End the Drug War

  • Thread starter Thread starter CBFryman
  • Start date Start date
So what you are saying is 90% of people who try cocaine don't immediately progress to serious, heavy use of the drug?
 
There was no link saying that overall "cocaine use is up.". What's up is that you're very confused.



But no, the DEA is confused.

And then you're upset because the DEA rounded off 93% to 95% in their main article.
 
Until people become comfortable enough to label themselves as one of those people who thinks drugs should be legal there's no hope. My entire life I've been told to be free thinking because speaking your mind often inspires others to do the same.
 
Again, read your own shit:



Hey, maybe those 30,000 new users in 1975 used 70% more new coke than the 361,000 new users in 2000. That would explain disco...

Or maybe it was just a 50% change and the DEA rounded up. I mean hey, what's a 40% difference as long as the propaganda sounds good, right?
 
Apparently he found a picture of Nancy Reagan and is fapping away, because we are in agreement.
 
Just to get this straight: the video you posted (I can post links now!) made it clear that people in Canada don't have a problem with marijuana. The note at the bottom of your post said that usage has increased to something like 1970's levels--that's not a problem.

Bottom line is you are for legalization of weed but not the processed drugs, right?
 
How about you explain what you meant within the context of my question to see if you're worth discussing it with.
 
There are no conflicts in the data like you're saying, and the small increases in new users have got nothing whatsoever to do with overall drug use. My suggestion is it is much safer for you to go back to lurking.
 
Actually, there is one case that I'm aware of. It differs from your opinion. I know of no example that supports your opinion.




There is no reason to believe a larger percentage of the population will choose to destroy itself than the current amount. In fact, the only example says the opposite, so you are essentially trying to fear monger.
 
He didn't mention anything about governmental systems.

Ending poverty isn't going to make everyone poor. Ending poverty means ending an era where many many people live paycheck to paycheck and try to rely on social security and medicare to retire.

There is no governmental war on racism that I am aware of. If you call AA a war on racism then... just another case of DE getting pissed off because he lost his job to a black man regardless of whether or not it could have been his piss poor atitude or the other person's credentials.
 
Which matches up to what I said.





No, I'll stay where I am. I do consider forcing me at gunpoint to give up a share of my earnings to be given to someone else to be oppressive. Any libertarian would.



Our system is morally bereft because it uses force to steal from me to give to you.



I doubt it would change levels of poverty. But we would be a freer society.
 
By definition he did.



The method the government uses will, however, make everyone poor eventually.



That is a war on racism, with typical results.

I have to run out, so if you respond, it will be a few hours before I get back on.
 
So your argument as to why they shouldn't be legal is because politics has deemed it as such.

You still havent produced reason behind this "sensibility" you claim for keeping drugs illegal. But its not unknown you're not exactly sensible in this area.

And for the recod this is the order your argument has gone as I remember:

-Legalizing drugs would cause everyone to be come heroin addicts
-No? Well legalizing drugs would make them more available to children
-Still No? Well legalizing drugs would allow massive profits to be made by the drug cartels
-STILL no? Well legalizing drugs is not politically viable.

Where will you go next?
 
You've obviously never done drugs or done them much and haven't got the slightest idea of their allure.
 
This graph that looks like a big dick shows that some remote public opinion is coming together to a point: point being another weak example. At this rate marijuana will be legalized eventually. People are just slow, that's all. They had it right and then let right be taken away. I hope California takes it back soon with a legitimate popular vote.
 
It takes an extraordinary kind of idiot to think that DE wasn't talking about government systems when speaking of the war on poverty and the war on racism.

Who'da thought I'd be disagreeing with you in a drug war thread?
 
Oh, snap, look at you go with that rapier wit...

I've never heard a twelve-fold increase referred to as small, that's more an order of magnitude. Or, you know, maybe it's just a rounding error…

But hey, before I go back to lurking, I'll take a few minutes to explain to you why your quotes do not help to support your point.

According to the quotes you posted, the rate of people trying coke for the first time has continued to go up, but the overall usage of coke has gone down drastically. That's counterintuitive. More people using Y would usually mean more Y is being, but according to your posted information, that's not remotely the case. Maybe we should explore that a little more.

If the war on drugs is working, why do more people keep trying coke? Clearly fear of prosecution has not kept more and more people trying coke.

And yet overall use of cocaine has reduced drastically over some random undefined period according to your DEA link. While the number of people consuming is going up, the rate of consumption must be going down, and drastically. Why is that? Are we locking up more experienced users, taking them out of the marketplace? If so, the newbies must not be picking up the slack. But again, why? You mentioned a 10% addiction rate. I would assume that is a relatively constant rate, so 3000 of the new users in 1975 would have gotten hooked and 35,000 of the new users in 2000 would have gotten hooked. Again, more adicts should lead to more consumption, so why would the opposite been true.

Has supply been limited, thereby leading to a reduction in end user consumption? That's possible, and the government certainly likes to trumpet their big busts, but if supply goes down and demand remains constant, prices should go up. You said yourself that is not the case, prices are about the same now as back in the 80s. If you account for inflation, that would mean the price has actually gone down.

It would seem to make sense that demand must be down as well, but why would that be with more new users all the time. And not just more new users, but an increasing rate of new users. Why are new coke heads doing less blow than old cokeheads? As I said above, it's probably not the legal ramifications since people have already gotten over that fear to try it in the first place.

I don't know the answer, but I have a couple of possible ideas. Maybe people are more informed of the actual physical risks of coke so they are making informed decisions. I know this is the reason I never did coke. I had a chemistry class that included a section on how various drugs affect you. With the information, I decided not to do coke. I've done other illegal drugs, so clearly I'm not overly concerned with the legal aspects. I just though coke seemed too risky. My second theory, which is probably closer to the root cause is that coke just isn't all that cool any more. I'm guessing that is why the DEA chose to bring out the stats on one particular drug rather than a far more relevant stat on illegal drug use overall. How much do you want to bet that hasn't declined by 70%?

Edit: Of course, all of the above is predicated on the assumption your two posted quotes are at least somewhat close to a true representation of the current (not that either quote was particularily current) cocaine culture and not just some bullshit self aggrandizing numbers game on a website with an obvious vested interest.
 
True, but then again, son of Apache pilot, Nuclear submarine tech, owner of an IT company that makes a six figure income, blah, blah, blah isn't exactly your ordinary kind of idiot.


The estimated GDP for 2009 of the entire planet is $70.29 trillion (CIA Factbook). There are approximately 6,830,586,985 people on the planet. That means if wealth was spread equally, each person would have $10,290.47.

So, unless CBFryIdiot is willing to admit that anyone who has that amount of money in this country or more is not considered "poor", he should shut the fuck up about what would happen if wealth was equally distributed.
 
Back
Top