Fox News Gets Wrong Sex Selection Answer

[WizardofOz]

As I will show in the upcoming TOL epic "Why homosexuailty MUST be recriminalized", the law is not a "fix all" for society's illnesses.

Epic? You sound like my ten-year-old. Get on with it already.

With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

More conjecture / baseless assertion. You're the champ.

Ah yes, yet another Dopertarian that turns to secular humanist Europe as proof that decriminalizing something only improves society.

And now for the facts:

Here are the facts on Portugal:

The issue of decriminalizing illicit drugs is hotly debated, but is rarely subject to evidence-based analysis. This paper examines the case of Portugal, a nation that decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs on 1 July 2001. Drawing upon independent evaluations and interviews conducted with 13 key stakeholders in 2007 and 2009, it critically analyses the criminal justice and health impacts against trends from neighbouring Spain and Italy. It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use. Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding. The article discusses these developments in the context of drug law debates and criminological discussions on late modern governance. http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/6/999.abstract

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results

Street drug–related deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca. "Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination." Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization."

Etc etc

From your own links:

Before decriminalization, Portugal was home to an estimated 100,000 problem heroin users, or 1% of the country’s population, says Joao Goulao, director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction. By 2008, chronic users for all substances had dropped to about 55,000, he says. The rate of HIV and hepatitis infection among drug users-common health issues associated with needle-sharing-has also fallen since the law’s 2001 rollout. The report tentatively links that with drug trafficking, but points out overall murder rates in Portugal remain low. Pedro do Carmo, deputy national director of Portugal’s judiciary police, says he doesn’t see link the rise in violent crime with decriminalization. Instead, he praises the program for reducing the fear and stigma attached with drug use.

Thanks for the ammo. More evidence of Portugal's decriminalization resulting in resounding success.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As I will show in the upcoming TOL epic "Why homosexuailty MUST be recriminalized", the law is not a "fix all" for society's illnesses.

Epic "fail" more like...

You've been banging on about this supposedly "tumultuous occasion" for ages so get on and post the thing before we all die of boredom...

What am I saying? That's more likely to happen from reading it....

:doh:

lain:

 

[Lighthouse]

Demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it.

 

[WizardofOz]

Then demonstrate it.

Done. You said

A drunk person isn't going to forget their kid on top of the car. They are also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all.

I showed a drunk dad who strapped his kids on the hood of a car for a fun ride to the liquor store!

Need more?

A 2004 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver. The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) detailed in 2003 how motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children between the ages of two and 14. With that said, the NHTSA found in 2004 that 21 percent of the children who were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2003 were involved in drunk driving accidents. Approximately, 47 percent (209) of those kids were passengers in vehicles in which the driver was DUI. source

That pot is worse than alcohol is not a good argument. DUI is DUI.

 

[Lighthouse]

Done. You said

I showed a drunk dad who strapped his kids on the hood of a car for a fun ride to the liquor store!

At that point you provided a single anecdote, thus not demonstrating my posit to be false, as I did not say it never happens.

Need more?

A 2004 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver. The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) detailed in 2003 how motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children between the ages of two and 14. With that said, the NHTSA found in 2004 that 21 percent of the children who were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2003 were involved in drunk driving accidents. Approximately, 47 percent (209) of those kids were passengers in vehicles in which the driver was DUI. source

This is much better, as it shows a large percentage of it happening. However, you have not shown that it is more likely to happen than those high on pot doing it. Where are the stats to compare?

That pot is worse than alcohol is not a good argument. DUI is DUI.

Not the argument. Not with me anyway.

 

[WizardofOz]

This is much better, as it shows a large percentage of it happening. However, you have not shown that it is more likely to happen than those high on pot doing it. Where are the stats to compare?

Again, I am not comparing pot to alcohol. Your claim only had to do with alcohol. When you claim that a drunk person is "also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all" and I offer statistics showing that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver, it shows that drunks are likely to drive with their children in the car. Otherwise, more kids would be killed by drunk drivers from vehicles they are not a passenger of.

Last word is yours.

 

[Lighthouse]

Again, I am not comparing pot to alcohol. Your claim only had to do with alcohol. When you claim that a drunk person is "also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all" and I offer statistics showing that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver, it shows that drunks are likely to drive with their children in the car. Otherwise, more kids would be killed by drunk drivers from vehicles they are not a passenger of.

Last word is yours.

I now realize I mistakenly thought I had said, "...not as likely..."

We are still stuck with the forgetting the children are even there.

 

[Letsargue]

Again, I am not comparing pot to alcohol. Your claim only had to do with alcohol. When you claim that a drunk person is "also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all" and I offer statistics showing that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver, it shows that drunks are likely to drive with their children in the car. Otherwise, more kids would be killed by drunk drivers from vehicles they are not a passenger of.

