Political Crossfire Forums

[ja]

The Comrade wrote:



http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564677/Prohibition.html#461517773
According to your source:
Quote: Consumption statistics are based on legal sales; those during Prohibition are estimates of illegal consumption. First, you can't compare legal sales to illegal estimates. It's like comparing apples and orangutans. Second, I argue it is a poor estimate considering the prohibition period is completely flat. This is in direct disagreement with everything else presented. It could be that prohibition consumption was much higher, and the rising legal sales rate we see following 1933 is just the recovery from yet another disruption in the supply.

Your second graph is much more convincing.
The Comrade wrote:



http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/war_we_are_losing.htm

Both graphs suggest that after the repeal of prohibition, alcohol use did rise. It's unfortunate that this second graph doesn't go back earlier. It certainly looks like alcohol consumption was on the rise before repeal and was unaffected by prohibition's repeal. There isn't even a blip on consumption in 1933, unlike beverage expenditures. The consumption graph can be extrapolated to a perfectly straight line. Unfortunately, I can't say this with certainty, since the graph begins at 1933. Indeed the authors of the graph come to a much different conclusion than you.

Quote: Figure 3.3 shows the expenditure on alcoholic beverages expressed in constant 1982 prices between the same dates. As you will see, absolute expenditures, like the percentage spent, went up to 1937 and then fell briefly. During the war, expenditures went up sharply, peaking this time in 1946. Expenditures then fell and remained fairly constant during the forties and fifties and then, beginning in 1961, there was a sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages. For our purposes, however, the important lesson from the chart is that the legalization of alcohol clearly did not stimulate alcoholism. The legalization of alcohol was followed by a plateau in the consumption of alcohol. The kinds of things that many people have talked about as occurring during the sixties produced the sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages from 1961 to 1980. Since then expenditures have been falling in absolute terms and not only as a percentage of total consumption.

The obvious implication is that if currently illicit drugs were decriminalized and handled exactly the way alcohol is now handled, there is no reason to suppose that there would be a vast increase in the number of addicts. That is by no means a certainty, but every statement that I have seen asserting the contrary is based on pure conjecture and hypothesis. I have seen no hard evidence. The closest to it that I have come across is reference to the opium craze in China. Given the evidence we have-not only from alcohol prohibition but also from Holland, Alaska, and others-the burden of proof, it seems to me, is on those who maintain that there would be a completely unacceptable increase in the number of addicts.

We can agree that alcohol consumption reached it's lowest historical point during Prohibition, probably right after it's introduction. You attribute that to the law itself. Although it is by no means certain, you are in agreement with most of academia in this opinion.

So Prohibition is commonly credited with causing a modest decrease in consumption and alcohol related illness, but a great increase in crime, especially homicide and government corruption. Prohibition was overwhelmingly repealed for causing more harm than it corrected. So why do you accept one lesson of Prohibition and discard the rest?

[The Comrade]

ja wrote:
First of all marijuana is not a depressant. It is often categorized as a hallucinogen, but it should actually be classified as a cannabinoid.


Furthermore, research shows that marijuana does not cause traffic accidents. Since marijuana, unlike alcohol, doesn't effect judgement, users compensate for their impairment.

Quote: 'Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.

"Both substances impair performance," Smiley says. "However, the more cautious behaviour of subjects who received marijuana decreases the drug's impact on performance. Their behaviour is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."
source: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin/19990329a.asp



marijuana effects your ability to sense the passage of time. i'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that would effect driving in a negative way.

[The Comrade]

Prole wrote:
Then perhaps you should stop trumping it as an end-all proof that legalization would increase use.

because i don't have a degree in it doesn't make it any less relevant.

Prole wrote: The decline has hardly been significant. Among non-highschoolers, total drug users (and plausibly use) has remained fairly consistent, though which drugs are being used has changed.

because non highschoolers wouldn't have gone through the new drug policies.

Prole wrote: Really, Comrade, you can't point to an relatively small, unique group out of an entire population and expect them to prove anything about that entire population. That would be like me growing an apple tree in the Sahara as proof it is good farming land.

i wasn't trying to prove anything for the entire population. i was pointing out that with the decrease in drug use among highschoolers it shows a decrease in their use thanks to recent drug policies.


Prole wrote: I certainly accept that sentences have gotten harsher, and that communication easier. Yet at the same time, the profitability of drug trafficking has also risen, as well as the ease of it due to communication.

which means that law enforcment and drug traffickers are in a tug-o-war of sorts. and i'm going to guess that law enforcment are going to get the upper hand more often then cartels.




Prole wrote: You are misreading it. Over the past 20 years, number of drug users has remained fairly constant. As in, from 1985 onwards, the have been the same number of drug users; in fact, slightly more. From 1979 until 1982 (and possibly for the next couple of years) there was a drop, but following that, there has been no decline in users at all.

