Author Topic: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT  (Read 63765 times)

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #525 on: November 23, 2009, 04:56:26 pm »
Quote
biology (to better understand disease processes)

We're not talking about disease processes.

We're talking about the social sciences bit.  Risk factors, remember?

Actually, we are.  Addiction is a disease.  

Quote
190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.

 :cn:

Quote from: The same damned source you gave
From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

Seriously, you citation needed me for something *you* said.

No, I mean a citation the support that the number is not accurate.  

Why would I need a citation to support that?  Do you have anything at all to suggest that the increase would be 1%?  why not .1% or 10%?  It is a completely out of thin air number used for rhetorical purposes.  it is not, in any way, meant to be an accurate prediction.  Are you really so stone blind to your biases that you can't see that?  Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8974
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #526 on: November 23, 2009, 04:58:40 pm »
 Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?

I'd be interested in the answer to that question as well...
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #527 on: November 23, 2009, 05:00:11 pm »
But the "ruining the lives of people" can be addressed without legalizing the substance.  I absolutely agree that some guy pulled over for speeding with a joint or two should not have his life turned inside out for that.  But I would argue that the solution is reform of the local or state code of law. 

So we'll just ruin their lives a little less?

I have alcohol in my house (though I myself do not drink (for medical reasons), others of age do).  Neither of my children have taken up drinking.  In fact, my son considers it a trap for fools.

So I fail to see why adults cannot use marijuana.  The law, at any level, is routinely ignored, just as the Volstead Act was, and that defiance makes a mockery of the rule of law (bad laws always do), but instead of repealing it (as in the case of the Volstead Act), our government has chosen to use that mockery as an excuse to generate loads of prison labor for Wackenhutt.  In fact, all laws in the USA are tending that way.

If you have a means to get around that psychology, I'd be interested in hearing it.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Captain Utopia

  • Social Justice Warrior
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 32643
  • Futurologue de Prétention
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #528 on: November 23, 2009, 05:01:28 pm »

Quote from: The same damned source you gave
From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

Seriously, you citation needed me for something *you* said.

No, I mean a citation the support that the number is not accurate.  
From a public health perspective, even a small decrease in use, whether attributable to the decreased appeal of a substance now legalised or something else entirely speculative, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States stopped using marijuana, then there would be approximately 190 000 fewer users.47

See - it's an entirely accurate number. It's also meaningless bullshit.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #529 on: November 23, 2009, 05:37:43 pm »
Quote
biology (to better understand disease processes)

We're not talking about disease processes.

We're talking about the social sciences bit.  Risk factors, remember?

Actually, we are.  Addiction is a disease.  

Quote
190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.

 :cn:

Quote from: The same damned source you gave
From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

Seriously, you citation needed me for something *you* said.

No, I mean a citation the support that the number is not accurate.  

Why would I need a citation to support that?  Do you have anything at all to suggest that the increase would be 1%?  why not .1% or 10%?  It is a completely out of thin air number used for rhetorical purposes.  it is not, in any way, meant to be an accurate prediction.  Are you really so stone blind to your biases that you can't see that?  Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?

I think your problem is your terminology.  The number is accurate in as much as if there was a 1% increase in use the amount of new users would be 190,000.  That number comes from 1% multiplied by the total population of 15-19 year olds.  So it is accurate.  But the point of that isn't to say that there definitely will be a 1% increase, but what it means if there is a 1% increase.  In other words, if the use increased by 3%, then you'd obviously have 570,000.  So you're issue really isn't with the accuracy, it is with whether or not it would come to be if marijuana were legalized. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #530 on: November 23, 2009, 05:40:36 pm »


But that won't happen.

But what you all seem to keep ignoring is what I keep bringing up.  The ills you listed can be addressed in policy reforms without legalizing the substance.  

as for "it wont happen!!!" and "it will happen with policy reform !!!"  WHY  both are going to be done by the same incompetent government at the direction of the same apathetic citizens why does "one works" and the other "wont happen"???


