Apple has 5% but it's the cream of the crop in regard to certain traits: people who favor aestethics and "just works" over everything else and are willing to pay extra for it.
That's not the only reason to use OS X. I bought a MacBook Pro because the built-in sound card using the standard CoreAudio API processes audio and MIDI data faster (by 10-20ms) than my previous Windows laptop did with a Firewire external interface and ASIO drivers. That's a very significant difference when you're using your laptop as a recording studio and in a live instrument rig--try playing a song when the instrument's voice lags noticeably behind your key press.
Not only does it "just work," it just works better. The only drawback to the OS for me is that I can't play Thief 2.
The point of a preacher is to preach, or teach, on a verse. The point of a teacher in school is to help you learn; you would not accuse a math teacher of teaching you what he, or his grandfather, believed about calculus, would you?
No, I wouldn't. I do think a preacher has much more in common with a history or economics professor than a math teacher, though: there are different schools of thought, and which school you subscribe to depends greatly on when and in what order you were exposed to the different interpretations.
At the same time, you are free to disagree with him if you have good cause to do so and can demonstrate your case suitibly.
That would be good if people put in the effort to do so. It sounds like you do.
I think Luther was well aware; the criticism leveled at him was that opening the scriptures to the masses would open a "floodgate of iniquity". His response was "If a floodgate of iniquity be opened, so be it."
I never saw that quote before, but I like it! I don't think that the contemporary church feels the same way, though. I get what you're saying about the benefits of relying on a scholar who has studied this stuff for decades, but in my experience there is little encouragement for people to do any more than take him at his word. I had a fantastic sunday school teacher during my high school years who often started a class by reading a few verses and asking what we thought about them. The memorized responses came out early, and his response was always, "That's a very nice church answer." That was the only time in a church setting where I was encouraged to try and think through this stuff for myself. It's probably also one of the main reasons I became interested enough in the details of the religion to continue digging into it for years.
Additionally, a lot of the things (though not all) being called "not clear" are often enough things that are QUITE clear, and the readers simply do not want to accept them.
It's times like this when I wish these sorts of discussions were more welcome on Slashdot. Then again, I'm probably so far divergent at this point that we wouldn't get very far before hitting fundamentally different working assumptions--I'm at the point now where I try to be Christlike but can't claim the Christian label any longer (and I don't think Jesus himself would either). If you're interested in more arguing on the Internet, always a fun pastime if nothing else, GodGab.org is a very diverse, respectful and engaging place; at least it was a few years ago when I frequented it.
Long story short, I'm glad that you exercise your faith. It's always nice to see other people here who are not blindly opposed to religion but also don't take every religious teaching as, well...gospel. =)
I should make it clear that I meant to refer to the Catholic Church in antiquity and not today. Accordingly, "does tend to foster" should read "tended to foster." There are certainly issues with people in the modern Church which we all know about, but I didn't intend to claim that this is modern Catholic doctrine.
Before the Reformation (and I think for some time after), translations of the Bible from the Latin and Greek into the vernacular were frowned upon by the Church and for the most part banned. One of the reasons historians have given for this is that it made it easier for the Church to continue its selling of indulgences and its almost imperial rule. Not many people were literate at all, but far more people could read their native languages than could read Latin. If they were to find out that there wasn't much scriptural support for the Church's practices, it would be more difficult for the Church to exercise control. One of Martin Luther's earliest projects after he broke with the Church was to translate the New Testament into German to make sure that very thing happened.
I feel like I read somewhere too that priests believed they acted as intermediares between men and God, and that implies that people need help interpreting scripture--a belief that is shared by just about all organized religions. You're right that the ban on common language translations wasn't a stated position of the Church, though they banned more than a few, and it may indeed have only been to protect the racket they had going at the time. In any case, I am aware that it doesn't apply today and it was an honest mistake to make it sound like it did. My point was that sola scriptura is somewhat misleading, and perhaps it serves me right to be wrong when going off on a tangent.
I'm trying to recall what I was getting at by posting what I did, and I'm not seeing it. I think I was just being contrary because I believe religion has more worth than merely a collection of rituals--not that you'd be able to intuit that from my post, because it was sort of dumb and unrelated.