Edited to fix typo


ahh i see where i was misreading it.


but, the sharpest increases were people well over highschool/college age. which ties in with my abgove argument of the effectivness of drug policies.

[The Comrade]

ja wrote:
According to your source:
Quote: Consumption statistics are based on legal sales; those during Prohibition are estimates of illegal consumption. First, you can't compare legal sales to illegal estimates. It's like comparing apples and orangutans. Second, I argue it is a poor estimate considering the prohibition period is completely flat. This is in direct disagreement with everything else presented. It could be that prohibition consumption was much higher, and the rising legal sales rate we see following 1933 is just the recovery from yet another disruption in the supply.

fair enough.

ja wrote: Your second graph is much more convincing.
The Comrade wrote:



http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/war_we_are_losing.htm

Both graphs suggest that after the repeal of prohibition, alcohol use did rise. It's unfortunate that this second graph doesn't go back earlier. It certainly looks like alcohol consumption was on the rise before repeal and was unaffected by prohibition's repeal. There isn't even a blip on consumption in 1933, unlike beverage expenditures. The consumption graph can be extrapolated to a perfectly straight line. Unfortunately, I can't say this with certainty, since the graph begins at 1933. Indeed the authors of the graph come to a much different conclusion than you.

consumption may have been on the rise, but it boomed after repeal. in a six or seven year period(roughly the time alcohol use was on the rise) there could be a number of factors effecting that. if prohibition had lasted another decade, that little rise could be considered insignificant, as consumption could have dropped again.

[quote="ja"] Quote: Figure 3.3 shows the expenditure on alcoholic beverages expressed in constant 1982 prices between the same dates. As you will see, absolute expenditures, like the percentage spent, went up to 1937 and then fell briefly. During the war, expenditures went up sharply, peaking this time in 1946. Expenditures then fell and remained fairly constant during the forties and fifties and then, beginning in 1961, there was a sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages. For our purposes, however, the important lesson from the chart is that the legalization of alcohol clearly did not stimulate alcoholism. The legalization of alcohol was followed by a plateau in the consumption of alcohol. The kinds of things that many people have talked about as occurring during the sixties produced the sharp increase in expenditures on alcoholic beverages from 1961 to 1980. Since then expenditures have been falling in absolute terms and not only as a percentage of total consumption.
this doesn't honestly make sense. the graph clearly shows a steady increase of alcohol use post-prohibition.

ja wrote: Quote: The obvious implication is that if currently illicit drugs were decriminalized and handled exactly the way alcohol is now handled, there is no reason to suppose that there would be a vast increase in the number of addicts. That is by no means a certainty, but every statement that I have seen asserting the contrary is based on pure conjecture and hypothesis. I have seen no hard evidence. The closest to it that I have come across is reference to the opium craze in China. Given the evidence we have-not only from alcohol prohibition but also from Holland, Alaska, and others-the burden of proof, it seems to me, is on those who maintain that there would be a completely unacceptable increase in the number of addicts.

and how would drug use be any different from alcohol in it's increase in usage?

ja wrote: We can agree that alcohol consumption reached it's lowest historical point during Prohibition, probably right after it's introduction. You attribute that to the law itself. Although it is by no means certain, you are in agreement with most of academia in this opinion.

So Prohibition is commonly credited with causing a modest decrease in consumption and alcohol related illness, but a great increase in crime, especially homicide and government corruption. Prohibition was overwhelmingly repealed for causing more harm than it corrected. So why do you accept one lesson of Prohibition and discard the rest?

because i don't know of any real corruption of government because of the war on drugs. crime, over all, has been dropping in america, and has only risen slightly in the past five years. and the mafia was powerful to begin with pre-prohibition. they continued to grow in power post-prohibition. prohibition did help them, i don't deny that, but when prohibition was repealed the mafia still held all of it's power and continued to grow in that power. during world war two the mob boss lucky luciano had the navy stationed in new york in the palm of his hands. now that's power.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: ja wrote:
First of all marijuana is not a depressant. It is often categorized as a hallucinogen, but it should actually be classified as a cannabinoid.


Furthermore, research shows that marijuana does not cause traffic accidents. Since marijuana, unlike alcohol, doesn't effect judgement, users compensate for their impairment.

Quote: 'Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.

"Both substances impair performance," Smiley says. "However, the more cautious behaviour of subjects who received marijuana decreases the drug's impact on performance. Their behaviour is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."
source: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin/19990329a.asp

marijuana effects your ability to sense the passage of time. i'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that would effect driving in a negative way.

