Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha
Hardly. I never compared levels of addictiveness. Rather, I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.
in conjunction with rehab clinics and sensible drug policy.
Riviera de la Mancha
I think its fair to assume that at least some young people would smoke weed were it not for regulations which, at the moment, generally discourage them by making it more difficult, even if only slightly. Allowing more people to smoke by making it open means you create more possibilities for abuse by those who, either way, wouldn't be allowed.
Citing from my original source
Quote:
illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz27u8QrCJV
Riviera de la Mancha
And what such a policy neglects to foresee is that, like cigarettes and alcohol, the gains are often marginal or pragmatic gains (i.e. you can't ban it, so in a sense, by not spending time or energy on control, what invariably couldn't be). People are simplifying the discussion when they neglect these considerations and act as if the gains are so obvious or simple to assess.
They are. You regulate and legalize use putting in clinics to help people manage addictions and abuse (Again countries who take this approach have abuse rates plummet).
Riviera de la Mancha
Take alcohol. Revenue from the sale of alcohol is likely greatly reduced because of the costs for substance abuse programs, counter-campaigns, and damages associated with its misuse. Alcohol exists essentially because society values it too much to its cultural worth.
Use statistics from all walks of life
show "The most abused illicit drug is marijuana with 14.6 million drug users. On a regular basis,.2.4 million Americans use cocaine. " that Cannabis is just as important to our cultural worth.
To treat each substance differently when in fact the same treatment methods that work for alcohol work for illicit substances is completely asinine, moral mumbo-jumbo put forth by self-righteous prats who believe society should follow their own moral code.
Riviera de la Mancha
The drug and weed debate boils down to a serious question about the kind of values we want to put forth. Its not a clear policy analysis, and limiting it to that is what causes problems in analysis.
And that values you want to put for are "Put nonviolent offenders in prison with rapists and murders" even though
jailing nonviolent offenders makes them
20 times more likely to become repeat offenders.
Your asinine view on drug policy is creating more criminals. And let's not forget we have less violent crime than say, the UK, and yet we have around 30 times the people in prison.
So the moral code you want to put out is, do drugs and we'll make sure you mingle with criminals, rapists, and murders. So you too, can learn to be a violent murderer-rapist.
neutral
Another one of these terrible shows from you Shaggy? Looks like its time for me to, again, show you that its not indeed a real swamp monster scaring people at the lake...
Your first source is, in typical form for you, off base. Quoting myself, "I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.". Your source says nothing about this point. Rather, it discusses Portugal's drug policy, which replaced more traditional punishments with rehab to reduce drug use rates. It does not address my comment, which, put differently, says that any time you allow the public to do something, you open up the possibility that some people will abuse the new thing you are allowing them to do.
Your second link is just as pointless, as it seems to agree with the current system we have in the US, as under the current policy, we have seen drug use by teens drop. This is despite your fear-mongering that it has done nothing. It does nothing to establish whether or not allowing for drug use to become easier would not, at some level, increase the number of underage users as you open more channels for use. Your first article would have been better spent addressing this, though it raises a case for changing how we punish people, not whether its criminal or not.
Now, for the rest;
You erroneously assume my assessment of alcohol's cultural worth is a question of number of users, which your comments missed by only comparing weed to other illicit drugs. Alcohol is not illicit.
You also assume, without basis, that I favor the current incarceration system most states use.
Keep trying though little puppy. Maybe one day you can learn not to piddle on the carpet.
