Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty much on board with ya Racer. I keep telling people the most dangerous dealer wears a white coat and has sloppy hand writing.
aaand, scene.
I'm pretty much on board with ya Racer. I keep telling people the most dangerous dealer wears a white coat and has sloppy hand writing.
There it is.....there's the Money.I think the point is whether or not a free society is in the plan for our future. How long can they market the idea while engineering the opposite, this time having co-opted the general public?
You're pretty clearly illiterate in a lot of ways - but it hasn't stopped you from having opinions.
First of all, the chart pretty clearly shows the level of addiction with no government spending - the same as it is today. How can we tell that the level of addiction has not been kept down by the massive increase? Because there is no correlation whatsoever between them. What suggests to you that this might be the case other than your own thick-skulled obstinance?
And the chart is incomplete because it doesn't include some people you know? Really? And if we don't know these junkie relatives of yours we have no street smarts? You clearly have no grasp of statistics either. What the fuck do you need - a cartoon showing a picture of your heroin addicted baby mama on the chart?
You clearly have no capacity for critical thought and no grasp whatsoever of logic. Your belief system seems to be based on some unhealthy combination of tradition, superstition and hate. You reject all evidence contrary to your beliefs without addressing the points they make. And the best thing is, your worldview is so narrow that you have no capacity for growth.
Yeah, I pity your kids. I am sure they could have done worse, but they drew a shitty straw.
I look forward to your continuing blather.
The chart I posted does show addiction rates with little to no spending before Nixon initiated the war on drugs, then as it also shows, spending steadily rises, addiction rates remain constant, then, in 1986 the budget soars, yet addiction rates remain constant.
"Illicit drug use in America has been increasing. In 2012, an estimated 23.9 million Americans aged 12 or olderor 9.2 percent of the populationhad used an illicit drug or abused a psychotherapeutic medication (such as a pain reliever, stimulant, or tranquilizer) in the past month. This is up from 8.3 percent in 2002. The increase mostly reflects a recent rise in the use of marijuana, the most commonly used illicit drug.
Use of most drugs other than marijuana has not changed appreciably over the past decade or has declined. In 2012, 6.8 million Americans aged 12 or older (or 2.6 percent) had used psycho-therapeutic prescription drugs nonmedically (without a prescription or in a manner or for a purpose not prescribed) in the past month. And 1.1 million Americans (0.4 percent) had used hallucinogens (a category that includes Ecstasy and LSD) in the past month."
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends
Cocaine use has gone down in the last few years; from 2007 to 2012, the number of current users aged 12 or older dropped from 2.1 million to 1.7 million. Methamphetamine use has remained steady, from 530,000 current users in 2007 to 440,000 in 2012.
So your request is that to come to any reasonable conclusion about the rates of drug addiction in the US, every single drug user in the United States has to answer the survey and you have to believe they're honest about it? Absolutely ridiculous.
It is irrelevant how many people have answered it. When they ask these surveys, they ask a group of people, usually, in something like this directly from the NIDA, they ask thousands of people, it's called a "sample pool", from every state with all different backgrounds, with that they come up with an accurate mathematical percentage based on the size of the population. This is how statistics works, as I'm sure you know, it's impossible to ask everyone.
What are you using?
Did you look up the story I asked you to ? I see plenty of that with legalization. That`s just my theroy alone, don`t know if others agree.Can you point me to the data?
It`s a good thing we`re not building houses here. Didn`t know thresholds weaken with higher education. I`ll try to remember that a diverted pill is sill a pill when presenting a point that`s still a point.Do not abuse the term. "Theory" is established and has no counterevidence, like the theories of evolution and gravitation.
If you have a plausible idea that is still in need of experimental/observational buttressing, that is a "hypothesis". But that term also is only awarded to ideas that make complete sense with the information in hand. They may not contain fallacies of construction. What they need is verification or falsification, say by that one inconvenient fact.
What you are presenting fits into a third and least category, the "unsupported ideation". You have been advised of and challenged on this more than once by more than one. You steadfastly refuse to address or even recognize your departures from logic, which stops us solid before we can even review your supposed corpus of evidence. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a discourse with someone whose faith is a perfect fortress, unassailable by reason.
likeI'm pretty much on board with ya Racer. I keep telling people the most dangerous dealer wears a white coat and has sloppy hand writing.
well said sir.Do not abuse the term. "Theory" is established and has no counterevidence, like the theories of evolution and gravitation.
If you have a plausible idea that is still in need of experimental/observational buttressing, that is a "hypothesis". But that term also is only awarded to ideas that make complete sense with the information in hand. They may not contain fallacies of construction. What they need is verification or falsification, say by that one inconvenient fact.
What you are presenting fits into a third and least category, the "unsupported ideation". You have been advised of and challenged on this more than once by more than one. You steadfastly refuse to address or even recognize your departures from logic, which stops us solid before we can even review your supposed corpus of evidence. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a discourse with someone whose faith is a perfect fortress, unassailable by reason.
lol...not sure a dictionary would be your saving grace.It`s a good thing we`re not building houses here. Didn`t know thresholds weaken with higher education. I`ll try to remember that a diverted pill is sill a pill when presenting a point that`s still a point.
If I go get my dictionary, can I stay at the party ?
We really need the like button back. It's a pet peeve of mine as well.Do not abuse the term. "Theory" is established and has no counterevidence, like the theories of evolution and gravitation.
