n23x 0 #51 March 26, 2009 QuoteThey may not "give a fuck" but they tend to look over their shoulder. And of course they would have little concern with moderate public use. vs. QuoteBut i believe that these "responsible" people are held back by the stigma of the drug itself and the fear of law. QuoteIt helps them stay "responsible" Kind of, gives them a reason to enact some control. Now legalise that crap and see the numbers change. Your arguement doesn't make sense. You initially suggest that the fear of consequences is so great that it is the only thing keeping users in check, but then admit that they might just be "looking over their shoulder", i.e. not a lot of concern for the law. If they aren't very concerned about the law, it's not fear that is keeping them acting responsibly, so saying that people will go nuts and unchecked if you legalize it is incorrect. QuoteIt's very reasonable that it will way more available for them to use. How much, and (or at least) why? QuoteTeens smoke and drink all the time. Of course they do. What do you estimate the current percentages of problem and casual teen drinkers/smokers to be? I believe those percentages are reasonably small, and don't think a new substance is going to provide an explosion of problems as long as it receives similar regulations. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #52 March 27, 2009 I can't help you dude. You are not grasping anything because you are paying attention to words written, not the meaning. About the argument about smoking and drinking: QuoteI believe those percentages are reasonably small, and don't think a new substance is going to provide an explosion of problems as long as it receives similar regulations. Don't apply for any social programs._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #53 March 27, 2009 Quote I can't help you dude. You are not grasping anything because you are paying attention to words written, not the meaning. Just to be clear, you said, "Understand what I mean, not what I say". I cannot understand you because of your inability to convey your message, and I cannot help you because you are stuck with your old/tired arguements. Truly, dancing and rock and roll will be the end of civilization. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #54 March 27, 2009 The problem is you and those like you. You are destroying the United States of America by fighting against liberty ... Quote"The basis of a democratic state is liberty." Aristotle Quote"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Quote"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." Albert Einstein"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #55 March 28, 2009 Quote"The basis of a democratic state is liberty." Aristotle I vote we keep drugs off the streets. . .like the majority of the people. sounds like liberty to me. Quote"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin This is my line. . .not yours. You are on the wrong side of this quote. Legalization is the temporary safety. Some of you are even willing to write off a "small percentage" of people caught up in this. Very caring. Sounds like a bunch of oblivious college freshmen experiencing their first radical professor. I've given up a considerable amount of safety to grant liberty to those who practice it with pseudo-intellectual and ingnorant thought processes brought by inexperience, reading silly articles in magazines and don't know the line between hare-brained theory and real-world practices. QuoteEverything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." Albert Einstein There's going to be less inspiration with all that crap on the streets. This is what I don't want to go away. QuoteThe problem is you and those like you. You are destroying the United States of America by fighting against liberty ... Liberty is a theory to you. You know nothig else._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #56 March 28, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou are right. It can be applied to that argument. But alchohol was and still is ingrained deeply to our society, whereas drugs isn't. Pulling back will allow a larger part of society to be ingrained in something that is way more dangerous than alchohol. I have been around a wide variety of drugs. The one that stands out as the *most* incapacitating, and causes the *most* violent, unpredictable behavior, is alcohol. Don't try to tell me marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc are more dangerous. Agreed 100%, also from direct experience. IIRC, statistical evidence bears that out as well; alcohol takes a larger proportion of its users' lives each year, compared to cocaine, heroin, cannabis, etc.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #57 March 28, 2009 Dude, you sound like Barack Obama: "Now, we all need to come together and do 'what's best for America.' I'll tell you all what is best, and you start doing what I say." You should consider, just for a second, that there might be reasonable, thoughtful people who have actually considered the issue and have simply come to a different conclusion from yours. That does not make them idiots, or cowards, or anything else, aside from people who disagree with you. Calling those who disagree with you cowards (or whatever) doesn't endear your argument to anyone--it just makes you look clueless.