according to various political and economic criteria, and the rules can become the kind of perennial campaign issue that some other civil liberty issues have become; regional inequality, selective enforcement, jurisdictional disputes; recourse allocation tussles.... And then, there is still the unresolved problem of identifying, assessing and classifying new drugs as they appear. And alcohol, still, the ubiquitous alcohol problem. This is not simple!

Thanks; I needed that.

So, on the whole, I would rather be allowed to make my own mistakes than have someone else's mistaken notion forced upon me - especially if their idea of what's righteous condemns me to years of helpless suffering. And I'm equally willing to trust other people with their own lives. So, on the whole, I would rather be allowed to make my own mistakes than have someone else's mistaken notion forced upon me - especially if their idea of what's righteous condemns me to years of helpless suffering. And I'm equally willing to let other people make their own decisions about their own lives.

Yes, regulation. But cars are not banned, lest we crash them; working in scaffolding and towers are not banned, lest we fall off, and fireplaces and stoves are not banned, lest we burn our homes down. And we do all those things: drive carelessly, build and work carelessly, heat and cook carelessly. Accidents do happen, because nobody can force us to be sensible. Government can only try to minimize the damage we do to ourselves. And that's all legalization of drugs is meant to accomplish: make regulation possible; re-allocate the money from the futile attempt at prevention of the cause to mitigation of the effects.

Pretty good summary. We're going to do some kinds of disservice to our bodies. Government can't prohibit everything that's bad for us - especially since most of the things that are bad for in excess are good for us in moderation. Government can't protect us from our own stupidity and recklessness. Government can't punish us into becoming smart, abstemious people. The best government can do is keep us informed, regulate the potential hazards, and make help available when we need it, even for self-inflicted harm.

Different times, different place, different world-views, but I wouldn't characterize their experience as simple. Some facts. Some partisan positions. Some medical opinions. Some advocacy, some propaganda, some hyperbole. I don't know what my daughter fears - she prefers to pretend everything is just perfect in her perfect family. As for me, drug and alcohol use is nowhere near the top of my list of concerns for them. That's never stopped anyone doing something stupid once in a while. Sure. Exactly so. One thing about legalization is quality control. Another thing about legalization is price control. If it's not worthwhile for organized crime to handle the drug traffic, there would be a whole lot less killing over it; if it doesn't attract petty, incompetent criminals, there would be fewer accidental poisonings from bad product. If it were legal, more people with a problem would seek help; if there were savings from policing/court/incarceration costs, plus income from taxation, there would be a lot more help available. Other people's grandkids are out on those streets, too. Most of them on meaner streets than Georgetown's. Thanks, that's helpful. So, do any additives in the final product behave anything like those in tobacco?

Is that study about natural marijuana or the enhanced high THC variety?

Probably everyone's is. Largely a function of changing styles, attitudes and issues of different time periods. My parents were post-WWI; I'm first-batch boomer; my kids are 70's vintage.

That's a good theory. We tried it, in several areas we thought our kids might need guidance. Come 13, they tend to shut down: don't want to be seen with you in public, don't want you to know how they feel, don't eat what you pack in their lunch, don't ask you any questions, slam doors if you ask any. You retaliate with various stratagems that seem clever at the time and that make you cringe in retrospect. In between skirmishes, you can have hilarious family dinners and pleasant evenings of entertainment or homework mentoring, then hostilities resume. The best-laid plans of mice and parents oft go up the generation gap.

Of course. There is a reason young people don't tell their parents everything. At least, there was when I didn't tell mine. They would have been more upset about the grass than the LSD, which they didn't understand. They would have been more afraid of me getting arrested than getting high, simply because it was illegal. In fact, I was a lot closer to being arrested for political activities than pot. They - and I - also didn't know that I was a lot closer to following my father into alcoholism than any of the other dangers they didn't know about. And they didn't know what I would pay, eventually, for the tobacco habit I picked up from them. What parents worry about is not much altered by what's written in the law-books.

Under what? I made my case; you have repeated yours. Again. We are done.