I do agree, if I get the right implications from your original post, that states should not be in the business of recognizing marriage at all: every union regardless of its gender makeup should be a civil union, with marriage ceremonies being optional and completely unrelated. Here in the US, same-sex couples could pretty easily find a denomination willing to marry them if they want a ceremony, but I imagine it wouldn't be as easy in Finland since its church is state-sponsored.
A difference in execution--mainly that there's less of them in a Christian theocracy =)
More seriously, it is differences in doctrine. Don't get me wrong, they are both necessarily oppressive, but in different ways and to different degrees. It's just that if "theocracy" means "rule in accordance to God's wishes" then, at least in the context of monotheistic religions, there is a maximum of one way of doing things, and any other theocracies that have differing rules can't truly be theocracies.
No, I don't really like grape. Tastes way too artificial.
And yes, this is a fictitious name, but anyone who wants to can look at my comment history to get an idea of my personality and beliefs. I generally try to contribute to the discussion, and it is my hope that some people will recognize my nick and read what I have to say even when Ye Mods haven't seen fit to grace me with their +1s. There are a handful of nicks that I recognize and find to be usually worth a read regardless of their status--the mods can be fickle. There is no substitute for familiarity.
I wasn't drunk, merely belligerent. It's a little out of character for me, so I thought I'd explain the reason for the hundreds of people who hang on my every word.
(This post brought to you by Professor Yuengling.)
I dunno...the church I grew up in doesn't believe in female clergy while many others do. I think many denominations are coming round on that, but it was a big deal up through the '90s, and as backwards as it is the role of women in the church is still an issue. The response to gay people covers a pretty wide spectrum: some churches are total haters, others just believe it's wrong, still others accept it and have no problem with homosexual clergy. I'm not sure these differences qualify as theological, but they are certainly important.
In my experience with Christian bookstores, which I haven't entered in over half a decade, all of their materials were quite conservative; I might even say fundamentalist. The Christian book market (like the Christian music scene) does or did cater to a specific subset of Christian culture. Perhaps things have changed for the better since then.
I've always thought this term was a misnomer. No human can honestly claim to know the mind of God. A Christian theocracy has little in common with a Muslim theocracy, and there are differences between Muslim theocracies--the greatest being that some are Sunni and others Shia.
"Theocracy" really means "rule by a small group of people based on their interpretation of a sacred text." Which I think we all understand here, but it'd be nice to have the label match the definition, somehow.
I have never seen that in practice. I don't think a church based on RTFM would be very popular. Protestants still go to church and still listen to a preacher give a sermon on what he (or his parent organization) interprets a set of verses to mean.
One of the Catholic Church's arguments during the Reformation was that people needed help interpreting scripture. Now they went further to say that because of this regular people shouldn't have access to the text, which is going too far and does tend to foster the Church's self-serving tendencies. But most people who care about what the Bible says do seek help in interpreting it, and it's opaque enough to allow hundreds of denominations with differing beliefs to flourish.
Sola scriptura looks good on paper, but the fact that the Bible supports wildly different interpretations means it is less clear on many important issues than Luther realized.
There is no shame in not stumbling upon a good historian--they're a rare breed and serve an increasingly niche market.
If you like history, Barzun's massive book with the suitably massive title From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present is a good one. He has a knack for not only giving insight into why things happened the way they did but also bringing some of the flavor of each movement or individual he discusses. If the cliche "history comes alive" ought to be applied anywhere, it's here.
(It's also nice to have a volume that keeps the big picture in mind while giving lots of details--there are too many useless history books that look at a single aspect of things to the exclusion of everything else, usually resulting in the author falling for the fallacy of the single cause.)
If a couple kids can work faster and finish 9 months of work in 6 months, let them! Move them on and focus on the slower kids.
That seems a little backwards to me. I get that our society wants everyone to be equal in every possible way, but it makes more sense to me to focus on the smart kids to sharpen their intellects as much as possible so that we can continue to surpass the knowledge and wisdom of our ancestors. I'm wondering if the model we follow today, a single teacher for a single grade and subject, isn't flawed, and that we'd be better off by matching genius kids with genius tutors who know a broad range of subjects and can guide their students on a more long-term basis. This is likely impractical, but it seems to give the greatest benefit to those who would benefit the most from it.
If you look into classical psychology like that of the brilliant forerunner William James and compare it to the over-analyzed stat-fest of today, you'll find that not much of the substance has changed. The difference is that what was once described with language is now delineated by number. There have certainly been some advances, but mostly it's quantification in lieu of new knowledge.
