That’s true in a sense, but how much access would be reduced by making (pot) drug dealers obsolete? I think it’s arguable that it would result in reduced access, not increased. If we drastically increased the penalties for adults who provide substances for minors, I feel confident access would definitely go down. If I could get legal weed, but would lose that privilege by hooking up a minor, I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Sorry, we don’t agree, because I see nothing wrong with THC candy. That “what about the children” argument ends up with everyone eating baby food because a baby can’t eat steak. Marijuana has a very strong flavor, much like alcohol. Some people don’t like that flavor. One of the best ways to cover an unpleasant flavor is by adding a crap-ton of sugar. We allow the sale of wine coolers, a sweet beverage that tries to minimize the taste of alcohol. I see THC candies much the same way.
This in addition to the financial aspect. THC candy costs a lot more than regular candy, so it’s unlikely to be just thrown in a snack bowl freely accessible to all. Also, ingesting THC is much less cost-effective than smoking it. So, if a minor with limited cash wants candy, they’re better of just buying candy. If they want to get high, they’ll get more bang for their buck with smokeable weed. which is easily available on the black market. IMO, teens are not the most risk-adverse group. I doubt the majority would choose to ingest it but would refuse to smoke it for health reasons. Even then, nothing is stopping them from cooking it themselves. It’s on the difficulty level of baking cookies, not cooking up crystal meth.
Now, if THC candies had serious health effects, maybe I could see the outrage. But they don’t. They are not physically addictive. They has never been a single case of overdosing on THC. While they are not harmless, there is a very low chance of serious harm. Compare that to my friends little brother, who just spent time in a hospital after a serious bender on Rockstar energy drinks that came pre-mixed with vodka. Those things damn near killed him. They are an age restricted product that has youth culture appeal, can cause serious harm, and yet they are completely legal.
If you are going to make an argument that restricts the choices of adults, you need to have a better argument than kids might like it. Adults are allowed to like candy too.
Ice cream is a gateway drug. Sugar addicts by the millions in the USA. Stoned drivers? There should be some people that are required to smoke before driving. Would put an end to road rage. You can go into a liquor store and buy enough alcohol to kill a thousand people. The only way to kill someone with pot is to asphyxiate them with smoke, lots of smoke and very little air. Nobody is doing that, but I have read time and again of some college student dying from a drinking party. IMHO the government has no business deciding what I can put in my body, be it pot, meth, alcohol, or a .45 slug. I would not trust the government to mow my lawn(if I had one)
“They has never been a single case of overdosing on THC. While they are not harmless, there is a very low chance of serious harm.”
I supplied a couple of citations upstream from pediatricians that question that a bit. Overdosing absolutely happens. No fatalities, I know, I know…
Never mind. We can have varied judgments about whether a product like Monster drinks with alcohol should be allowed to exist or not. I’d vote No, and probably the same with Gummies with THC, but time will tell whether there is an issue serious to require additional intervention.
I found and read the cite mentioned, and in good faith I even ignored the iffy reporting in the link and read the actual study that was linked. It confirmed what every parent of small children knows, which is that they’re idiots who will put anything in their mouth, especially anything that looks like candy.
Still, in the case of accidental ingestion, what do you think is going to hurt a child more in the long run? A minor health incident which according to your own cite usually lasts less than 24 hours, or having one or both of their guardians sent to jail for possession of a narcotic?
Also, if a child does ingest some THC candies, I would like that child to get medical attention. The authors of the study you cited confirmed that there was likely a chilling effect where parents were less likely to seek medical attention for their children in states where marijuana was illegal due to fears of criminal prosecution. Is that what you’re arguing for? And if not, what exactly are you arguing for?
This is the rub, for me. Legislation is supposed to be the solution to a problem. Prohibition of marijuana was the solution to an as-yet imaginary problem.
Mithrander, I’m sorry. If you care to, you can read through my past entries in this thread (if you haven’t), and then ask me for clarification, but I feel like I’m repeating myself. Either I’m being unclear, or maybe people are picking up on the thread in process and not starting from the beginning.
I’m **not **against legalization.
I have read all your posts and I’ve even read all your cites. This is how I’ve noticed you keep saying that you’re not against legalization, like that statement is some sort of verbal shield. It’s not. Quit being wishy-washy and telling us what you’re not against. Instead, take a fucking stand and tell us what you’re actually for.
This quote is from your first post to this thread, and this is what I’m arguing against.
This discussion is in a forum called Great** Debates. ** If you don’t want to make any arguments to support your opinion that THC candy is wrong instead of merely asserting it repeatedly, there’s no debate here. Do you have any actual arguments against THC candy?
Before I bother, can you demonstrate that you can *discern the difference *between ‘skeptical about the need for THC-laced candy and sodas’, and calling for pot to be illegal?
And to the question above about the difference between an overdose and fatality, you can OD on stuff without dying. It happens all the time. If you want a workable definition, I’d start by offering “if it requires medical intervention/stabilization/support, as opposed to no intervention, then it’s an OD”.
You said “Still, in the case of accidental ingestion, what do you think is going to hurt a child more in the long run? A minor health incident which according to your own cite usually lasts less than 24 hours, or having one or both of their guardians sent to jail for possession of a narcotic?”
I’d argue that this is a false dichotomy, and has nothing to do with my position, it only follows if you heard me call for pot to be illegal, and you didn’t hear that from me.
Enipla has also reported in the prior page that they have seen child-resistant packaging being done in dispensaries.
I just want to confirm that I saw that post, first, and it makes the debate rather moot if this is already standard practice in all dispensaries.
Don’t bother. I’d reply, but you’re not worth starting a pit thread over. I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith, so as to not break board rules I have nothing to say to you anywhere else.
So I guess we should ban cough drops and medicinal lozenges because they’re too much like candy? Ban flavored syrups because they’re too much like soda? And of course, only children like candy and sodas?
Or maybe that whole line of argument is a bunch of shit.
I agree. That would be a shitty line of argument. Just as arguing that THC Pixie sticks should be handed out in elementary schools as rewards for good attendance.
I move that this thread is about done, nothing much further to be gained.