Last word is yours.

What is BEING DRUNK??? - Influenced by WHAT??? -- Is a lost person under the influence of a toxic, mind altering substance? -- If Faith is the Substance of Good things, then Lies are the Substance of bad influences!!! --- NOOOO! --- Not to the Lost, we're smart!!

Paul -- 061112

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

More conjecture / baseless assertion. You're the champ.

I forgot, Libertarians are clueless when it comes to the world around them.

"The Director of National Drug Policy today criticized Hollywood for glorifying drug use in television shows, movies and music marketed to young people, and he urged executives of the entertainment industry to change things.

"We all know the dangers of some of these messages, and I believe that we can all agree that some changes need to be made," said Lee P. Brown, President Clinton's drug adviser.

Mr. Brown made his comments to about 150 Hollywood executives at a symposium sponsored by the Screen Actors Guild, the National Association of Television Programming Executives and other groups."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/20/us/official-accuses-hollywood-of-glorifying-drugs.html

That's a 17 year old article from the New York Times Ralphie. It's only gotten worse.

Even ABC News admits it:

"Rap music is glamorizing drug use, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, who found a sixfold increase in drug references in songs over the past two decades.

"Positive portrayals of drug use have increased over time, and drug references increased overall," study author Denise Herd, associate dean of students at the School of Public Health, said in a prepared statement."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4569665&page=1

Back to movies:

"While illicit drugs were shown in fewer movies then that had depicted unprotected/casual sex, Institute researchers discovered drugs were most often often shown in a positive way.

A clear example was found in movies that featured the use of marijuana. In these, 52% portrayed marijuana use in a positive light, while 48% showed in a neutral light. interesting to note that none of them showed any negative aspects of using drugs."
http://www.pctattletale.com/blog/198/hollywood-glorifies-drugs-casual-sex/

Here are the facts on Portugal:

Actually Ralphie, there's more to the Portuguese story:

"A 2010 study in the British Journal of Criminology on the “”Portugal Model”" is being cited in support of decriminalizing illicit drugs in the United States.

But John Carnevale, Ph.D., a veteran of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) through four drug czars, issued a March 22 policy brief arguing that the authors’ conclusions are weak and contradictory, and that drug policy in general is difficult to translate from one country to another.

The research article focused on the impact of two policies Portugal implemented between 1999 and 2001 — one decriminalized possession of illicit drugs, and the other significantly increased access to substance abuse treatment by diverting “”minor drug offenders”" to treatment. This is the Portugal Model.

The authors argued that the Portugal Model shows that decriminalization does not necessarily lead to significant “”increases in the most harmful forms of drug use,”" but Carnevale cited numerous problems with the research. Among them:
•As the authors themselves observed, “”numerous challenges ‘make it impossible to attribute any changes in drug use or related harm directly to the fact or form of the Portuguese decriminalization.’”" They noted, for instance, that it was not possible to determine whether effects observed during the study period were causally linked to decriminalization or to the increased availability of treatment, in part because they were introduced around the same time.
•Were the policies altogether positive? Carnevale argued that they were not. Although the study’s authors documented that “”problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use”" dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.
•Portugal saw enrollments in drug treatment jump 63 percent during the study period – but, Carnevale said, there’s no correlation between increased treatment enrollment and decriminalization. Instead, Portugal’s implementation of diversion programs for drug offenders was the likely reason for the increase.

Carnevale concluded, “”This study’s findings fail to offer insight into the effects of Portugal’s decriminalization policies within its own borders. Therefore, it is impossible for us to recommend it be used as a basis for any policymakers, in any country, to justify moving toward decriminalization.”"
http://www.drugfree.org/join-togeth...ecriminalization-no-model-for-u-s-expert-says

Now that we've confirmed that American modern culture is glorifying drugs (out of wedlock sex, homosexuality and various other Libertarian "values") and that there is more to the Portuguese drug decriminaliztion story than drug pushers will admit, let's see what else that "progressive" country of Portugal is doing besides pushing dope.

April 2007

"Portugal's president has endorsed his country's new abortion law which would lift the ban on procedures during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

President Anibal Cavaco Silva said he could not 'remain indifferent to the fact that there were 59.25 percent of votes to lift the ban', a reference to a national referendum on the issue in February."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0410/abortion.html

10 week old human being.

But wait Ralphie, there's more!

When good ole progressive Portugual isn't pushing drugs or murdering babies in the womb, they're "marrying" moral degenerates.