The most important part of education is having good teachers. There is no substitute for a good teacher, and they can't really be found by looking at who uses the shiniest tech or whose students perform the best on standardized tests, which are often little more than rote memorization. New is not always better, and it is not a failing of the school system that a student from the 19th century would recognize a contemporary classroom.
That's not to say that contemporary technology is useless, or that there is no benefit in having teachers who know how to use it. Education has been around for a long time, and many things that we call "problems" are in actuality difficulties that must be continually overcome.
In other words, there is no "silver bullet" for education. The effect that a good teacher has on good students (for not all students are created equal) may not become apparent for years or even decades. It often takes a good teacher to recognize a good teacher, and while a building conducive to concentration is important, it is the staff (and the pedagogy) that separates a good school from a bad one.
World-renowned historian Jacques Barzun pointed out (and Wikipedia seems to agree) that a more accurate translation of "carpe diem" is in fact "pluck the day," as you might pluck ripened fruit from a tree. This changes the meaning from one of taking control of things to one of a more idyllic nature; that is, the day is yours to do with what you wish. The context of your comment leads me to believe that this is what you are advocating, and you may derive some satisfaction from the more nuanced translation.
Why? How do you think the distributor for 7-11 would price their pot? Do you think they would look at the price they paid the grower and add a little or take the current street price (which people are willing to pay) and go from there?
No, the 7-11 price will be somewhere around (street price - 10%). And Wal-Mart will look at that and put theirs around (street price - 12%). Enough to undercut the competition while maintaining a healthy profit. And the more competitors you have, the lower the price will tend to go. This is basic economics, and for something as simple to grow as a weed, it can fall pretty far pretty fast before it stabilizes, even with sin taxes included. Street dealers, if they want to be able to move product, will have to lower prices to compensate. The only reason prices are high to begin with is because it's currently a black market. I couldn't find a whole lot of information on pricing, but the prices in CA that I could find are about 20% lower than they are near Philadelphia for a similar quality product--quite an achievement considering the higher cost of living there.
The other problem is going to be the propaganda war. Government weed will be "known" to cause impotence, raise warts, make you smell funny and grow hair on your palms. Anything that people can get away with saying (which is anything at all) will be attributed to "government weed". People will know it has chemicals in it to assist in tracking and telling the difference between taxed and untaxed plants. So the smuggled weed will be very popular and much safer - at least according to the propaganda.
This is the first and only time I've heard anyone say things like it. Currently, government weed is sought after because of its potency and consistency. I don't see why that would change at all, and because it's a natural plant we're talking about, where the only processing is to remove leaves, it would be easy for independent labs to confirm if there are any additives or what have you.
After you buy weed the cops can't tell if you got it legally or illegally in California today. So the only possible enforcement is right there at the point of sale. And how well is that enforcement working today?
Don't know; I'm not a Californian and I don't have a medical marijuana license, but this doesn't seem like it'd be a big issue to me, since recreational use would be legal. The users would be safe no matter what; it's the sellers who might have to watch their backs.
Well, there's a bunch of different things that could fall under decriminalization. One way, implemented in Alaska, is that you can have up to 3 plants in your house for personal use. I'd prefer that kind of decrim over a legalization that won't let me grow my own for personal use.
Keep in mind that if it is made legal, especially the kind where anyone can grow, the price will fall dramatically and it won't be economically feasible to run an import business or have a gang sell it. I'm sure the gang's business would drop off very quickly without the requirement of a government-controlled store anyway: if you can buy from a coffee shop, why would you still go to the shady dudes on the corner?
it maintains the notion that it's not good for kids (more likely to screw with their developing brains)
This notion has some evidence to back it up. Don't remember the specifics--no jokes, please--but there is a chance that adolescents between ~13 and ~17 who possess some gene or another will become extremely unmotivated if they use cannabis. I don't recall if it goes away when usage stops or if it's a more long-term thing. Males are more at-risk. That makes Prop 19's age restriction more sensible than the restrictions on alcohol.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has 5% but it's the cream of the crop in regard to certain traits: people who favor aestethics and "just works" over everything else and are willing to pay extra for it.
That's not the only reason to use OS X. I bought a MacBook Pro because the built-in sound card using the standard CoreAudio API processes audio and MIDI data faster (by 10-20ms) than my previous Windows laptop did with a Firewire external interface and ASIO drivers. That's a very significant difference when you're using your laptop as a recording studio and in a live instrument rig--try playing a song when the instrument's voice lags noticeably behind your key press.
