Moderator: Dux
Because I believe that cannabis is different? Try and compare employment consequences, health consequences and associated medical costs, criminal behavior of users, etc...Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're such a phenomenal chickenshit.
Case in point. Evasive, cowardly, and obfuscating.Turdacious wrote:Because I believe that cannabis is different? Try and compare employment consequences, health consequences and associated medical costs, criminal behavior of users, etc...Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're such a phenomenal chickenshit.
There's a reason there is legalization efforts are not equal for all drugs.
Of course cannabis is different, you superfluous twat. Bravo...now say something useful. Besides waiving "shoddy science" misidentifying arguments and confusing two page position papers with "Studies."Blaidd Drwg wrote:I made no claims as the the veracity of the paper. Only that there are lots of people outside of activist journalists who are considering Portugal. Follow the ball.
Alright neighbor...I took a deeper look. First off, get your terms right, it's not a study, it's a report, essentially a position piece. You can pick any number of soft sources and criticize them but doesn't make the conclusions a house of cards.Turdacious wrote:That study takes more shortcuts than a Trump speech. They talk about racial disparities in drug arrests, but not changes in crime. The implicit conclusions about Iran are another issue I have-- there's not enough data to make the conclusions they imply (plus the refugee issue complicates everything). Lazy science should never be acceptable.
For those who want to read the actual study: http://press.thelancet.com/DrugsPolicy1.pdf
Already did, but I put them in bold for you. And congratulations on finally reading it. Gold Star. Maybe you should go through the rest of the posts, Rudy's included, and actually read them too.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Alright neighbor...I took a deeper look. First off, get your terms right, it's not a study, it's a report, essentially a position piece. You can pick any number of soft sources and criticize them but doesn't make the conclusions a house of cards.Turdacious wrote:That study takes more shortcuts than a Trump speech. They talk about racial disparities in drug arrests, but not changes in crime. The implicit conclusions about Iran are another issue I have-- there's not enough data to make the conclusions they imply (plus the refugee issue complicates everything). Lazy science should never be acceptable.
For those who want to read the actual study: http://press.thelancet.com/DrugsPolicy1.pdf
No one here is a scientist writing a response paper on a meta review of the 432 citations in the document. So rather than diverting to your standard chump mode, step back from your favorite association fallacy (The Lancet was a cunt on Iraq deaths, ergo....) and just tell us what YOU think is wrong with the thinking underlying the position...better yet, If your balls have dropped while no one noticed, give us a your solution as a philosopher king.
You think Cannabis is different? How should it be treated differently to say Crystal meth, shrooms or MDMA? Fuck, Rudy is functionally illiterate and he can almost do that. Pick a lane, son.
Turdacious wrote:Seriously I'd hit it from both sides. Let states vote on pot legalization with no nasty federal strings, study the consequences, and find a way to tax it effectively. Take away the federal financial incentives for small scale pot busts and stop the abuse of civil forfeiture laws. And have the FDA restrict use of opiate painkillers.
The aside gets closer to the crux of the matter than anything else-- it comes down to cost and benefit. Pot can be produced in the States and taxed; that revenue can take the place of the revenue sources I don't like (i.e. civil forfeitures). Pot doesn't seem to have the public health costs that other drugs do either, and a lot of those costs are borne by the taxpayer. That includes opiate painkillers, those have some longer term cost consequences too.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Turdacious wrote:Seriously I'd hit it from both sides. Let states vote on pot legalization with no nasty federal strings, study the consequences, and find a way to tax it effectively. Take away the federal financial incentives for small scale pot busts and stop the abuse of civil forfeiture laws. And have the FDA restrict use of opiate painkillers.
That wasn't so hard now was it?
What about:
Non Rx'd opiates?
Mushrooms and Psychedelics?
Crystal and Coke?
As an aside I find it odd that you would leave legalization to the states but would intervene in medical practices of individual doctors at a Federal level.
You're dancing again.Turdacious wrote:The aside gets closer to the crux of the matter than anything else-- it comes down to cost and benefit. Pot can be produced in the States and taxed; that revenue can take the place of the revenue sources I don't like (i.e. civil forfeitures). Pot doesn't seem to have the public health costs that other drugs do either, and a lot of those costs are borne by the taxpayer. That includes opiate painkillers, those have some longer term cost consequences too.