"On May 17, 2010 Portugal became the 8th nation to legalize gay marriage."
http://suite101.com/article/another-country-legalizes-gay-marriage-a238504

Boy, Portugal is becoming a Libertarian paradise Ralphie. You can do drugs without going to jail, murder your baby in the womb (of course only up until he or she is 10 weeks old, I'm sure they're real sticklers on checking to see if baby butchers are murdering 11, 12 and 20 week old babies in the womb) and "marry" some guy you met in a public restroom toilet stall.

Decriminalizing sin is the thing of the future (more like present).

Right Ralphie?

 

[WizardofOz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

I forgot, Libertarians are clueless when it comes to the world around them.

You have no idea what assertions are, do you?

More kids smoke pot than cigarettes. I ask why that is (because obviously the law is not deterring them like you claim it should).

You offer assertions as evidence :hammer:
When you run out of support for your argument, you move the goal posts, reiterate your baseless assertions, and offer crude innuendo.

"The Director of National Drug Policy today criticized Hollywood for glorifying drug use in television shows, movies and music marketed to young people, and he urged executives of the entertainment industry to change things.

"We all know the dangers of some of these messages, and I believe that we can all agree that some changes need to be made," said Lee P. Brown, President Clinton's drug adviser.

Mr. Brown made his comments to about 150 Hollywood executives at a symposium sponsored by the Screen Actors Guild, the National Association of Television Programming Executives and other groups."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/20/us/official-accuses-hollywood-of-glorifying-drugs.html

That's a 17 year old article from the New York Times Ralphie. It's only gotten worse.

Even ABC News admits it:

"Rap music is glamorizing drug use, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, who found a sixfold increase in drug references in songs over the past two decades.

"Positive portrayals of drug use have increased over time, and drug references increased overall," study author Denise Herd, associate dean of students at the School of Public Health, said in a prepared statement."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4569665&page=1

Back to movies:

"While illicit drugs were shown in fewer movies then that had depicted unprotected/casual sex, Institute researchers discovered drugs were most often often shown in a positive way.

A clear example was found in movies that featured the use of marijuana. In these, 52% portrayed marijuana use in a positive light, while 48% showed in a neutral light. interesting to note that none of them showed any negative aspects of using drugs."
http://www.pctattletale.com/blog/198/hollywood-glorifies-drugs-casual-sex/

Claiming that movies and music are the reason behind more kids smoking pot than cigarettes is pure assertion on your part. Your "evidence" says nothing about cigarettes. Why the drop in cigarette use? :think:

Either way, your original argument that the law is a deterrent in regard to marijuana use fell flat on its face.

You may need to move the goals posts a bit further or offer more assertions.

Actually Ralphie, there's more to the Portuguese story:

"A 2010 study in the British Journal of Criminology on the “”Portugal Model”" is being cited in support of decriminalizing illicit drugs in the United States.

But John Carnevale, Ph.D., a veteran of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) through four drug czars, issued a March 22 policy brief arguing that the authors’ conclusions are weak and contradictory, and that drug policy in general is difficult to translate from one country to another.

Assertions and offering a cop-out. Even if Portugal's decriminalization is a success, the success may not translate to other countries.

So he asserts....no wonder you like him.

The authors argued that the Portugal Model shows that decriminalization does not necessarily lead to significant “”increases in the most harmful forms of drug use,”"

Notice how he just debunked your claim there? I did.

but Carnevale cited numerous problems with the research. Among them:
•As the authors themselves observed, “”numerous challenges ‘make it impossible to attribute any changes in drug use or related harm directly to the fact or form of the Portuguese decriminalization.’”" They noted, for instance, that it was not possible to determine whether effects observed during the study period were causally linked to decriminalization or to the increased availability of treatment, in part because they were introduced around the same time.

An argument from incredulity with no actual counter-argument.

Compelling lain:

•Were the policies altogether positive? Carnevale argued that they were not. Although the study’s authors documented that “”problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use”" dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.[/quote

A unnamed drop is not "statistically significant" but a rise from 7.8 to 12% is? :hammer:

You might buy what you're shoveling but I doubt anyone else does.

Where does he debunk these statistics? I must have missed that part. :idunno:

- the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually - the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006 - Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana. - between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. - Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). - New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. - the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1xbkkpqNT

Carnevale concluded, “”This study’s findings fail to offer insight into the effects of Portugal’s decriminalization policies within its own borders. Therefore, it is impossible for us to recommend it be used as a basis for any policymakers, in any country, to justify moving toward decriminalization.”"
http://www.drugfree.org/join-togeth...ecriminalization-no-model-for-u-s-expert-says

He's incredulous, just like you, isn't he? Like you, he doesn't even make an actual counter-argument.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

I forgot, Libertarians are clueless when it comes to the world around them.

More kids smoke pot than cigarettes. I ask why that is (because obviously the law is not deterring them like you claim it should).