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #58 March 28, 2009 QuoteYou should consider, just for a second, that there might be reasonable, thoughtful people who have actually considered the issue and have simply come to a different conclusion from yours. I have. Hell, most people who have posted this thread I would consider reasonable that thoughtful. but, I believe that they have no tools for a reasonable and thoughtful conclusion in this area. I get misused old quotes talking about the American Revolution and Scientific Endeavor, popular sound bytes, and opinion editorials as a basis of a belief that is the minority. There's underdog belief due to it being revolutionary; and then there's beliefs that are underdog for very good reasons. Not all revolutionary and underdog thoughts are good ideas. I would feel a lot better if there were more law enforcement and social welfare experience. QuoteCalling those who disagree with you cowards (or whatever) doesn't endear your argument to anyone--it just makes you look clueless. I'll take that risk. After all, I am already clueless to those who disagree with me in the first place._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #59 March 28, 2009 QuoteQuote"The basis of a democratic state is liberty." Aristotle I vote we keep drugs off the streets. . .like the majority of the people. sounds like liberty to me. What is your evidence proving that drugs cause a negative impact on society? QuoteQuote"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin This is my line. . .not yours. You are on the wrong side of this quote. Legalization is the temporary safety. Some of you are even willing to write off a "small percentage" of people caught up in this. Very caring. Sounds like a bunch of oblivious college freshmen experiencing their first radical professor. I don't believe drugs are the root cause of the problems and thus I believe legislation against drugs is the temporary safety. I'm caring for all the responsible individuals who have had their liberties removed. QuoteI've given up a considerable amount of safety to grant liberty to those who practice it with pseudo-intellectual and ingnorant thought processes brought by inexperience, reading silly articles in magazines and don't know the line between hare-brained theory and real-world practices. So you believe that I practice pseudo-intellectual and ignorant (It's spelled ignorant.) thought processes brought by inexperience, reading silly articles in magazines and don't know the line between hare-brained theory and real-world practices. You're showing your ignorance of what I practice. QuoteQuoteEverything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." Albert Einstein There's going to be less inspiration with all that crap on the streets. This is what I don't want to go away. What is your evidence proving that drugs cause a negative impact on inspiration? QuoteQuoteThe problem is you and those like you. You are destroying the United States of America by fighting against liberty ... Liberty is a theory to you. You know nothig else. Your showing your ignorance of what I know. (It's spelled nothing.)"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #60 March 28, 2009 I want you to read these. The first generally talks about most of the issues brought by this thead. The others are support of the findings: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2007-12-06.html Legalization has led to increased drug addiction: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm Drug violence is caused by those that are high, not by those commiting crimes to get overpriced drugs. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.htm The DOJ also believes that the legalization of drugs will make the problems worse. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/08so.htm Europe's drug legalization experimentation didn't do to well either. A better explaination http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm Each of the mini articles have thier own easily looked up sources._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #61 March 29, 2009 I don't want to be the one to point this out, but the Drug Enforcement Agency has not earned a reputation for being forthright with the facts and objective conclusions with their drug war propaganda.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #62 March 29, 2009 Who called them on this? Which facts are not right and which studies show that? More stuff: A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience, Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Stockholm, 1993. "Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs and A Proposed Solution," Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 26, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 1988. "Arguments Against the Legalization of Drugs," Campuses Without Drugs International, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA Brown, Dr. Lee, Dir. of Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Eight Myths About Drugs," Presented at the Conference on Crime, Drugs, Health and Prohibition, Harvard Law School May 21, 1994. Caltrider, William R., Jr., "The Snare and Delusion of Legalization," Presented to the Demand Reduction Symposium, Department of Justice, DEA, Arlington, VA. January 27, 1994. "Drug Legalization: Myths & Misconceptions," DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Seattle, WA. Dupont, Robert L. MD and Ronald L. Goldfarb, Esq., "The Case Against Legalizing Drugs: The Delusion of Just Saying Yes," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA. "Forces at Work to Legalize Drugs in Europe," Hassela Nordic Network Newspaper, Hassela, Sweden , Volume 1, Issue 1 October 1993. Gaetano, Ron, R.Ph, "Making it Legal Won't Make it Less Lethal," Health for ALL, Americans Against Legalization, Genesis Center, Union, N.J. 1990. "Issues and Comments to Respond to Legalization of Illegal Drugs," DEA May, 1988. "Legalize Drugs? No!," Drug Abuse Update, National Drug Information Center of Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, Number 27, Atlanta, GA. December 1988. "Legalizing Drugs is Not the Answer," Citizens for A Drug-Free Oregon, Portland, Oregon. 1988. "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box," White Paper #1, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, NY, September 1995. Mann, Peggy, "Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St. Danvers, MA. 01923. September 1988. "More Arguments Against Legalization," Drug Abuse Update, National Families in Action and the Scott Newman Center, No. 33, Atlanta, GA. June 1990. Nahas, Gabriel G. MD, PhD, "The Decline of Drugged Nations," Wall St. Journal, July 11, 1988. Peterson, Robert, Esq., "Legalization: The Myth Exposed," Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA., 1991. Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs. Published originally by the Regional Drug Initiative, Portland, OR, September 1990. Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Alexandria , VA; revised September 1993. Position Statement Against the Legalization of Drugs, PRIDE, Atlanta, GA, 1990. "Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs: A Compilation of Articles," Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, 57 Conant St., Danvers, MA. 01923. Recommendations Regarding Legalization of Drugs, White House Conference for A Drug-Free America Final Report, June 1988. Resolution Against the Legalization of Drugs, The National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Youth, 1159-B Southtown Square, St. Louis, MO. 63123. Roques, Wayne, "Ten Compelling Reasons Not To Legalize Drugs,†DEA, Demand Reduction Office, Miami Division, 1993. Schwartz, Richard, MD, "Prohibition, 1920 to 1933: An Overview of Its Effects on Public Health and the Economy," Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 85, No. 4 April 1992. "Seven Arguments Against Drug Legalization," EURAD News, Lomma Sweden, Spring 1993. Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization, U.S. Department of Justice, DEA, 1994. "Tacking Drugs Together:" A consultation document on a strategy for England 1995-98. Presented to Parliament, October 1994. Introduction by Prime Minister John Major. "The Myths of Drug Legalization," California Narcotic Officer's Association, Santa Clarita, CA. Walton, Judge Reggie B., Associate Director Bureau of State and Local Affairs, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Speech to the American Bar Association, August 7, 1989. Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs," Commentary, Volume 89, No. 2, February 1990_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #63 March 29, 2009 Quote Who called them on this? Which facts are not right and which studies show that? There wasn't any part of it that looked credible. Quote More stuff: … All conveniently without links, I see. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #64 March 29, 2009 QuoteThere wasn't any part of it that looked credible. NORML have been criticized for thier mixing of research as you accuse the DEA for. QuoteAll conveniently without links, I see. Of course. They are original sources, programs, interviews and sessions. If you have to do hard research online, you usually find that looking for the actual studies are near impossible. You would have to have access to some of the professional journals or you have to pay for them. The ones you find for free were there because they were put online by website owners that used them for research. They are arguments against Legalization, but they have sources. But if you insist: These help with the evidence for the dangers of Drugs. http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N3/MarijMemory.html http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/34.pdf These are abstracts against Legalization. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=127678 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/6/461 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/330/5/361 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;249/4976/1513 http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JPmZMbPvl9Vvhz7ydBYL9q6bMxyFkpqL3nLwZ1cBpVl5l8rMx12k!111030713!1507451015?docId=5010967148 http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172367 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/124/8/777-a To be fair, I looked for scholarly articles for legalization. I didn't get much there, except for maybe here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13438457 Others are usually economists who look at only the supply/demand concept of drug legalization and usually don't consider the multifacet aspect of drug problems that trump their theories._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #65 March 29, 2009 > http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/6/461 "The current U.S. policy options on drug use are reviewed in the context of the history of drug policy in the United States." That's a nice strawman they've set up. > http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/330/5/361 written in response > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;249/4976/1513 "It is concluded, from a cost-benefit analysis based on pharmacologic, toxicologic, sociologic, and historical facts, that radical steps to repeal the prohibitions on presently illicit drugs would be likely, on balance, to make matters worse rather than better." Really? An 18+ year old cost-benefit analysis? I wonder how many assumptions and estimates have proven to be incorrect during the interim. > http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JPmZMbPvl9Vvhz7ydBYL9q6bMxyFkpqL3nLwZ1cBpVl5l8rMx12k!111030713!1507451015?docId=5010967148 There was nothing in that excerpt except some guy talking about how he disagreed with certain aspects of an essay that somebody else wrote. I fail to see the relevance. > http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/124/8/777-a "Legal drugs cost society far more than illegal drugs in terms of medical care, lost productivity, death, crime, and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) ($66.9 billion compared with $170 billion)." … Finally, no one has yet shown any system that reduces the legal use of alcohol or tobacco or their associated harms while simultaneously reducing constraints or controls on those substances. Because these agents cause the most harm to society, this would be a good place to begin true harm reduction. I'm not quite sure how that supports your argument. Weren't you claiming that illegal drugs are more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? >Others are usually economists who look at only the supply/demand >concept of drug legalization and usually don't consider the multifacet >aspect of drug problems that trump their theories. I didn't see anything among those sources you provided that "trumped their theories."