For the good of the order, describe what you think the conclusions are being drawn regarding Iran that are of import. Iran shows up as a fairly tangential reference from what I see in that paper.Turdacious wrote:That study takes more shortcuts than a Trump speech. They talk about racial disparities in drug arrests, but not changes in crime. The implicit conclusions about Iran are another issue I have-- there's not enough data to make the conclusions they imply (plus the refugee issue complicates everything). Lazy science should never be acceptable.
For those who want to read the actual study: http://press.thelancet.com/DrugsPolicy1.pdf
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/24/8094759/alcohol-marijuanaSome experts say the complexity of the issue should be embraced. Caulkins and Peter Reuter, a drug policy expert at the University of Maryland, suggested a model in which all the major risks of drugs are drawn out and each drug is ranked within those categories. So heroin would be at or near the top for mortality, alcohol would be at or near the top for cause of violent crime, and tobacco would be at the top for long-term health risks. But there wouldn't be a single ranking for all the drugs' harms. The idea is lawmakers could look at this model to help decide on an individual basis which policies are better for each drug.
It is not alternative because... it's just not, is it? There is often a big difference between "logical" thinking and real life data.Rudy Van Horne wrote:
I believe that methadone clinics do indeed lower crime, which is the entire point. If heroin was legal, cheap and less stigmatised how many addicts would seek out a methadone prescription? The alternative to expensive heroin being cheaper heroin is no alternative at all.
Abstract: A program of heroin prescription was introduced in Switzer- land in 1994. This initially targeted 1,000 heavily dependent heroin users, most of whom were also involved in drug dealing and other forms of crime. It has recently been extended to cover 3,000 users.
Evaluation of its impact on users shows large reductions in use of illicit drugs and in drug-related crime. The evaluations were not designed to assess the program's impact on drug markets, but some data can shed light on this. It seems likely that users who were admitted to the program accounted for a substantial proportion of consumption of illicit heroin, and that removing them from the illicit market has damaged the market's viability. Before involvement in the program, a large proportion of users sold drugs to finance their own use, since the illicit drug market in Switzerland relies heavily on users for retail drug selling. It is likely, therefore, that the program additionally disrupted the function of the market by removing retail workers. The workers no longer sold drugs to existing users, and equally important, no longer recruited new users into the market. The heroin prescription market may thus have had a significant impact on heroin markets in Switzerland.
I'm not surprised that prescribing heroin to addicts reduced crime. If it's free, there's no need to go out robbing to pay for it, obviously.Sangoma wrote:It is not alternative because... it's just not, is it? There is often a big difference between "logical" thinking and real life data.Rudy Van Horne wrote:
I believe that methadone clinics do indeed lower crime, which is the entire point. If heroin was legal, cheap and less stigmatised how many addicts would seek out a methadone prescription? The alternative to expensive heroin being cheaper heroin is no alternative at all.
The Impact of Heroin Prescription on Heroin Markets in Switzerland
Abstract: A program of heroin prescription was introduced in Switzer- land in 1994. This initially targeted 1,000 heavily dependent heroin users, most of whom were also involved in drug dealing and other forms of crime. It has recently been extended to cover 3,000 users.
Evaluation of its impact on users shows large reductions in use of illicit drugs and in drug-related crime. The evaluations were not designed to assess the program's impact on drug markets, but some data can shed light on this. It seems likely that users who were admitted to the program accounted for a substantial proportion of consumption of illicit heroin, and that removing them from the illicit market has damaged the market's viability. Before involvement in the program, a large proportion of users sold drugs to finance their own use, since the illicit drug market in Switzerland relies heavily on users for retail drug selling. It is likely, therefore, that the program additionally disrupted the function of the market by removing retail workers. The workers no longer sold drugs to existing users, and equally important, no longer recruited new users into the market. The heroin prescription market may thus have had a significant impact on heroin markets in Switzerland.
I don't think the article said it was free, but maybe it is. More to the point, getting caught up in the definition of "fair" can get in the way of "effective". Similar to PL54 and BD's argument over whether addition is a disease or a choice, to me the real question is which label leads to effective treatments that reduce it. We can all agree that reducing it = good.Rudy Van Horne wrote:I'm not surprised that prescribing heroin to addicts reduced crime. If it's free, there's no need to go out robbing to pay for it, obviously.