As I've mentioned before, the law is not a "fix all". As shown, modern day culture promotes by glorifying recreational drug use, specifically that of marijuana. The same culture that has billboards showing how harmful cigarettes are to people isn't doing the same with marijuana.

Also keep in mind that cigarettes are legal to those of age, and therefore much more accessible. Yet more children smoke something that is illegal and less accessible.

Your pro drug movement is working Ralphie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"The Director of National Drug Policy today criticized Hollywood for glorifying drug use in television shows, movies and music marketed to young people, and he urged executives of the entertainment industry to change things.

Claiming that movies and music are the reason behind more kids smoking pot than cigarettes is pure assertion on your part. Your "evidence" says nothing about cigarettes. Why the drop in cigarette use?

See my above comments. Cigarette smoking isn't glorified nearly as much as recreational drug use is.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Actually Ralphie, there's more to the Portuguese story:

Assertions and offering a cop-out. Even if Portugal's decriminalization is a success, the success may not translate to other countries.

So he asserts....no wonder you like him.

I forgot, Libertarians are experts on drugs, people who don't use them or promote them aren't.

Keep in mind that Portugal didn't legalize drugs, as many promoters of legalization want it to appear as that, they made it so that junkies instead of going to jail, can go to rehab.

It's being done here in the US as well in many liberal cities.

I noticed how Ralphie doesn't want to discuss the other things that come with a progressive society such as abortion and homosexuality.

Why is that Ralphie?

P.S. When was the last time you read about a person driving off, leaving their baby on the roof of their car because they were smoking a cigarette?

 

[WizardofOz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

I forgot, Libertarians are clueless when it comes to the world around them.

As I've mentioned before, the law is not a "fix all". As shown, modern day culture promotes by glorifying recreational drug use, specifically that of marijuana. The same culture that has billboards showing how harmful cigarettes are to people isn't doing the same with marijuana.

Also keep in mind that cigarettes are legal to those of age, and therefore much more accessible. Yet more children smoke something that is illegal and less accessible.

Your pro drug movement is working Ralphie.

What is legal and more accessible is being passed up for what is not. You have proven my point. The law is not a deterrent in this case. Education is. :e4e:

See my above comments. Cigarette smoking isn't glorified nearly as much as recreational drug use is.

I have already rebutted this. You may be right, but your "evidence" is mere assertion.

Keep in mind that Portugal didn't legalize drugs, as many promoters of legalization want it to appear as that, they made it so that junkies instead of going to jail, can go to rehab.

It's being done here in the US as well in many liberal cities.

As it should. Addicts need treatment, not prison.

And yes, I know the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Who is saying that Portugal legalized drugs? :idunno:

I noticed how Ralphie doesn't want to discuss the other things that come with a progressive society such as abortion and homosexuality.

Why is that Ralphie?

You cannot stay on topic because you've lost the argument. Once you realize the argument is lost (decriminalization in Portugal has been widely successful) you change the topic. Drugs should be decriminalized and enforcement should be left to each state. Same-sex marriage should not be recognized and abortion should be legal. What is there to discuss? We agree on the last two.

P.S. When was the last time you read about a person driving off, leaving their baby on the roof of their car because they were smoking a cigarette?

Yeah, strapping your kids to your hood and driving drunk with them is much better :hammer:

You cannot legislate against stupidity. If it could be done, you would be typing from solitary confinement.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Also keep in mind that cigarettes are legal to those of age, and therefore much more accessible. Yet more children smoke something that is illegal and less accessible.

Your pro drug movement is working Ralphie.

What is legal and more accessible is being passed up for what is not. You have proven my point. The law is not a deterrent in this case. Education is.

If the law wasn't a deterrent, then dope dealers would be standing on the corner of a busy intersection with a sign "Get your drug fix here!", and of course drug users would be using their escape from reality out in the open as well, instead of back alleys and dope dens.

I see that you didn't want to compare marijuana to alcohol in another post, are you comparing cigarette smoking to pot in this one?


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
See my above comments. Cigarette smoking isn't glorified nearly as much as recreational drug use is.

I have already rebutted this. You may be right, but your "evidence" is mere assertion.

I am right. (Ralphie's new word for the day is "assertion").


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Keep in mind that Portugal didn't legalize drugs, as many promoters of legalization want it to appear as that, they made it so that junkies instead of going to jail, can go to rehab.

It's being done here in the US as well in many liberal cities.

As it should. Addicts need treatment, not prison.

Back to the deterrent factor. Is it more of a deterrent not to use drugs if you know you're going to be punished for it, or if you know that you could end up in some plush rehab facility if you get addicted to it?

While I know that Libertarians like you don't deal with the realities of life Ralphie, but misery, crime, disease and death are a big part of the recreational drug lifestyle.