?

That's what grassroots movements are for.  It's worked here in Maine.  I'm part of a pretty powerful advocacy group that has managed to be able to work quite well with state government to influence policy decisions.  Hell, the chair in her former position has even been able to sway Susan Collins on a vote on nuclear proliferation. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #531 on: November 23, 2009, 05:41:48 pm »
 Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?

I'd be interested in the answer to that question as well...

I invite you both to scour through all of my answers in this thread to see if I've ever made that specific claim.  Be sure to let me know if you find it. 

Really, I'm starting to feel like you guys are ignoring half of what I post.  But I suppose 2/3 of my posts deserved it. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #532 on: November 23, 2009, 05:44:54 pm »
But the "ruining the lives of people" can be addressed without legalizing the substance.  I absolutely agree that some guy pulled over for speeding with a joint or two should not have his life turned inside out for that.  But I would argue that the solution is reform of the local or state code of law. 

So we'll just ruin their lives a little less?

I have alcohol in my house (though I myself do not drink (for medical reasons), others of age do).  Neither of my children have taken up drinking.  In fact, my son considers it a trap for fools.

So I fail to see why adults cannot use marijuana.  The law, at any level, is routinely ignored, just as the Volstead Act was, and that defiance makes a mockery of the rule of law (bad laws always do), but instead of repealing it (as in the case of the Volstead Act), our government has chosen to use that mockery as an excuse to generate loads of prison labor for Wackenhutt.  In fact, all laws in the USA are tending that way.

If you have a means to get around that psychology, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Well if the law is routinely ignored, I certainly don't want a law in place that allows adult marijuana use.  How confident should I be that the laws around furnishing minors would be any better enforced? 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 8974
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #533 on: November 23, 2009, 05:46:00 pm »
 Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?

I'd be interested in the answer to that question as well...

I invite you both to scour through all of my answers in this thread to see if I've ever made that specific claim.  Be sure to let me know if you find it. 

Really, I'm starting to feel like you guys are ignoring half of what I post.  But I suppose 2/3 of my posts deserved it. 

Well, thats why I was interested in your response.... from what you've posted one could infer that you believe every user has a problem. However, you haven't stated that specifically, nor have you stated that most users don't have a problem... Your position currently appears ambiguous to me.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #534 on: November 23, 2009, 05:51:54 pm »
But the "ruining the lives of people" can be addressed without legalizing the substance.  I absolutely agree that some guy pulled over for speeding with a joint or two should not have his life turned inside out for that.  But I would argue that the solution is reform of the local or state code of law. 

So we'll just ruin their lives a little less?

I have alcohol in my house (though I myself do not drink (for medical reasons), others of age do).  Neither of my children have taken up drinking.  In fact, my son considers it a trap for fools.

So I fail to see why adults cannot use marijuana.  The law, at any level, is routinely ignored, just as the Volstead Act was, and that defiance makes a mockery of the rule of law (bad laws always do), but instead of repealing it (as in the case of the Volstead Act), our government has chosen to use that mockery as an excuse to generate loads of prison labor for Wackenhutt.  In fact, all laws in the USA are tending that way.

If you have a means to get around that psychology, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Well if the law is routinely ignored, I certainly don't want a law in place that allows adult marijuana use.  How confident should I be that the laws around furnishing minors would be any better enforced? 

Minor consumption of alcohol is enforced.  Should we attempt again to ban alcohol?

Also, kids have been known to drive before they get their licenses.  Adults should not be allowed to drive.  QED.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Requia ☣

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 53479
  • Delicate and pretty shark of impending doom.
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #535 on: November 23, 2009, 05:53:50 pm »
Quote
biology (to better understand disease processes)

We're not talking about disease processes.

We're talking about the social sciences bit.  Risk factors, remember?

Actually, we are.  Addiction is a disease.  