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #66 March 29, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere wasn't any part of it that looked credible. NORML have been criticized for thier mixing of research as you accuse the DEA for. QuoteAll conveniently without links, I see. Of course. They are original sources, programs, interviews and sessions. If you have to do hard research online, you usually find that looking for the actual studies are near impossible. You would have to have access to some of the professional journals or you have to pay for them. The ones you find for free were there because they were put online by website owners that used them for research. They are arguments against Legalization, but they have sources. But if you insist: These help with the evidence for the dangers of Drugs. http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N3/MarijMemory.html http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/34.pdf These are abstracts against Legalization. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=127678 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/6/461 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/330/5/361 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;249/4976/1513 http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JPmZMbPvl9Vvhz7ydBYL9q6bMxyFkpqL3nLwZ1cBpVl5l8rMx12k!111030713!1507451015?docId=5010967148 http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172367 http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/124/8/777-a To be fair, I looked for scholarly articles for legalization. I didn't get much there, except for maybe here: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13438457 Others are usually economists who look at only the supply/demand concept of drug legalization and usually don't consider the multifacet aspect of drug problems that trump their theories. Argumentum ad Populum - a classical fallacy of relevance. Anything with .gov in it has a conflict of interest. If your job is dependent on the Prohibition Industry, it is wildly unlikely that you will publish anything that suggests that Prohibition is a bad idea. Likewise the organizations that function on Government grants. Regardless of the facts, publishing articles diametrically opposed to the stance taken by those responsible for your funding is not a good career move. Whether drugs are a good thing in and of themselves is not the point. Regardless of how much drugs/alcohol/tobacco may suck, their prohibition is orders of magnitude worse. I say legalize anything that is not clearly and significantly worse than alcohol and tobacco (basically nothing is worse than alcohol and tobacco). Throw in an automatic DNR for an OD, and it simplifies treatment. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to give someone a good Christian burial than it is to lock them up for even a short period of time. That frees up a great deal of resources for people who do not have a death wish. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #67 March 29, 2009 Quote basically nothing is worse than alcohol and tobacco Looks like I better start smoking crack after my meals and then maybe a little smack for a night cap.....Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #68 March 30, 2009 "The current U.S. policy options on drug use are reviewed in the context of the history of drug policy in the United States." QuoteThat's a nice strawman they've set up. comparing options based on previous experience isn't a strawman. Nothing that didn't exist was built up to be knocked down. Quotewritten in response It was about the youths' increase, they were challenging, they aren't challenging adult uses. There was still an increase of usage. QuoteReally? An 18+ year old cost-benefit analysis? I wonder how many assumptions and estimates have proven to be incorrect during the interim None. It doesn't matter. Almost all data that is used for today's debates on both sides come from before and during that period. Recent studies are about toxicity and danger levels that always show that they are still toxic or more toxic than previous. MJ is the only winner here because you have to be a heavy user for a period of time before it gets dangerous(to adults). If you haven't figured it out yet, the mid eighties to the early nineties were the peak in number of studies. That study was a part of a series for the argument against legalization. I posted different articles from different time periods. It shows that legalization isn't a new idea and has been dealt with countless times. QuoteThere was nothing in that excerpt except some guy talking about how he disagreed with certain aspects of an essay that somebody else wrote. I fail to see the relevance. Pretty much like your written in response QuoteI'm not quite sure how that supports your argument. Weren't you claiming that illegal drugs are more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco? Nope. Against legalization. Alchohol is the most common killer, but that's because it's more prolific. It takes many years to get dangerous side effects and requires an automobile to increase death rates though. Pound for pound, it is less dangerous than hard drugs. I believe legalization will dangerously level the playing field. Quote I didn't see anything among those sources you provided that "trumped their theories." It's my opinion. I believe that since they are using economic models and not taking in the account of the larger social and psychological factor, they are missing the fact that their arguments are only one slight facet of the overall cause and effect of legalization vs. prohibition._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #69 March 30, 2009 QuoteAnything with .gov in it has a conflict of interest. If your job is dependent on the Prohibition Industry, it is wildly unlikely that you will publish anything that suggests that Prohibition is a bad idea. Argumentum ad Populum- anything for legalization has a conflict of interest. Your argument is dependent on the Legalization debates, It is wildly unlikely that you will publish anything that suggests that Legalization is a bad idea. You know. . .most debate fallacies work well at the podium and abstract, but concrete life doesn't seem to like to follow those rules._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #70 March 30, 2009 Quotecomparing options based on previous experience isn't a strawman. Nothing that didn't exist was built up to be knocked down. Considering we haven't seen the country without drug prohibition in about three