And yes, I know the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Who is saying that Portugal legalized drugs?

Many people are not aware of the big difference between decriminalization and legalization, i.e. decriminalization isn't

"Legalize it and tax it" (remember saying those words Ralphie?).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I noticed how Ralphie doesn't want to discuss the other things that come with a progressive society such as abortion and homosexuality.

Why is that Ralphie?

You cannot stay on topic because you've lost the argument. Once you realize the argument is lost (decriminalization in Portugal has been widely successful) you change the topic. Drugs should be decriminalized and enforcement should be left to each state. Same-sex marriage should not be recognized and abortion should be legal. What is there to discuss? We agree on the last two.

I know that the memory of a dope smoker is equivalent to that of a gnat's, but the OP of this thread dealt with abortion as well.

It goes without saying (well, I am dealing with a Libertarian here, so I better say it) that sexual inhibitions lower when using drugs. Hence promiscuity and eventually abortion.

Libertarians such as yourself want to "compartmentalise" sins, not being aware (or publically acknowledging) that sin has no boundaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
P.S. When was the last time you read about a person driving off, leaving their baby on the roof of their car because they were smoking a cigarette?

Yeah, strapping your kids to your hood and driving drunk with them is much better

You cannot legislate against stupidity. If it could be done, you would be typing from solitary confinement.

You didn't answer my question Ralphie:

What was the last time you read about a person driving off leaving their baby on the roof of their car because they were smoking a cigarette?

Marijuana is inherently mind altering. Alcohol is if abused, cigarettes never.

 

[WizardofOz]

If the law wasn't a deterrent, then dope dealers would be standing on the corner of a busy intersection with a sign "Get your drug fix here!", and of course drug users would be using their escape from reality out in the open as well, instead of back alleys and dope dens.

Does it deter dealers from dealing? If drugs were decriminalized or legalized, they won't be given a permit to sell on street corners.

I see that you didn't want to compare marijuana to alcohol in another post, are you comparing cigarette smoking to pot in this one?

Depends on the comparison. A woman forgetting her baby on top of a car because she is high is comparable to a drunk man who straps his kids to a car for a quick run to the liquor store.

Cigarettes are comparable to marijuana as both are plants that are smoked, although marijuana lacks the additives put into cigarettes.

Depends on the context of the comparison. As it should.

I am right. (Ralphie's new word for the day is "assertion").

You may want to look it up as I don't think you know what one is. Saying "I am right" is a meaningless assertion in lieu of actual evidence and not just more assertion.

Back to the deterrent factor. Is it more of a deterrent not to use drugs if you know you're going to be punished for it, or if you know that you could end up in some plush rehab facility if you get addicted to it?

Rehab gets results. Prison doesn't. Locking an addict in prison isn't justice. Sending them to rehab is.

While I know that Libertarians like you don't deal with the realities of life Ralphie, but misery, crime, disease and death are a big part of the recreational drug lifestyle.

I agree that misery, crime, disease and death are central to prison life. The reality is that rehab rehabilitates addicts while prison does not.

Many people are not aware of the big difference between decriminalization and legalization, i.e. decriminalization isn't

"Legalize it and tax it" (remember saying those words Ralphie?).

Legalize and tax medical marijuana. If a state wants to legalize marijuana they should have that right. If a state wants to outlaw bath salts or meth, let them. There should be no federal mandate.

I know that the memory of a dope smoker is equivalent to that of a gnat's, but the OP of this thread dealt with abortion as well.

It goes without saying (well, I am dealing with a Libertarian here, so I better say it) that sexual inhibitions lower when using drugs. Hence promiscuity and eventually abortion.

Libertarians such as yourself want to "compartmentalise" sins, not being aware (or publically acknowledging) that sin has no boundaries.

Nice soapbox rant. Not discussing Portugal anymore I see....:think:

We both know why that is.

You didn't answer my question Ralphie:

What was the last time you read about a person driving off leaving their baby on the roof of their car because they were smoking a cigarette?

Marijuana is inherently mind altering. Alcohol is if abused, cigarettes never.

Again. The story is DUI. You cannot be arrested for driving under the influence of cigarettes. DUI is the problem, DUI with children involved more specifically. Even if marijuana were outright legal, you would never be able to drive legally under the influence. Same goes for alcohol or even legally prescribed drugs.

In other words, your above comparison is just plain stupid and shows that you've missed the entire point about DUI.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If the law wasn't a deterrent, then dope dealers would be standing on the corner of a busy intersection with a sign "Get your drug fix here!", and of course drug users would be using their escape from reality out in the open as well, instead of back alleys and dope dens.

Does it deter dealers from dealing? If drugs were decriminalized or legalized, they won't be given a permit to sell on street corners.