If you have a plausible idea that is still in need of experimental/observational buttressing, that is a "hypothesis". But that term also is only awarded to ideas that make complete sense with the information in hand. They may not contain fallacies of construction. What they need is verification or falsification, say by that one inconvenient fact.
What you are presenting fits into a third and least category, the "unsupported ideation". You have been advised of and challenged on this more than once by more than one. You steadfastly refuse to address or even recognize your departures from logic, which stops us solid before we can even review your supposed corpus of evidence. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in a discourse with someone whose faith is a perfect fortress, unassailable by reason.
like
well said sir.
lol...not sure a dictionary would be your saving grace.
Look at addiction rates in the US pre 1970's, there you go, still constant. The fact that the addiction rates remained constant before the drug war was initiated as well as after means that meeting the goal of lowering addiction rates has failed. We see no significant drop in addiction rates, there is no other way to analyze it.Yes the chart shows a bit, but there is and incline at that time and a few later as the spending went up, a decline. Hardly meaningful and I`d dismiss that. But I can`t use a chart like that unless the third variable was there. (no spending)
What do you suggest we use as a better method?The thing about poll is the fix can be in to benefit the reason it was conducted to begin with. I`m not say`n that`s the case but the content and method of the questions and the handle`n of the answers can easily be altered to fit. Example: Is the answer multiple user of four times spread out over ten years an addict cuz of multiple user ? It`s just too easy to put that graph, even when accurate, up and see no source or questions to give you perspective of how it was conducted. Besides, will legalizing it really curb the spending?
It will likely be a states issue when/if the issue ever comes to the table. Also, check this out;In America it`s best to take such a issue as this to the People. But lawyers for Pfizer or whoever makes these drugs aint gonna let that happen. If it were, I`d live and sit well with the results. But we know that`s never gonna happen, unless States take it upon themselves to do it like with pot. Then the Feds. will start stepping on hands. Don`t leave it to Congress, they`re bought and paid for puppets now.
You're not looking at the big picture. The facts are, as I've posted, the money we spend fighting the war on drugs has no effect on addiction rates, it is impossible to eradicate all drugs, therefore, the drug war has fundamentally failed to meet it's main goals. We are essentially throwing billions of dollars away each year on something that doesn't work.Cocaine may be down cuz people are doing meth or vise verse or market prices are dictating choice, But I have to listen to Racer, with his theroy of now that education is stopping street sales, Big Pharma is doing it to us via doctor through your illness or accident. It`s all looking scammed. I recently read a story of a Bronx clinic running a scam out of a legal access program where a crooked doctor was teaching phony patients how to play a chiropractor into getting pain scripts and in return, charge them first, buy the script for a discount and then sell the script on the street for ridiculous cash. ($6,000 NY $18,0000 out of State) Since 2011 over 500,000,000 pill have been pushed. Not once did Big Pharma contact the Feds. and point to the Bronx and say ...red flag, the Brox just pushed five hundred million pills in three years. Why ? Cuz they get the sales. I think legalizing will invite scams and like the clinic in NY, people will swarn the place every morning till closing and the OD/addict rate will sore. Maybe fall later cuz the dead can`t buy but the next "of ages" will up and down it again.
Do you mind if I ask your age, ballpark?"What am I useing ?" just pot if you meant state of mind and HP Pavillion Pc with Windows7 in one chamber and unplugged WindowsXP in the other. (can start either drive but never with both plugged in) My in-law does the work and gives the instructions, but I`m not too privi with computers. Like kids today are.
Where I live in England they do give out free heroin to the most hardened addicts ,but not all. The police estimate that 99% of crime in the city is drug related. By allowing all users free drugs you would be saving tax $. These people have a problem. Don't think of it as you paying for them to have a good time. Think of it as an act of philanthropy .Your $ would help them and there victimsTo the first point, I think it would be my business if my tax dollars went to supplying you with drugs. I think if the war on drugs was ended, and all of a sudden the DEA's budget was freely available to allocate any which way the government decided, people would still feel very against that money going towards a drug users high. If you want to get high, go for it, do what you want, but using my money to do it is not OK, imo, what makes it even less OK is if I don't let you do it I go to jail or face fines, i.e. government coercion.
It's an interesting point because I agree with you about the profit motive fueling the black market, but I just don't see how our society could offer such a thing to its citizens via taxpayers dollars without it being coerced by the government, and that's something I'm much more personally morally against than keeping drugs illegal, as much as I detest the war on drugs...
Look at addiction rates in the US pre 1970's, there you go, still constant. The fact that the addiction rates remained constant before the drug war was initiated as well as after means that meeting the goal of lowering addiction rates has failed. We see no significant drop in addiction rates, there is no other way to analyze it.
What do you suggest we use as a better method?
It will likely be a states issue when/if the issue ever comes to the table. Also, check this out;
[youtube]MHXYVhNXI9k[/youtube]
You're not looking at the big picture. The facts are, as I've posted, the money we spend fighting the war on drugs has no effect on addiction rates, it is impossible to eradicate all drugs, therefore, the drug war has fundamentally failed to meet it's main goals. We are essentially throwing billions of dollars away each year on something that doesn't work.
We have 5% of the world population in the US and about 25% of its prisoners, most of which are non violent drug offenders. This is catastrophic to our judicial system, also another point in the argument where we waste billions of dollars incarcerating people.
You still haven't addressed the personal freedom point I made. To me, that alone is enough reason to legalize scheduled drugs. What about the personal safety issue? Other, much more harmful substances are totally legal, how can the DEA look the other way on certain, more harmful substances but criminalize using safer ones?
Do you mind if I ask your age, ballpark?