I think it's a problem of adjusting to something new.
Looking at alcohol for comparison, societies have evolved cultural norms for dealing with it. In W. Europe for example, wine is part of meals; in UK a pint at the pub is a routine social occasion. In the US, with the heritage of puritans, "reformers" and a younger culture, there is more of an "all or nothing" mentality, the prohibition experiment, and youth drinking to get drunk.
As cannabis legalization spreads, norms will develop to govern what's acceptable in households, coffeeshops, etc.
> in UK a pint at the pub is a routine social occasion.
This minimizes both the alcohol consumption and alcohol consumption to excess in the UK.
For instance, Britain ranks 17th in the world in terms of total alcohol consumption - just below Russia. [1]
More importantly, binge drinking rates in Britain and Ireland are the highest in Europe :
> "A Europe-wide study found that although the British are not the EU's most regular drinkers – only consuming alcohol an average of four times a week – they drink the most at one sitting." [2]
When combined, this data paints a slightly different picture than a nation of tempered well-acquainted drinkers who just hang out with a pint or two.
I think it's a problem of adjusting to something new.
This sounds like "parenting," to me. You don't want your kids getting acclimated to something that is outside of your experience. Natural in some ways, but in this case I think it's overblown.
That may be true, but I'm not convinced it is. There's some evidence to the contrary [0]. The explanation I've heard is, if what you're selling is always illegal, you won't discriminate much about whom you sell to since you'll get in trouble if you're caught no matter what. On the other hand, if you can make a bunch of money legally selling something to adults, you won't be as eager to take extra risk just to get a few more sales.
That's a valid data point. Without moving the goal posts, I'd like to re-phrase the logic :
The crux of this argument is that the supply chain for illicit marijuana will be disrupted by legalization. In other words, legalizing will cause current (illegal) suppliers to go out of business and/or stop doing business with street / kid / high school dealers - thus reducing availability for underage kids.
My issue with this logic is that I can't see why the demand for a product (marijuana) won't continue to drive supply once it's legalized. There will always be a way for a local high school dealer to find weed. Supply chains could easily re-route to accommodate demand in high schools.
What I do find to be a compelling argument, however, is the notion that demand could decrease post-legalization. This seems rational to me.
The alcohol comparison feels awkward, primarily due to the difficulty in trafficking in alcohol at the small scale. It's bulkier and decidedly more awkward to manage. Therefore, it's not exactly apples to apples.
At one point, I also considered the fact that legalizing could decrease profit margins. However, low level dealers really don't have much of a profit margin to begin with.
However, you have solid data and I'm primarily speculating :)
I agree there could be other explanations for the difference in accessibility of those drugs. I hadn't considered the the idea that weed/cigarettes are less bulky and easier to hide.
Overall I think the effect of legalization on accessibility to teens isn't clear, and I'd avoid making a definite statement either way.
I agree, when I was younger, it was much easier for me to buy cannabis than alcohol. Alcohol required knowing someone older than 21, cannabis required knowing a dealer, which was much easier.
Is that a problem for legalization or parenting?