Two false and unverified claims in two lines. Bravo. C'mon Comrade, you are better than this. The first claim, you simply made up. This does not merit our acceptance. Weed does not effect your ability to sense the passage of time. Secondly, "I'm just going out on a limb here..." is not a claim with enough evidence to be taken seriously.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:
Two false and unverified claims in two lines. Bravo. C'mon Comrade, you are better than this. The first claim, you simply made up. This does not merit our acceptance. Weed does not effect your ability to sense the passage of time. Secondly, "I'm just going out on a limb here..." is not a claim with enough evidence to be taken seriously.



Quote: The most common effect of cannabis use is the “high,” a sensation similar to mild alcohol intoxication. The user experiencing a high feels calm, relaxed and talkative, and sensory perception seems enhanced. Colours may appear brighter and sound may seem more distinct. The user may misjudge the passage of time so that minutes seem like hours. Appetite often increases, especially for sweets.

The physical effects of cannabis use include rapid heartbeat, red eyes, and dry mouth and throat. The increased heart rate and effects on blood pressure can be dangerous in people who are older, or who have heart disease or high blood pressure.

Cannabis use impairs perception, judgment, balance, motor co-ordination and reaction times. It makes driving or operating machinery particularly dangerous. Recent driving tests have found that definite, dose-related impairment occurs with marijuana use, presumably because of impairment in attentional processes (tracking behaviour) and perceptual abilities.


link

i can get it from drug library too(because i know how that's the be all end all of drug sources)

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:
Two false and unverified claims in two lines. Bravo. C'mon Comrade, you are better than this. The first claim, you simply made up. This does not merit our acceptance. Weed does not effect your ability to sense the passage of time. Secondly, "I'm just going out on a limb here..." is not a claim with enough evidence to be taken seriously.



Quote: The most common effect of cannabis use is the “high,” a sensation similar to mild alcohol intoxication. The user experiencing a high feels calm, relaxed and talkative, and sensory perception seems enhanced. Colours may appear brighter and sound may seem more distinct. The user may misjudge the passage of time so that minutes seem like hours. Appetite often increases, especially for sweets.

The physical effects of cannabis use include rapid heartbeat, red eyes, and dry mouth and throat. The increased heart rate and effects on blood pressure can be dangerous in people who are older, or who have heart disease or high blood pressure.

Cannabis use impairs perception, judgment, balance, motor co-ordination and reaction times. It makes driving or operating machinery particularly dangerous. Recent driving tests have found that definite, dose-related impairment occurs with marijuana use, presumably because of impairment in attentional processes (tracking behaviour) and perceptual abilities.


link

i can get it from drug library too(because i know how that's the be all end all of drug sources)

:lol: This is typical biased anti-drug propoganda. Hell, there was just an article last week in the Purdue Exponent that said in big letters "Marijuana makes you crazy."

Just because it is in print, or in a website, does not make it true. I can tell you, you can drive perfectly fine on weed, and no, times goes by at a normal rate. Have you driven on weed?

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

:lol: This is typical biased anti-drug propoganda. Hell, there was just an article last week in the Purdue Exponent that said in big letters "Marijuana makes you crazy."

drug library is pro-drugs and they say the same thing.

The Grandmaster wrote: Just because it is in print, or in a website, does not make it true. I can tell you, you can drive perfectly fine on weed, and no, times goes by at a normal rate. Have you driven on weed?


i have friends who smoke weed and i wouldn't trust any of them in car.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

:lol: This is typical biased anti-drug propoganda. Hell, there was just an article last week in the Purdue Exponent that said in big letters "Marijuana makes you crazy."

drug library is pro-drugs and they say the same thing.

The Grandmaster wrote: Just because it is in print, or in a website, does not make it true. I can tell you, you can drive perfectly fine on weed, and no, times goes by at a normal rate. Have you driven on weed?

i have friends who smoke weed and i wouldn't trust any of them in car.

Then it appears that you are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus. This passage of time gibberish and claims of difficulty driving are things that simply do not happen to me. However, I realized just as I was preparing this post, that this is really a Red Herring, and argument completely unrelated to the main post, as whether or not something effects a person's driving has no relevance on whether or not it should be legal.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: Then it appears that you are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus. This passage of time gibberish and claims of difficulty driving are things that simply do not happen to me.

that's nice. some people aren't allergic to shrimp.


The Grandmaster wrote: However, I realized just as I was preparing this post, that this is really a Red Herring, and argument completely unrelated to the main post, as whether or not something effects a person's driving has no relevance on whether or not it should be legal.

as you wish.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Then it appears that you are appealing to a field in which there is no consensus. This passage of time gibberish and claims of difficulty driving are things that simply do not happen to me.

that's nice. some people aren't allergic to shrimp.

Exactly. So we can't say shrimp always produces an allergic reaction.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: However, I realized just as I was preparing this post, that this is really a Red Herring, and argument completely unrelated to the main post, as whether or not something effects a person's driving has no relevance on whether or not it should be legal.

as you wish.