quarters of a century or longer, there are more relevant comparisons that could be made. QuoteIt was about the youths' increase, they were challenging, they aren't challenging adult uses. There was still an increase of usage. The source lost credibility by making a claim of increased usage for which sufficient evidence did not exist. QuoteNone. It doesn't matter. Almost all data that is used for today's debates on both sides come from before and during that period. Incorrect. As with any such analysis, mistakes are made. It is very relevant. And, there has been quite a lot of research done since then. I think you'll find a search of these forums will offer other threads in which they've already been posted. QuoteNope. Against legalization. Alchohol is the most common killer, but that's because it's more prolific. Per 100,000 users, alcohol and tobacco both kill more than any commonly used recreational drug. They produce a higher death rate, not just more in absolute numbers. QuoteIt takes many years to get dangerous side effects and requires an automobile to increase death rates though. Apparently you are not familiar with alcohol poisoning. QuotePound for pound, it is less dangerous than hard drugs. I believe legalization will dangerously level the playing field. Literally, that's probably true, since, by weight, alcohol dosage is far greater than that of most controlled substances. But, since dosage size is not constant among different drugs, a pound for pound comparison isn't very meaningful. QuoteI believe that since they are using economic models and not taking in the account of the larger social and psychological factor, they are missing the fact that their arguments are only one slight facet of the overall cause and effect of legalization vs. prohibition. Having extensive personal experience with most of the substances being discussed, I can say with great confidence that you're mistaken about the relative dangers and effects of alcohol being less than "hard drugs." Alcohol is the hardest drug. Until one comes to terms with that fact, "the larger social and psychological factor" cannot even be understood; it certainly cannot be accurately taken into account.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #71 March 30, 2009 Quote QuoteAnything with .gov in it has a conflict of interest. If your job is dependent on the Prohibition Industry, it is wildly unlikely that you will publish anything that suggests that Prohibition is a bad idea. Argumentum ad Populum- anything for legalization has a conflict of interest. Your argument is dependent on the Legalization debates, It is wildly unlikely that you will publish anything that suggests that Legalization is a bad idea. You know. . .most debate fallacies work well at the podium and abstract, but concrete life doesn't seem to like to follow those rules. "Argumentum ad Populum?" Appeal to the People? A Logician you ain't. You garble together unrelated issues to make your point, and assume that it makes sense. It does not. To rely on facts as a drunk relies on a lamppost - for support, rather than illumination - does not get us anywhere. I do not drink or use tobacco or intoxicants of any kind, so I have no dog in this fight. Frankly, I see it all as being pretty much the same - but alcohol and tobacco are about the worst of the lot. Between 1933 and 1934 the murder rate in the US dropped significantly. Why? Because the Volstead Act was repealed. Competition was no longer between Bugs Moran and Al Capone, but Anheuser Busch and Miller, and people weren't machine gunning each other over the profits. I have lived in Switzerland and spent enough time in Amsterdam to prefer the problems of legalization and decriminalization to those of prohibition. Don't get me wrong; the problems are significant either way, but it's an awful lot more expensive to continue our quixotic War on Drugs (it's over, btw - drugs won). I have spent enough years working for the Pharmaceutical Industry that I am under few, if any, illusions regarding the legal drug market. I avoid taking anything beyond aspirin unless there is compelling medical basis for doing so. In any event, my conflict of interest - the fact that I am expected to pay for the cost of prohibition in my taxes - is hardly fallacious; it is the point of my argument. While I consider recreational drugs (to include alcohol and tobacco) to be less than beneficial on the whole, my observation is that funding the Apprehension Industry, the Prosecution and Defense Industries, the Incarceration Industry and the Illegal Drug Industry is orders of magnitude more expensive than is drug use itself. Put another way, while the disease is bad, the cure is worse. Before bandying about terms with which you are not familiar, look them up. Throw in Ignoratio Elenchi for good measure. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #72 March 30, 2009 Quote Your showing your ignorance of what I know. (It's spelled nothing.) To be fair.... it should be "You're" as in "You are showing...". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #73 March 30, 2009 Quote Quote Your showing your ignorance of what I know. (It's spelled nothing.) To be fair.... it should be "You're" as in "You are showing...". Yes, it should be. I'm not sure how I missed that ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #74 March 30, 2009 Quote that's a good thing. Do you want the stuff cheaper so that everybody can get it? For a lot of people, the cost is enough to forgo buying a sample. Not everyone gives out free samples. This is wrong assumption. Cost of alcohol and tobacco is not prohibitive. One could buy liquor and cigarettes legally almost everywhere, so there are no associated risks. So everyone can get it, and, following your logic, most of us should be drinkers and smokers.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #75 March 30, 2009 > So everyone can get it, and, following your logic, most of us should be >drinkers and smokers. Most are drinkers. 64% of people in the US drink. A big part of the reason is that it is readily available, cheap and legal. Smoking is, fortunately, on the decline. About 25% of the US smokes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