Not only does it "just work," it just works better. The only drawback to the OS for me is that I can't play Thief 2.
The point of a preacher is to preach, or teach, on a verse. The point of a teacher in school is to help you learn; you would not accuse a math teacher of teaching you what he, or his grandfather, believed about calculus, would you?
No, I wouldn't. I do think a preacher has much more in common with a history or economics professor than a math teacher, though: there are different schools of thought, and which school you subscribe to depends greatly on when and in what order you were exposed to the different interpretations.
At the same time, you are free to disagree with him if you have good cause to do so and can demonstrate your case suitibly.
That would be good if people put in the effort to do so. It sounds like you do.
I think Luther was well aware; the criticism leveled at him was that opening the scriptures to the masses would open a "floodgate of iniquity". His response was "If a floodgate of iniquity be opened, so be it."
I never saw that quote before, but I like it! I don't think that the contemporary church feels the same way, though. I get what you're saying about the benefits of relying on a scholar who has studied this stuff for decades, but in my experience there is little encouragement for people to do any more than take him at his word. I had a fantastic sunday school teacher during my high school years who often started a class by reading a few verses and asking what we thought about them. The memorized responses came out early, and his response was always, "That's a very nice church answer." That was the only time in a church setting where I was encouraged to try and think through this stuff for myself. It's probably also one of the main reasons I became interested enough in the details of the religion to continue digging into it for years.
Additionally, a lot of the things (though not all) being called "not clear" are often enough things that are QUITE clear, and the readers simply do not want to accept them.
It's times like this when I wish these sorts of discussions were more welcome on Slashdot. Then again, I'm probably so far divergent at this point that we wouldn't get very far before hitting fundamentally different working assumptions--I'm at the point now where I try to be Christlike but can't claim the Christian label any longer (and I don't think Jesus himself would either). If you're interested in more arguing on the Internet, always a fun pastime if nothing else, GodGab.org is a very diverse, respectful and engaging place; at least it was a few years ago when I frequented it.
Long story short, I'm glad that you exercise your faith. It's always nice to see other people here who are not blindly opposed to religion but also don't take every religious teaching as, well...gospel. =)
I should make it clear that I meant to refer to the Catholic Church in antiquity and not today. Accordingly, "does tend to foster" should read "tended to foster." There are certainly issues with people in the modern Church which we all know about, but I didn't intend to claim that this is modern Catholic doctrine.
Before the Reformation (and I think for some time after), translations of the Bible from the Latin and Greek into the vernacular were frowned upon by the Church and for the most part banned. One of the reasons historians have given for this is that it made it easier for the Church to continue its selling of indulgences and its almost imperial rule. Not many people were literate at all, but far more people could read their native languages than could read Latin. If they were to find out that there wasn't much scriptural support for the Church's practices, it would be more difficult for the Church to exercise control. One of Martin Luther's earliest projects after he broke with the Church was to translate the New Testament into German to make sure that very thing happened.
I feel like I read somewhere too that priests believed they acted as intermediares between men and God, and that implies that people need help interpreting scripture--a belief that is shared by just about all organized religions. You're right that the ban on common language translations wasn't a stated position of the Church, though they banned more than a few, and it may indeed have only been to protect the racket they had going at the time. In any case, I am aware that it doesn't apply today and it was an honest mistake to make it sound like it did. My point was that sola scriptura is somewhat misleading, and perhaps it serves me right to be wrong when going off on a tangent.
Very insightful.
I'm trying to recall what I was getting at by posting what I did, and I'm not seeing it. I think I was just being contrary because I believe religion has more worth than merely a collection of rituals--not that you'd be able to intuit that from my post, because it was sort of dumb and unrelated.
I do agree, if I get the right implications from your original post, that states should not be in the business of recognizing marriage at all: every union regardless of its gender makeup should be a civil union, with marriage ceremonies being optional and completely unrelated. Here in the US, same-sex couples could pretty easily find a denomination willing to marry them if they want a ceremony, but I imagine it wouldn't be as easy in Finland since its church is state-sponsored.