I still don't think it's fair to society to say they should pay for addicts to indulge and put no insistence on the addict themselves to behave, but hey ho, that's probably a matter of opinion and depends on whether you personally see addicts as a victim of the drug trade or collaborators in it.
The whole drug fighting thing is a fixed resource problem. Where do we put our bucks?Again, any success that can be attributed to decriminalisation is more likely just a result of increased investment in treatment programs, as these links clearly point out;...
4; Prohibition with investment In drug treatment - what the NTA did here in the UK to good success
Seems to me, purely looking at numbers, that number 4 is the golden ticket.
And you've spent four pages acting like a twat before admitting you hadn't read the Lancet piece this whole discussion is based on. I'm not dancing at all-- I'm not ready to go for the full legalization model, but willing to take a hard look at the partial legalization model.Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're dancing again.Turdacious wrote:The aside gets closer to the crux of the matter than anything else-- it comes down to cost and benefit. Pot can be produced in the States and taxed; that revenue can take the place of the revenue sources I don't like (i.e. civil forfeitures). Pot doesn't seem to have the public health costs that other drugs do either, and a lot of those costs are borne by the taxpayer. That includes opiate painkillers, those have some longer term cost consequences too.
The taxpayer/citizen is paying now..in the both loss of liberty and in taxation for the expensive prohibition model. We already shoulder the long term costs of opiate addiction. Are you implying you expect costs to rise significantly with decriminalization of certain opiates?
So it provided a necessary training opportunity? How much of the money spent was money the DoD realistically needed to spend anyway? The overage is the only cost that really.nafod wrote: For example, back in the late 80s and early 90s I probably did 10 detachments of a week each flying drug interdiction missions over the Caribbean looking for drug smugglers, at tens of thousands of dollars per flight hour plus all the other costs of moving a bunch of assets to Key West (party time) Puerto Rico, Panama, Corpus Christi, Pensacola, and other coastal sites. This cost on top of redirecting DoD assests to criminal matters, etc. Fun flying, but ineffective other than giving an appearance of doing something about it.
That is a lot of rehab that could be done instead, for pennies on the dollar but a huge change in effectiveness.
No it didn't. Going out ones and twos and hunting slow moving boats or small A/C was a completely different scenario from fighting a big air-sea-land battle against the Russian/Chinese/Iraqi hordes, with hundreds to thousands of assets flitting around. Just not our core mission.Turdacious wrote:So it provided a necessary training opportunity?nafod wrote: For example, back in the late 80s and early 90s I probably did 10 detachments of a week each flying drug interdiction missions over the Caribbean looking for drug smugglers, at tens of thousands of dollars per flight hour plus all the other costs of moving a bunch of assets to Key West (party time) Puerto Rico, Panama, Corpus Christi, Pensacola, and other coastal sites. This cost on top of redirecting DoD assests to criminal matters, etc. Fun flying, but ineffective other than giving an appearance of doing something about it.
That is a lot of rehab that could be done instead, for pennies on the dollar but a huge change in effectiveness.
Fair enough, but was was the cost compared to the training you would have done otherwise and the utility of that training?nafod wrote:No it didn't. Going out ones and twos and hunting slow moving boats or small A/C was a completely different scenario from fighting a big air-sea-land battle against the Russian/Chinese/Iraqi hordes, with hundreds to thousands of assets flitting around. Just not our core mission.Turdacious wrote:So it provided a necessary training opportunity?nafod wrote: For example, back in the late 80s and early 90s I probably did 10 detachments of a week each flying drug interdiction missions over the Caribbean looking for drug smugglers, at tens of thousands of dollars per flight hour plus all the other costs of moving a bunch of assets to Key West (party time) Puerto Rico, Panama, Corpus Christi, Pensacola, and other coastal sites. This cost on top of redirecting DoD assests to criminal matters, etc. Fun flying, but ineffective other than giving an appearance of doing something about it.
That is a lot of rehab that could be done instead, for pennies on the dollar but a huge change in effectiveness.
