JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Here we go, please provide some non-anecdotal evidence to support that claim. You're asking me to provide evidence that people don't do things because they're illegal? WHAT?
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : You're asking me to provide evidence that people don't do things because they're illegal? WHAT? I'm asking you to provide evidence that decriminalization of drug use will drastically increase usage; because this simply hasn't happened in countries where use is not policed.
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pubs/legaliz/claim3.htm Read through that.
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # : I'm asking you to provide evidence that decriminalization of drug use will drastically increase usage; because this simply hasn't happened in countries where use is not policed. I didn't say there would be drastically increased usage; just that the numbers would go up. You're strawmanning duder. Also, it depends on the drugs in question, the country in question, and the state of supply. If things were legalised rather than decriminalised, I suspect users would go up a reasonable amount in some parts of the population (most surveys I've seen on the matter have given the impurity as a big reason why people don't do drugs).
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/dea/pubs/legaliz/claim3.htm Read through that. Read through it. Looks like biased tripe to me. I'm prolegalisation of some drugs duder, bear that in mind. It doesn't mean that I don't think other pro-legalisation arguments are bad by definition.
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 this is just the equivalent of giving razor blades and bottles of sleeping tablets to a manic depressive.
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :Where might I find those surveys? Given they were in issues of Varsity, I don't think they're online.
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : Read through it. Looks like biased tripe to me. I'm prolegalisation of some drugs duder, bear that in mind. It doesn't mean that I don't think other pro-legalisation arguments are bad by definition. They support their claims with statistics, go through all the links too.
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : Given they were in issues of Varsity, I don't think they're online. mm hmm
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # : They support their claims with statistics, go through all the links too. They're not the bits that are total tripe. It's the bits where their argument is 'THIS WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE SAY IT WON'T'. And as for things like 'The first thing that is noticeable about these figures is how trivial they are in comparison with the figures for US addicts. An increase of 2,400 addicts would not even be noticed in the United States.' Well, I could say a few things. Like how the US is much larger than britain. About how a much larger percentage of the US lives in relative poverty, compared to the uk (go go gadget socialism!). And so on, and so forth. They're doing exactly, EXACTLY the same as you. Giving absolute numbers without actually giving any information about how they apply or what they mean.
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # : mm hmm Shock horror as university paper report on drugs has a survey.
Sayonara Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : Shock horror as university paper report on drugs has a survey. Can you grab a copy from their archives?
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 And you're not giving *any* numbers that indicate the percentage would increase if resources were dedicated to helping addicts who want to stop and increasing education about the subject.
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :And you're not giving *any* numbers that indicate the percentage would increase if resources were dedicated to helping addicts who want to stop and increasing education about the subject. Increasing education doesn't work duder. Britain probably spends the most in Europe on Sex Ed, yet we have the highest teen pregnancy rate.
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post # : Can you grab a copy from their archives? Could do if I was in Cambridge. It was the one with an interview with Nick Griffen in. He had just come out of hospital after an eye operation, so had a patch on. He looked exactly like Number 2 from Austin Powers.
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 How many heroin addicts WANT to be heroin addicts? How many people want to become heroin addicts? Why would this number increase if it were legal?
Sayonara Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # :Britain probably spends the most in Europe on Sex Ed, yet we have the highest teen pregnancy rate. "You can present us with the material, but you can't make us care". etc
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 so why would anyone take drugs anyway?
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 fafalone said in post # :How many heroin addicts WANT to be heroin addicts? How many people want to become heroin addicts? Why would this number increase if it were legal? People generally don't have a choice in becoming heroin addicts duder, after they take it. Why would they take it? Why, you've answered that yourself! (Remember, you're the person asserting that people will take drugs anyway, so why not legalise it?) Also bear in minds that some drugs exist which can be lethal at any time from any dose.
Radical Edward Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 I disagree as a result of the inherent dangers and risks of illegal drugs. so why do they discount the dangers associated with drugs then, which are not present in alcohol, except through really long term sustained usage.
JaKiri Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 Radical Edward said in post # :ok. so why do they discount the dangers associated with drugs then, which are not present in alcohol, except through really long term sustained usage. I'd say that's because people are stupid, and are often in positions of lack of free will.
fafalone Posted January 15, 2004 Author Posted January 15, 2004 Lethal at any time from any dose? I don't suppose you have any numbers for this one either. Let's look at legal DRUGS alcohol and nicotine. Alcoholics have the same amount of choice over their habit as heroin addicts, as well as smokers (I'd be happy cite government studies proving nicotine is more addictive than heroin). Are you aware that 60mg of nicotine is lethal?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now