Who would have thought that unprescribed mind-altering drugs could in any way be possibly harmful to children? And here I was told that the dangers presented by soft drugs like marijuana from programs like D.A.R.E. was overwrought fear-mongering.
Is the number of visits related to marijuana (a) more, or (b) less than those related to: acetomenophan, ibruprofen, naproxen sodium, nicotine products, household cleaners/insect sprays/other noxious household chemicals, inhalants, and any other OTC drug and/or item purchasable by adults? (In fact, with most of these, children can buy them too).
Is the overall outcome (long-term effects) of the incident and hospital visit related to marijuana (a) better, or (b) worse than those related to acetomenophan, ibruprofen, naproxen sodium, nicotine products, household cleaners/insect sprays/other noxious household chemicals, inhalants, and any other OTC drug and/or item purchasable by adults? (In fact, with most of these, children can buy them too).
Is the immediate harm (short term), are those related to marijuana (a) more, or (b) less than those related to: acetomenophan, ibruprofen, naproxen sodium, nicotine products, household cleaners/insect sprays/other noxious household chemicals, inhalants, and any other OTC drug and/or item purchasable by adults? (In fact, with most of these, children can buy them too).
I can tell you that the answer is (b) in all circumstances across the run of cases.
I remember what you said about supporting prohibition. That may be a personal stance. Maybe you have powerful personal reasons for taking it. Just about everyone I know who has taken a position that strong does. But because of that, their positions are not reasonable; the intensity of position seems to stand in for reasonableness.
Let's get pragmatic and crude: you are basically pissing into the wind if you argue policy from that position for the simple reason that you're simultaneously swimming uphill against people like me AND people who aren't happy about marijuana legalization but also find your overall view too strong.
I'd suggest taking a pragmatic approach, to stake out what might be possible and argue for that relative to what is and is not already allowable. And to do so while considering the total balance of interference in personal life you think government should have; a risk vs. freedom analysis.
As for the OP, let's bear in mind what was actually found here:
- The incidence of calls for single-substance cannabis exposure increased 140 percent during the study period -- from 0.4 per 100,000 population before medical marijuana was legalized to 1.1 per 100,000 population after legalization.
MA population: 6.9 million.
Absolute increase: 27.6 calls to 75.9 calls
- Nearly 80 percent of the calls to the poison control center came from healthcare facilities, and, in terms of medical outcomes, most of the exposures resulted in moderate and minor effects. Four cases with major effects and no deaths were reported.
Need I go on?
Bottom line:
This is a tiny handful of people. And one way you can gauge, thus reassess, the reasonableness of your position is to ask yourself that if taking something legal and making it illegal - make sure to include things you use around the house yourself - is to ask whether 50 less calls a year, all but four being about something without 'major effects' and with no deaths at all, is enough to cause you to make that thing illegal.
If you don't agree to make things illegal that you use for any purpose illegal if that threshold his passed, your position on legal marijuana is not rational.