Does the law deter rapists from raping or murderers from murdering? (It's been shown that decriminalizing murder, i.e. abortion, increases the amount of murders each year). Of course the law is a deterrent, but not to all. But as long as swift and just punishment is administered it will continue to serve as a good deterrent to criminal activity, which drug use is.

"Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand":
http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.htm

If recreational drugs were legalized, then there would still be dope peddlers. Remember we'd be dealing with people who are outcasts of a society and don't like dealing with agencies like the FDA that would tell them what drugs they can and can't use. New drugs come out regularly and would still be sold on the black market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I see that you didn't want to compare marijuana to alcohol in another post, are you comparing cigarette smoking to pot in this one?

Depends on the comparison. A woman forgetting her baby on top of a car because she is high is comparable to a drunk man who straps his kids to a car for a quick run to the liquor store.

But you can imbibe in alcohol and drive safely and legally without endangering others. Remember Ralphie, the misuse of alcohol leads to intoxication, the use of recreational drugs leads to intoxication (they're intended for you to get hiiiigh).

Cigarettes are comparable to marijuana as both are plants that are smoked, although marijuana lacks the additives put into cigarettes.
Depends on the context of the comparison. As it should.

Bob Enyart made some excellent points in one of his articles on marijuana use:

"Long-term cigarette smoking is bad for your lungs but unlike for pot, there are not millions of people who believe that tobacco makes you intoxicated, lowers your IQ, and makes you slow and stupid. But why the difference? These millions haven't weighed conflicting scientific studies (including those showing learning and memory impairments from using pot). Rather, they've seen the results first hand. While studies conflict, many confirm what millions have perceived -- that routine pot use leads to serious mental health issues. On the other hand, a nightly glass of red wine has the opposite reputation, of not making anyone slow or stupid, but of sustaining health and even decreasing the likelihood of dementia.

Many studies show serious problems, for example, with schizoid psychosis while smoking. And marijuana can act as a cancer-causing carcinogen and damaging DNA for pot smoke contains higher levels of certain toxins than tobacco, which is why pot smokers face rapid lung destruction, with the impact on lungs from one joint equaling up to five cigarettes. Pot also opens the door for the virus that causes Kaposi's Sarcoma. And for pregnant moms, it can harm their unborn child by impairing growth and by causing long-lasting neurobehavioural problems. (And if you've read online that marijuana has never caused a single death, just assume you're reading a pothead's website.) For habitual use is strongly associated with car crash injuries and smoking marijuana doubles the risk of fatal accidents."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-enyart/why-marijuana-should-be-i_b_1340311.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Back to the deterrent factor. Is it more of a deterrent not to use drugs if you know you're going to be punished for it, or if you know that you could end up in some plush rehab facility if you get addicted to it?

Rehab gets results. Prison doesn't. Locking an addict in prison isn't justice. Sending them to rehab is.

For those that really want to be helped. But remember Ralphie, for many junkies, their first and only "love" is the needle or the dope pipe.

"Drug treatment courts are working. Researchers estimate that more than 50 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will return to criminal behavior within two to three years. Those who graduate from drug treatment courts have far lower rates of recidivism, ranging from 2 to 20 percent. That’s very impressive when you consider that; for addicts who enter a treatment program voluntarily, 80 to 90 percent leave by the end of the first year. Among such dropouts, relapse within a year is generally the rule.
What makes drug treatment courts so different? Graduates are held accountable for sticking with the program. Unlike other, purely voluntary treatment programs, the addict—who has a physical need for drugs—can’t simply quit treatment whenever he or she feels like it.
Law enforcement plays an important role in the drug treatment court program. It is especially important in the beginning of the process because it often triggers treatment for people who need it. Most people do not volunteer for drug treatment. It is more often an outside motivator, like an arrest, that gets —and keeps— people in treatment. And it is important for judges to keep people in incarceration if treatment fails.
There are already more than 123,000 people who use heroin at least once a month, and 1.7 million who use cocaine at least once a month. For them, treatment is the answer. But for most Americans, particularly the young, the solution lies in prevention, which in turn is largely a matter of education and enforcement, which aims at keeping drug pushers away from children and teenagers." http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/02so.htm

Legalization would make the government "the Pusherman" Ralphie, not the institution that God ordained "to do good".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While I know that Libertarians like you don't deal with the realities of life Ralphie, but misery, crime, disease and death are a big part of the recreational drug lifestyle.

I agree that misery, crime, disease and death are central to prison life. The reality is that rehab rehabilitates addicts while prison does not.

Punishment was never meant to be enjoyable Ralphie. Libertarians aren't familiar with reality, in fact their life is built upon theories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Many people are not aware of the big difference between decriminalization and legalization, i.e. decriminalization isn't
"Legalize it and tax it" (remember saying those words Ralphie?).

