6 ms·
Data on legalization vs. data on the effects of cannabis consumption? Or the data on the effect of criminalizing cannabis consumption? Because you don't need t
by pstuart 12y ago
Data on legalization vs. data on the effects of cannabis consumption? Or the data on the effect of criminalizing cannabis consumption?
Because you don't need to be a scientist to know that the current laws are flawed through and through and that the only good thing about them is that if you own a private prison you're going to make a lot of money.
- tptacek 12y agoI don't understand this comment at all. The grandparent comment didn't take a position on any of the issues you mention, and the only hypothetical position it mentioned that's germane to your comment agrees with your comment.
- pstuart 12y ago"the data isn't in yet" What data?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mkopinsky 12y agoThe data on broad societal effects of legalization. Did you read the thread??
- pstuart 12y agoHow about the data on the broad societal effects of prohibition? Are you a tool?
- true_religion 12y agoHe basically said there hasn't been enough time since the prohibition ended to see what its effects will be. For instance, you can't tell if increased drug use will harm high school graduation rates if no one has graduated yet during the term of legalization.
- pstuart 12y agoFirst you have to prove that prohibition is increasing consumption by high schoolers, then you have to prove that any change in graduation rates are tied to that consumption. And for all the worrying over the so-called damage due by ending this prohibition, there should be an assessment of damaged caused by the prohibition. Then compare the two.
- tptacek 12y agoNo. What you've done here is attribute to someone else the argument you wanted to get indignant about, despite the fact that they made no such argument. That behavior makes it impossible to discuss anything.
- pstuart 12y agoGP post: > We might think that smoking can be bad for individuals, and decriminalization is good for society at the same time. However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.) From the article: The ominously predicted harms from> legalization — like blight, violence, soaring addiction rates and other ills — remain imaginary worries. "drop outs" wasn't mentioned in the article. And what, pray tell, is the methodology for doing such an analysis other than "drugs are bad, m'kay?" And again, the whole point of the comment was a concern for assessing societal harm. To take such a view and not acknowledge the damage that prohibition causes is intellectually dishonest.
- tptacek 12y ago"Drugs are bad, m'kay". Not only did you make up an argument for your imaginary opponent, but you caricatured the argument. The irony of ending your comment with the words "intellectually dishonest" is nosebleed-pungent.
- pstuart 12y agoThe argument being made was we have to take a wait and see approach to see if ending prohibition is safe for society. I made points about the whole picture and you've simply attacked me personally. Touché
- Troubadr 12y agoThis is an opinion: "However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.)" For one, it's wrong. Ever been to Amsterdam? It doesn't sound like it!