That's a fair question. Probably a one-for-one swap between training that would be for our mission (fighting wars from a carrier) and going off and doing drug interdiction. Very little cross-over in skills, other than basic operation of the platform, which we'd rather have done home with our families since we were in-between deployments. No tactics crossover.Turdacious wrote:Fair enough, but was was the cost compared to the training you would have done otherwise and the utility of that training?nafod wrote:No it didn't. Going out ones and twos and hunting slow moving boats or small A/C was a completely different scenario from fighting a big air-sea-land battle against the Russian/Chinese/Iraqi hordes, with hundreds to thousands of assets flitting around. Just not our core mission.Turdacious wrote:So it provided a necessary training opportunity?nafod wrote: For example, back in the late 80s and early 90s I probably did 10 detachments of a week each flying drug interdiction missions over the Caribbean looking for drug smugglers, at tens of thousands of dollars per flight hour plus all the other costs of moving a bunch of assets to Key West (party time) Puerto Rico, Panama, Corpus Christi, Pensacola, and other coastal sites. This cost on top of redirecting DoD assests to criminal matters, etc. Fun flying, but ineffective other than giving an appearance of doing something about it.
That is a lot of rehab that could be done instead, for pennies on the dollar but a huge change in effectiveness.
Wrong again you stupid cunt..Turdacious wrote:And you've spent four pages acting like a twat before admitting you hadn't read the Lancet piece this whole discussion is based on. I'm not dancing at all-- I'm not ready to go for the full legalization model, but willing to take a hard look at the partial legalization model.Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're dancing again.Turdacious wrote:The aside gets closer to the crux of the matter than anything else-- it comes down to cost and benefit. Pot can be produced in the States and taxed; that revenue can take the place of the revenue sources I don't like (i.e. civil forfeitures). Pot doesn't seem to have the public health costs that other drugs do either, and a lot of those costs are borne by the taxpayer. That includes opiate painkillers, those have some longer term cost consequences too.
The taxpayer/citizen is paying now..in the both loss of liberty and in taxation for the expensive prohibition model. We already shoulder the long term costs of opiate addiction. Are you implying you expect costs to rise significantly with decriminalization of certain opiates?
I'm not looking at just total cost, but relative cost too. Costs to the feds, the state, and municipalities should be separated. The reason I bring up civil forfeiture is because the local costs seem to have the nastiest effects and the hardest to pass to anyone else. There is a taxation cost to the prohibition model, but it doesn't raise much revenue.
Iran is located next to the poppy growing capital of the world, hosts a large, impoverished Afghan refugee population, has a young underemployed population (especially in rural areas), has a porous border (as evidenced by the number of Afghan migrants going to Europe who took the Iranian route), extremely limited opportunities for working class Iranians to migrate to find better work, really don't allow international monitors (UN organizations, World Bank, IOM) in to do much assessing outside their oil sector, and have more complex international relationships with their neighbors than Mexico does.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Wrong again you stupid cunt..Turdacious wrote:And you've spent four pages acting like a twat before admitting you hadn't read the Lancet piece this whole discussion is based on. I'm not dancing at all-- I'm not ready to go for the full legalization model, but willing to take a hard look at the partial legalization model.Blaidd Drwg wrote:You're dancing again.Turdacious wrote:The aside gets closer to the crux of the matter than anything else-- it comes down to cost and benefit. Pot can be produced in the States and taxed; that revenue can take the place of the revenue sources I don't like (i.e. civil forfeitures). Pot doesn't seem to have the public health costs that other drugs do either, and a lot of those costs are borne by the taxpayer. That includes opiate painkillers, those have some longer term cost consequences too.
The taxpayer/citizen is paying now..in the both loss of liberty and in taxation for the expensive prohibition model. We already shoulder the long term costs of opiate addiction. Are you implying you expect costs to rise significantly with decriminalization of certain opiates?
I'm not looking at just total cost, but relative cost too. Costs to the feds, the state, and municipalities should be separated. The reason I bring up civil forfeiture is because the local costs seem to have the nastiest effects and the hardest to pass to anyone else. There is a taxation cost to the prohibition model, but it doesn't raise much revenue.
I read it and the three other major pieces long before I made comment one. What I went back with an eye to checking your shabby conclusions to find, as I suspected, you are flinging poo without a clue...(back up your Iran statement, you're the one making outlandish claims about science when you cant tell a study from a position paper)
You've not said a god damn thing. You are as you have consistently been on this forum, a total intellectual coward.