Legalize and tax medical marijuana. If a state wants to legalize marijuana they should have that right. If a state wants to outlaw bath salts or meth, let them. There should be no federal mandate.

There will be victims along the way to a Libertarian's perverted defintion of liberty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I know that the memory of a dope smoker is equivalent to that of a gnat's, but the OP of this thread dealt with abortion as well.
It goes without saying (well, I am dealing with a Libertarian here, so I better say it) that sexual inhibitions lower when using drugs. Hence promiscuity and eventually abortion.
Libertarians such as yourself want to "compartmentalise" sins, not being aware (or publically acknowledging) that sin has no boundaries.

Nice soapbox rant. Not discussing Portugal anymore I see....
We both know why that is.

I did more research on the Portugal lie. Being that I know that a junkie is a junkie whether he lives in Seattle, Madison or Lisbon, I also know that poison is poison whether it's taken in Seattle, Madison or Lisbon.



http://www.samefacts.com/2010/10/dr...on-in-portugal-saved-lives-and-killed-people/

Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal – The real facts!
http://www.wfad.se/latest-news/1-articles/123-decriminalization-of-drugs-in-portugal--the-real-facts

Here's some information about those "progressive" European countries (Canada as well) who experimented with drug legalization.

It appears things don't work out in real life like they do in a Libertarian playbook.

"Fiction: Drug Legalization Works

Fact: Tolerant drug policies in other countries have led to higher drug abuse rates and negative social consequences."
http://www.justthinktwice.com/factsfiction/fiction_drug_legalization_works.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You didn't answer my question Ralphie:
What was the last time you read about a person driving off leaving their baby on the roof of their car because they were smoking a cigarette?
Marijuana is inherently mind altering. Alcohol is if abused, cigarettes never.

Again. The story is DUI. You cannot be arrested for driving under the influence of cigarettes. DUI is the problem, DUI with children involved more specifically. Even if marijuana were outright legal, you would never be able to drive legally under the influence. Same goes for alcohol or even legally prescribed drugs.
In other words, your above comparison is just plain stupid and shows that you've missed the entire point about DUI.

No Ralphie, the story is about being intoxicated and not having your faculties while high on a recreational drug. As shown, legalizing (i.e. promoting) recreational drug use will only increase the amount of people that destory their lives and others.

In closing, you're to drug pushing what Arthur Brain is to sodomy (I'll give Arthur credit, while he is a homosexualist, unlike you he doesn't push both drugs and homosexuality).

The only way to cure people like you and Arthur is for you to accept God and His word into your lives.

Until that happens to all homosexualists and dopertarians, the force of law must be used to keep drug pushers and sexual deviants "underneath the rock whence they came."

 

[WizardofOz]

I am not going to quote your post because your graph is too big. It did however, offer data through 2007. Why not find up to date statistics? :think:

The range of "drug-induced deaths" in Portugal was at 280 in 2001 and 314 in 2007. I have a scathing article from CNN against decriminalization stating that "With 219 deaths by drug 'overdose' a year, Portugal has one of the worst records".

So it went from 368 per year prior to decriminalization and is now at 215. Drug deaths peaked at 368 before decriminalization, were at 280 the year of decriminalization and is now at 215. What's lower: 368 prior to decriminalization or 215 now? :think:

How about some fact checks?

"Portugal did experience an increase in drug use after [decriminalisation] was implemented, but so did many European countries during this period. Cannabis use increased only moderately, but cocaine and amphetamine use rates apparently doubled off a low base."

The most recent data from EMCDDA shows the total number of drug-related deaths in 2009 was 54, down from 94 in 2008.

The figures from EMCDDA show that estimates of HIV infection ranged from 13.6 - 16.8 per cent of injecting drug users in 2001. By 2009, these ranged from 6.7 - 17.2 per cent. While different measures were used in each case, most of the measures taken in isolation showed falls in infection rates. Prevalence of Hepititis C among new injecting users also showed a small but volatile decline.

The figures from EMCDDA show that estimates of HIV infection ranged from 13.6 - 16.8 per cent of injecting drug users in 2001. By 2009, these ranged from 6.7 - 17.2 per cent. While different measures were used in each case, most of the measures taken in isolation showed falls in infection rates. Prevalence of Hepititis C among new injecting users also showed a small but volatile decline. So on this count Portugal appears to be performing better than implied by Ms Phillips, although we cannot say to which specific measures she was originally referring.

