If you believe there's only a small amount of 'smokers' in this country because of what your data tells you... So be it. Why would the government want to regulate something that they are making so much money off of being illegal. They get to sale drugs and they get to lock the people up they sale them to. Plus they get to make suckers out of the taxpayers and vilify a group of people at the same time. The government has no incentive for programs to work that helps treat the drug problem... Especially in a slave state like Florida which is one of the government's drug landing spots. When information like that isn't included in your data that makes the data short sighted and or the people who use the data to make their argument short sighted... You're resulting to insults... Defensive about the data like your mom came up with it. It's all good though. That's what people do here. Check out the videos I posted if you're not so caught up in defending the honor of the data and whoever came up with it.
Yes, I will continue to believe the data we have until there is more reliable data which points to a different conclusion. The pure fact of that matter is that a minuscule percentage of people even use cocaine, much less are crack smokers. My opinion is that a different strategy would be far better at dealing with the issue of drug abuse than the one we are using. I completely agree that the government doesn't want to regulate drugs, as evidenced by their constant propagandizing, criminalizing and marginalizing of drugs and the people who choose to use them. THIS IS THE ENTIRE REASON WE NEED TO FIGHT TO CHANGE THINGS. I'm really confused as to what part of the quoted post constituted "resulting (sic) to insults." I'm not defensive about the data at all, I admitted that it is flawed, but it is the only data we have, so I'll continue to use it to do empirical research. That's what empiricists do. I don't see how anything I have said amounts to "defending the honor of the data." Data don't have honor, data are merely data. You're welcome to ignore it if you wish, but you should be aware that your perception of reality is dramatically more flawed than the SAMSHA dataset. There's a huge difference between human perception and data, human perception will almost always be more flawed than all but the shoddiest data.
You mean that if I fully support the FDA's ability to mandate protocols through which pharmaceuticals must go in order to be certified for sale in the United States that I am not opposed to the drug war? You're completely wrong, nothing new there. I would be completely in support of expanding the FDA's authority so that it can perform the same certifications for recreational drugs that it does for medical drugs. Most of the time, your small government small mindedness leads you to some very silly positions.
so to be clear, you're ok with drug prohibition as long as the prohibited item was vetted by the FDA?
I said 'smokers' and I didn't specify that to crack... I don't think there would be enough American citizens to stand up and make that fight. I wouldn't be surprised if more Americans are concerned about minor issues like Obamacare, foreign terrorist, and immigration than they are the drug issue in this country. But I don't think 'WE' will have to fight that fight against the government. Meth may end up being the great equalizer. It's real easy to vilify minorities in this country but labeling meth users as 'white trash' will only go so far. Plus drugs that need no foreign ingredient to be made cuts into the money the government makes off the drugs they ship in and help ship in.. It may eventually come to a point where they have no choice but to regulate it. The FDA... Those MF's are trying to kill us. Lol..
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DvxT7fryE3Q?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Watch "The FDA is Killing Americans" on YouTube The FDA is Killing Americans: http://youtu.be/eE3bDSYzDkk
hell, watch Dallas Buyers Club <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qu4C1yi_FKw?start=62" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you're talking about pot smokers, then we're talking about two separate things. There are plenty of pot smokers in this country, my discussion of minuscule percentages had to do with the percentages of people who use meth and cocaine. They're starting to. At least three more states are looking at regulation of mar1juana in the coming cycle, it is not a question of IF currently prohibited drugs will become legal and regulated, it is merely a question of when. To be honest, it would be easier for them to traffic in home grown drugs, no transportation necessary.
The FDA is arguably the most evil of the alphabet boys (CIA, FBI, DEA, etc) and a prime example of the evils that capitalism can bring.
[Qdidn't sayE=GladiatoRowdy;9557389]If you're talking about pot smokers, then we're talking about two separate things. There are plenty of pot smokers in this country, my discussion of minuscule percentages had to do with the percentages of people who use meth and cocaine.[/QUOTE] Nope... I wasn't talking about mar1juana. You seem to be under the impression that people in this country don't smoke meth and other drugs too... And that's the wrong impression. mar1juana is in a different category... It's widely used, safer than alcohol, has medical benefits, and has been this country's #1 cash crop for years. I wouldn't be surprised if that idea isn't already on their mind.
Then, as I said and supported with evidence, a minuscule percentage of people use drugs like cocaine and meth and an even smaller percentage choose to smoke them. Yep. And, if the DEA were to allow it, industrial hemp would become the number one cash crop in 2-5 states overnight and you can't even get high off that stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they have a few Walter Whites with labs all over the country.
Evidence that you yourself said can be taken with a grain of salt. And heroin has been on the rise as well and people smoke that too. People have always been known not to be truthful when it comes to surveys and many 'smokers' don't like to admit they smoke. Remember when Whitney Houston on her interview (with Barbara Walters I believe) said 'crack is wack'... That's a fight the DEA will eventually lose.
"With a grain of salt" does not mean "entirely inaccurate." We can only hope. Sadly, I think it will take Congress doing away with the CSA, an outcome which is in the very distant future.
There's a thin line between "entirely inaccurate" and "inaccurate"... Paper thin. I think with more states legalizing mar1juana and if it gets to the point where mar1juana is legal nation wide... The DEA eventually losing the fight against industrial hemp is inevitable because once that door opens there's probably no closing it. I never said it was. But there's no argument that it is corrupted by it. The FDA let's companies experiment on us with food products and drugs for money and have been for years.
How is it not? It is a response to the capitalism unregulated It had to be created because of sh!tty corporations selling snake oil to the consumer . .. dangerous snake oil Rocket River