Quote
190,000 is the *users*.  Not every user will abuse or become dependent, by a long shot.

Nor is that number even an attempt at prediction, let alone accurate, it's simply a number thrown out as an example of what a small increase could mean.

 :cn:

Quote from: The same damned source you gave
From a public health perspective, even a small increase in use, whether attributable to increased availability or decreased perception of risk, would have significant ramifications. For example, if only an additional 1% of 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States began using marijuana, there would be approximately 190 000 new users.47

Seriously, you citation needed me for something *you* said.

No, I mean a citation the support that the number is not accurate.  

Why would I need a citation to support that?  Do you have anything at all to suggest that the increase would be 1%?  why not .1% or 10%?  It is a completely out of thin air number used for rhetorical purposes.  it is not, in any way, meant to be an accurate prediction.  Are you really so stone blind to your biases that you can't see that?  Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?

I think your problem is your terminology.  The number is accurate in as much as if there was a 1% increase in use the amount of new users would be 190,000.  That number comes from 1% multiplied by the total population of 15-19 year olds.  So it is accurate.  But the point of that isn't to say that there definitely will be a 1% increase, but what it means if there is a 1% increase.  In other words, if the use increased by 3%, then you'd obviously have 570,000.  So you're issue really isn't with the accuracy, it is with whether or not it would come to be if marijuana were legalized. 

I never said that 190,000 wasn't 1% of teenagers, I said 190,000 was a bullshit number used for rhetoric, and that even if that was the actual increase in users, it wouldn't represent the actual number of teenagers who would be hurt.

But lets say that number is real, and that 40 thousand kids will be hurt by the drug every year from legalization.  How do you balance that against he 800 thousand that are arrested every year because we don't legalize?  Hell, that number is just going to keep climbing, it already tripled in the last 15 years.  How many lives would need to be ruined before you'd consider it a fair trade?  8 million?  Surely by the time 100 people are going to jail for every kid you protect from himself it stops making sense.
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #536 on: November 23, 2009, 05:54:16 pm »
Look, at this point I don't know how much more fruitful this debate can be.  I understand the whole personal liberty idea.  I understand where that comes from.  But I also understand how the adolescent mind works, I understand how pressures from the social environment work, I know how the risk and protective factors work.  We don't have absolute personal liberty in America, we never have, and we never will.  Lines are drawn.  Just as some of you have drawn the line at marijuana and not legalizing harder drugs.  Well, why not?  Why are you stopping at marijuana?  And so then for me it boils down to the simple metrics of availability and access and the impact that can have on individual biologies AND on individual communities, and the larger American community.  

And so I feel we are at an impasse.  My reading is that many of you are willing to gamble on these youth.  I am not.  I don't see any way to resolve that and we'll have to agree to disagree.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #537 on: November 23, 2009, 05:56:55 pm »
Why are you stopping at marijuana?  

Just as you lectured some folks on not reading your posts, so shall I lecture you now:  I have already answered that question.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #538 on: November 23, 2009, 05:59:39 pm »
 Or are you claiming that every user automatically has a problem?

I'd be interested in the answer to that question as well...

I invite you both to scour through all of my answers in this thread to see if I've ever made that specific claim.  Be sure to let me know if you find it. 

Really, I'm starting to feel like you guys are ignoring half of what I post.  But I suppose 2/3 of my posts deserved it. 

Well, thats why I was interested in your response.... from what you've posted one could infer that you believe every user has a problem. However, you haven't stated that specifically, nor have you stated that most users don't have a problem... Your position currently appears ambiguous to me.

Law of Fives in action. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 73111
    • View Profile
Re: So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT
« Reply #539 on: November 23, 2009, 06:00:28 pm »
Why are you stopping at marijuana?  

Just as you lectured some folks on not reading your posts, so shall I lecture you now:  I have already answered that question.

My apologies, I wasn't referring to you.  I meant others who have said they would not legalize all drugs. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.