Conclusion​ The adacemic debate over Portugal's performance following decriminalisation remains considerable and hotly debated. Full Fact found many of the problems stemmed not necessarily from a disagreement over the facts but a disagreement over which facts matter when it comes to interpreting the effects of decriminalisation. In addition to this, how these post-2001 trends compare to trends beforehand is also a relevant factor in the debate, as is the comparison with other European countries that have not followed Portugal's policy. Both are beyond the scope of this particular factcheck. As for the trends that Melanie Phillips referred to, there is very much a mixed bag of figures. The prevalence of drug use has indeed increased, with only a small number of exceptions in narrower age bands. UNODC also highlight a large increase in cocaine seizures: seven-fold between 2001 and 2006. Portugal's homicide rate bucked the European trend by increasing in the 2000s, but there seems to be little evidence that explicitly links this to drug usage, and on this count Ms Phillips' comments do not appear to paint the full picture. Drug-related deaths, specifically measured, indicated a decline in mortality from most drugs. Furthermore, infections from certain diseases also seem to have fallen, although again this is based on specific figures. There is a considerable range of studies available - some mentioned here - that analyse the recent trends in the context of trends before decriminalistion took place in 2001. Only by taking these arguments into account can one infer the causal effect Portugal's policy has had on the effects of drug use in the country.

statistical indicators that suggest the following correlations between the drug strategy and the following developments, from July 2001 up to 2007: Increased uptake of treatment. Reduction in HIV diagnoses amongst drug users by 17%​ Reduction in drug related deaths, although this reduction has decreased in later years, and the number of drug related deaths is now almost on the same level as before the Drug strategy was implemented. However, this may be accounted for by improvement in measurement practices, which includes a doubling of toxicological autopsies now being performed, meaning that more drugs related deaths are likely to be recorded. Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1% It has been proposed that this effect may have been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. However, during the same period, the use of heroin and cannabis also increased in Spain and Italy, where drugs for personal use was decriminalised many years earlier than in Portugal while the use of Cannabis and heroin decreased in the rest of Western Europe. Drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users declined. Drug-related criminal justice workloads decreased Decreased street value of most illicit drugs, some significantly.​

Get some up to date sources. This is all an exercise in futility. If it was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that decriminalization worked, you would still oppose it. Stop wasting my time arguing your red herrings.

In closing, you're to drug pushing what Arthur Brain is to sodomy (I'll give Arthur credit, while he is a homosexualist, unlike you he doesn't push both drugs and homosexuality).

I push neither. In closing, you are a lying scumbag. Do you push blasphemy, cigarettes and alcohol? Do you have any evidence of me "pushing" homosexuality, you lying loser?

The only way to cure people like you and Arthur is for you to accept God and His word into your lives.

That's rich coming from a slandering liar like yourself. Get saved.

 

[Flipper]

I am not going to quote your post because your graph is too big. It did however, offer data through 2007. Why not find up to date statistics? :think:

The other big red flashing light from a statistical perspective is the lack of data between 2001 and 2007 that is not reflected in the scale. Was there just not data between those years? Or did they leave it out because it didn't tell the story they wanted it to tell?

Either way, a fairer way to portray the data in that chart would be to add the missing years and then plot the line out. That would show a much shallower and less impressive increase that's actually more in line with reality.

Anyone who fudges stats like that is hiding something.

 

[WizardofOz]

The other big red flashing light from a statistical perspective is the lack of data between 2001 and 2007 that is not reflected in the scale. Was there just not data between those years? Or did they leave it out because it didn't tell the story they wanted it to tell?

Either way, a fairer way to portray the data in that chart would be to add the missing years and then plot the line out. That would show a much shallower and less impressive increase that's actually more in line with reality.

Anyone who fudges stats like that is hiding something.

Good catch, Flipper!

Actually, it makes sense that alaCarteWarrior would use an alaCarte graph.

 

[Flipper]

Oh man, this is hi-larious!

I was wondering what sort of institution would be so blatantly dishonest in how they portray statistics, so I followed the link ACultureWarrior gave for his Portugal chart.

Turns out, the chart he posted was from a site showing how different groups with different agendas could deliberately fudge statistics to tell the story they wanted to tell.

The chart he chose was an example from what the author called "The Draconian Foundation" whose deliberate agenda was to use statistics to lie to make drug decriminalization look worse than it is.

Just for reference, the opposite side of the fudging story was told by the Glibertarian Institute, who want to cherrypick a story that makes decriminalization look like the best thing that ever happened.

ACultureWarrior, you're the sort of person who links to examples of how not to handle statistics as examples that support his position. This means one or more of the following is true:

1. You can't read properly
2. You're a liar
3. You are one of those epic morons who think The Onion is a factual newspaper
4. You are some sort of post-modern comedian.

I'm thinking it's 1 and 3., but I'd like to hear what you think it might be. So which is it?

 

[WizardofOz]

It's #2 also. Although aCW is, at times unwittingly, a #4.