New poll finds increasing support for regulated MJ

I am more concerned about how the lives and health of women would change in the face of a ban on abortion. A ban on abortion would simply take abortion from licensed facilities and put them in back alleys. You have taken the moral high horse and overlooked history.

I'm sorry that the things I posted didn't meet up with your definition of facts. I also apologize for not posting the timeline I said I would, but as I have stated, I was trying to leave that discussion behind. I concede that you posted polls and timelines and I still maintain that my opinion is firmly in the pro-choice camp even in the face of your timelines and polls.

Many of my beliefs have changed dramatically since that fateful day when I replied to that thread. I don't remember ever saying you were fools for believing it was a life, I remember maintaining that the woman has the right to do what she wants with her body.

The timeline doesn't matter for a further reason, namely that YOU claim that it is a life at conception and that the woman has NO rights when it comes to that fetus. If this is the case, why does the timeline for its development come into play at all? We know that given the time and the womans consent, it will develop into a baby so what difference does it make when it gets fingers?

 

If y'all just won't drop it here, please take it back to the appropriate thread, I will start responding again if I must to keep the thread on topic.

 

Can you tell me how a country being more "spread out" than another would affect prohibition? This point seems like a red herring.

Besides, there isn't such a country as the US has strong armed the entire world into following our prohibition regime. This is a HUGE source of tension in Bolivia and Peru, where the governments are seeing massive protests by the people affected by these policies.

I know, as I have stated, they have a decriminalized system where the cops do not enforce the pot laws. In addition, they tolerate the presence of the coffee shops that sell mar1juana.

Did he tell you that teen drug use is half what it is in the states and that heroin addiction is nearly a thing of the past because pot is no longer a "gateway" used by the dealers to entice young users? But I guess that none of that matters because it is not as spread out and there aren't as many drivers (how exactly does this affect teen drug use?).

Can you defend prohibition in America in any way?

Can you tell me any positive effect this policy has had on our country?

 

Did you actually look at that page and think that it showed anything? It showed a set of numbers that it claimed were from 1999 and no numbers from any other year. In addition, these numbers showed a two-year age group (15-16) rather than overall use.

I do think that after repealing prohibition that we would see a spike in usage much like we saw after alcohol prohibition. Much of this spike would be making up the difference between REPORTED use and ACTUAL use (how many paranoid stoners answer truthfully when asked about their drug use?).

The crux of my argument is that we need a policy that examines the effects that our efforts have on usage rates and go with the actions that lead to measurable, long term results.

Our drug policy has had the following results:

Over 2 million people incarcerated.
The highest homicide rates this country has seen since alcohol prohibition.
NO reduction in drug use by adults or minors.
Reduction in drug prices.
Increase in drug purity.
Deaths due to overdose and cross reaction.
Militarization of our police forces.
Trannsformation of our police from "peace officers" to "punitive officers."

The list could go on ad nauseum. Can anyone give me a list of the positive effects prohibition has had on our country?

 

Homicide rates during the entire period of the drug war have been consistent with the rates we saw during alcohol prohibition.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm

Even though rates have dropped some since the '90s, they are still elevated significantly over the rate in the 1950s.

You have to look at empirical trends, not isolated data.

 

WHY? If it were regulated, it would be more difficult for kids to come by.

Actually, needle exchange is a policy that is gaining support worldwide. It has reduced the spread of HIV and Hepatitis. Prescription heroin in Switzerland has given heroin addicts the ability to work, have families, pay taxes, and be productive members of society.

Based on what? How can you say that it doesn't work in the US when we have not even TRIED it?

In the policy I envision, it would still be illegal to drive intoxicated, in fact, I think public use and intoxication should be a ticketable offense.

Do you really think that the people who smoke pot now refrain from driving?

Did you know that there is a breathalyzer for pot that we could use to determine if someone is high?

Actually, my argument about abortion is based on supposition (as is the other side) whereas my prohibition arguments are based on facts. I have posted statistics (which you discount without proof or evidence of your own) and studies from the 1800s to present, all of which have determined that prohibition of mar1juana is a misguided policy.

True, but there have been over a dozen studies, including the one Nixon commissioned in '72 before he started the "War on Drugs," that have concluded that prohibition is not the best policy.

Because the US gives billions of dollars to countries that sign on as drug war allies.

DD, the rest of the world is bucking this trend. Britain has decriminalized in some areas, courts in British Columbia have just struck down the pot laws in that province, governments from Australia to Switzerland are experimenting with more liberal drug policies. The winds of change are blowing and prohibition will be swept away eventually, we just have to figure out what the best policy will be.

Can you provide any example of a positive effect that prohibition has had?

Do you think we need to just keep throwing hundreds of billions down the drug war hole?

Can you justify all of the innocent lives that have been lost in the name of the drug war?

 

Um, those aren't percentage points on the left, those are murders per 100,000. If you read the chart, you will see that in the 50s it was around 5 where in the 90s, it was between 7 and 10. Extrapolated to the population as of the last census, that amounts to between 5 and 10 thousand more murders per year in the 90s than in the 50s.