A difference in execution--mainly that there's less of them in a Christian theocracy =)
More seriously, it is differences in doctrine. Don't get me wrong, they are both necessarily oppressive, but in different ways and to different degrees. It's just that if "theocracy" means "rule in accordance to God's wishes" then, at least in the context of monotheistic religions, there is a maximum of one way of doing things, and any other theocracies that have differing rules can't truly be theocracies.
No, I don't really like grape. Tastes way too artificial.
And yes, this is a fictitious name, but anyone who wants to can look at my comment history to get an idea of my personality and beliefs. I generally try to contribute to the discussion, and it is my hope that some people will recognize my nick and read what I have to say even when Ye Mods haven't seen fit to grace me with their +1s. There are a handful of nicks that I recognize and find to be usually worth a read regardless of their status--the mods can be fickle. There is no substitute for familiarity.
I wasn't drunk, merely belligerent. It's a little out of character for me, so I thought I'd explain the reason for the hundreds of people who hang on my every word.
(This post brought to you by Professor Yuengling.)
I dunno...the church I grew up in doesn't believe in female clergy while many others do. I think many denominations are coming round on that, but it was a big deal up through the '90s, and as backwards as it is the role of women in the church is still an issue. The response to gay people covers a pretty wide spectrum: some churches are total haters, others just believe it's wrong, still others accept it and have no problem with homosexual clergy. I'm not sure these differences qualify as theological, but they are certainly important.
In my experience with Christian bookstores, which I haven't entered in over half a decade, all of their materials were quite conservative; I might even say fundamentalist. The Christian book market (like the Christian music scene) does or did cater to a specific subset of Christian culture. Perhaps things have changed for the better since then.
You know that every time you say "Hello" to someone, you are performing a ritual?
I've always thought this term was a misnomer. No human can honestly claim to know the mind of God. A Christian theocracy has little in common with a Muslim theocracy, and there are differences between Muslim theocracies--the greatest being that some are Sunni and others Shia.
"Theocracy" really means "rule by a small group of people based on their interpretation of a sacred text." Which I think we all understand here, but it'd be nice to have the label match the definition, somehow.
I have never seen that in practice. I don't think a church based on RTFM would be very popular. Protestants still go to church and still listen to a preacher give a sermon on what he (or his parent organization) interprets a set of verses to mean.
One of the Catholic Church's arguments during the Reformation was that people needed help interpreting scripture. Now they went further to say that because of this regular people shouldn't have access to the text, which is going too far and does tend to foster the Church's self-serving tendencies. But most people who care about what the Bible says do seek help in interpreting it, and it's opaque enough to allow hundreds of denominations with differing beliefs to flourish.
Sola scriptura looks good on paper, but the fact that the Bible supports wildly different interpretations means it is less clear on many important issues than Luther realized.
This coming from Anonymous Coward, the one responsible for all of the Frosty Piss and racist trolls?
You, sir, are the most prominent Noise component of Slashdot's signal to noise ratio. Grow a pair and get a nick.
(This post brought to you by the Reverend Jack Daniels.)
A brain is basically a massively parallel computer
No, it isn't.
Exactly. Go has more in common with Conway's Game of Life than it does with chess.
There is no shame in not stumbling upon a good historian--they're a rare breed and serve an increasingly niche market.
If you like history, Barzun's massive book with the suitably massive title From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present is a good one. He has a knack for not only giving insight into why things happened the way they did but also bringing some of the flavor of each movement or individual he discusses. If the cliche "history comes alive" ought to be applied anywhere, it's here.
(It's also nice to have a volume that keeps the big picture in mind while giving lots of details--there are too many useless history books that look at a single aspect of things to the exclusion of everything else, usually resulting in the author falling for the fallacy of the single cause.)
If a couple kids can work faster and finish 9 months of work in 6 months, let them! Move them on and focus on the slower kids.
That seems a little backwards to me. I get that our society wants everyone to be equal in every possible way, but it makes more sense to me to focus on the smart kids to sharpen their intellects as much as possible so that we can continue to surpass the knowledge and wisdom of our ancestors. I'm wondering if the model we follow today, a single teacher for a single grade and subject, isn't flawed, and that we'd be better off by matching genius kids with genius tutors who know a broad range of subjects and can guide their students on a more long-term basis. This is likely impractical, but it seems to give the greatest benefit to those who would benefit the most from it.
