tessuraea wrote:I tend to think it's better to make laws pragmatically, but guided by principles. Look at the situation and possible effects.
This I can pretty much agree on.
tessuraea wrote:Example: marijuana use. Not overly harmful stuff, pretty much nonaddictive and easily less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Used widely even in areas where it's illegal with minimal ill effect. Some medicinal use. Pragmatically, it would make sense to (in the U.S.) at least reduce it from a Schedule I drug to something doctors are allowed to give patients for medical use. On principle, either marijauna should be entirely legal or alcohol and tobacco should be outlawed; pragmatically that might be a bit much of a change all at once either way. Outlawing alcohol leads to all kinds of not-fun.
I've yet to see a truly unbiased study on marijuana, as it's the kind of thing that gets funded by someone with an agenda. As far as it being "less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol," I think that's debatable, but not in this thread.
tessuraea wrote:It's not *just* because everyone does it--it's because everyone does it and there aren't any particularly awful negative effects. (And "everyone" is the wrong word: I don't!) Lots of people speed, but that leads to a higher accident rate and higher fatality rate.
This is true (the speeding part). It's also been shown that the vast majority of people who are pack-a-day smokers started before they were 18 (and that if you can make it to 18 without starting smoking, you probably won't ever start).
As for the harmful effects of underage drinking, if it's done at 18, 19, 20, that's one thing, but drinking heavily at the age of, say, 14, when one's body is still developing quite rapidly, should probably be avoided.
Lester:P wrote:22/7- An age limit is a test to discern what rights someone has, it's just a test with a single question, i.e. how many times have you gone around the sun?
Now there's a semantic argument.