If you look into classical psychology like that of the brilliant forerunner William James and compare it to the over-analyzed stat-fest of today, you'll find that not much of the substance has changed. The difference is that what was once described with language is now delineated by number. There have certainly been some advances, but mostly it's quantification in lieu of new knowledge.
Indeed.
The most important part of education is having good teachers. There is no substitute for a good teacher, and they can't really be found by looking at who uses the shiniest tech or whose students perform the best on standardized tests, which are often little more than rote memorization. New is not always better, and it is not a failing of the school system that a student from the 19th century would recognize a contemporary classroom.
That's not to say that contemporary technology is useless, or that there is no benefit in having teachers who know how to use it. Education has been around for a long time, and many things that we call "problems" are in actuality difficulties that must be continually overcome.
In other words, there is no "silver bullet" for education. The effect that a good teacher has on good students (for not all students are created equal) may not become apparent for years or even decades. It often takes a good teacher to recognize a good teacher, and while a building conducive to concentration is important, it is the staff (and the pedagogy) that separates a good school from a bad one.
why not have fun with it and why ridicule others for having some fun with it?
Because it is in News instead of Idle? =)
World-renowned historian Jacques Barzun pointed out (and Wikipedia seems to agree) that a more accurate translation of "carpe diem" is in fact "pluck the day," as you might pluck ripened fruit from a tree. This changes the meaning from one of taking control of things to one of a more idyllic nature; that is, the day is yours to do with what you wish. The context of your comment leads me to believe that this is what you are advocating, and you may derive some satisfaction from the more nuanced translation.
Why? How do you think the distributor for 7-11 would price their pot? Do you think they would look at the price they paid the grower and add a little or take the current street price (which people are willing to pay) and go from there?
No, the 7-11 price will be somewhere around (street price - 10%). And Wal-Mart will look at that and put theirs around (street price - 12%). Enough to undercut the competition while maintaining a healthy profit. And the more competitors you have, the lower the price will tend to go. This is basic economics, and for something as simple to grow as a weed, it can fall pretty far pretty fast before it stabilizes, even with sin taxes included. Street dealers, if they want to be able to move product, will have to lower prices to compensate. The only reason prices are high to begin with is because it's currently a black market. I couldn't find a whole lot of information on pricing, but the prices in CA that I could find are about 20% lower than they are near Philadelphia for a similar quality product--quite an achievement considering the higher cost of living there.
The other problem is going to be the propaganda war. Government weed will be "known" to cause impotence, raise warts, make you smell funny and grow hair on your palms. Anything that people can get away with saying (which is anything at all) will be attributed to "government weed". People will know it has chemicals in it to assist in tracking and telling the difference between taxed and untaxed plants. So the smuggled weed will be very popular and much safer - at least according to the propaganda.
This is the first and only time I've heard anyone say things like it. Currently, government weed is sought after because of its potency and consistency. I don't see why that would change at all, and because it's a natural plant we're talking about, where the only processing is to remove leaves, it would be easy for independent labs to confirm if there are any additives or what have you.
After you buy weed the cops can't tell if you got it legally or illegally in California today. So the only possible enforcement is right there at the point of sale. And how well is that enforcement working today?
Don't know; I'm not a Californian and I don't have a medical marijuana license, but this doesn't seem like it'd be a big issue to me, since recreational use would be legal. The users would be safe no matter what; it's the sellers who might have to watch their backs.
Well, there's a bunch of different things that could fall under decriminalization. One way, implemented in Alaska, is that you can have up to 3 plants in your house for personal use. I'd prefer that kind of decrim over a legalization that won't let me grow my own for personal use.
Keep in mind that if it is made legal, especially the kind where anyone can grow, the price will fall dramatically and it won't be economically feasible to run an import business or have a gang sell it. I'm sure the gang's business would drop off very quickly without the requirement of a government-controlled store anyway: if you can buy from a coffee shop, why would you still go to the shady dudes on the corner?
Something extra? Like what? And what is the purpose?
I'm more worried about the treat addicts. Is Halloween a gateway holiday?
it maintains the notion that it's not good for kids (more likely to screw with their developing brains)
This notion has some evidence to back it up. Don't remember the specifics--no jokes, please--but there is a chance that adolescents between ~13 and ~17 who possess some gene or another will become extremely unmotivated if they use cannabis. I don't recall if it goes away when usage stops or if it's a more long-term thing. Males are more at-risk. That makes Prop 19's age restriction more sensible than the restrictions on alcohol.