Why thank you.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote:

Exactly. So we can't say shrimp always produces an allergic reaction.


if half or most of the time shrimp produced an allergic reaction then it would be considered dangerous.


some people can drive normally while over the legal limit of alcohol. should we not ticket them for drunk driving?

[ja]

The Comrade wrote:
this doesn't honestly make sense. the graph clearly shows a steady increase of alcohol use post-prohibition.

Perhaps this is due to our lack of knowledge of economics and the unfortunate fact that economists use the term "consumption" to mean "buying". After looking at your graph more closely, I realize I was mistaken in my interpretation. In this graph, consumption does not mean how much alcohol is consumed. On the graph, "total consumption" means consumption (buying) of all goods, rendering that part of my last post moot. Unlike what I thought, this graph does not tell us how much alcohol is consumed. It tells us what percentage of all goods and services exchanged were legal alcoholic beverages.


Since, the graph only gives expenditures of alcoholic beverages using legal alcohol sales, it would necessarily increase upon the end prohibition. So, as Prohibition ended, the Great Depression was also ending. People spent more on everything as is evidence by the increase in total consumption. People also spent more on alcohol, but did not keep pace with what they spent on other goods.

In attempt to correct for these issues, Milton Friedman plotted the percentage of total consumption that was spent on alcohol on a more simple graph for us non-economist types.

This shows us that people actually spent less on alcohol compared to other goods. This percentage went down constantly except during WWII probably due to the complicated war-time economics. Nowhere does this graph directly tell us how much people actually drank. Since this is getting increasingly complicated, I'm going to trust Milton Friedman's opinion that alcohol use didn't rise after the repeal of Prohibition according to the data he has given.

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
Then perhaps you should stop trumping it as an end-all proof that legalization would increase use.

because i don't have a degree in it doesn't make it any less relevant.
Sociology is certainly not irrelevant; on the contrary, it encompasses all human behavioral trends, both on a wide and individual scale; heck, this debate itself (and most debate within PCF) is a form of sociology. However, it is merely an analysis and attempt to give reasons behind trends. "Sociology says so" is a phrase completely without merit, as sociology has no laws.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: The decline has hardly been significant. Among non-highschoolers, total drug users (and plausibly use) has remained fairly consistent, though which drugs are being used has changed.

because non highschoolers wouldn't have gone through the new drug policies.
College students have gone through anti-drug laws. And unless you are arguing that 3-year-olds were significantly impacted by anti-drug laws, so has everyone 30 and under. The same cannot be said for recent drug education programs.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Really, Comrade, you can't point to an relatively small, unique group out of an entire population and expect them to prove anything about that entire population. That would be like me growing an apple tree in the Sahara as proof it is good farming land.

i wasn't trying to prove anything for the entire population. i was pointing out that with the decrease in drug use among highschoolers it shows a decrease in their use thanks to recent drug policies.
Your first statement is true, your second is completely baseless considering that even with drug enforcement remaining consistent whilst the drop has occurred.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: I certainly accept that sentences have gotten harsher, and that communication easier. Yet at the same time, the profitability of drug trafficking has also risen, as well as the ease of it due to communication.

which means that law enforcment and drug traffickers are in a tug-o-war of sorts. and i'm going to guess that law enforcment are going to get the upper hand more often then cartels.
Your own guesswork aside, how is this relevant at all, if it remains just as easy to get drugs, and the number of users remains constant?

[Malcolm Kyle]

Prole wrote: The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
Then perhaps you should stop trumping it as an end-all proof that legalization would increase use.

because i don't have a degree in it doesn't make it any less relevant.
Sociology is certainly not irrelevant; on the contrary, it encompasses all human behavioral trends, both on a wide and individual scale; heck, this debate itself (and most debate within PCF) is a form of sociology. However, it is merely an analysis and attempt to give reasons behind trends. "Sociology says so" is a phrase completely without merit, as sociology has no laws.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: The decline has hardly been significant. Among non-highschoolers, total drug users (and plausibly use) has remained fairly consistent, though which drugs are being used has changed.

because non highschoolers wouldn't have gone through the new drug policies.
College students have gone through anti-drug laws. And unless you are arguing that 3-year-olds were significantly impacted by anti-drug laws, so has everyone 30 and under. The same cannot be said for recent drug education programs.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Really, Comrade, you can't point to an relatively small, unique group out of an entire population and expect them to prove anything about that entire population. That would be like me growing an apple tree in the Sahara as proof it is good farming land.

i wasn't trying to prove anything for the entire population. i was pointing out that with the decrease in drug use among highschoolers it shows a decrease in their use thanks to recent drug policies.
Your first statement is true, your second is completely baseless considering that even with drug enforcement remaining consistent whilst the drop has occurred.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: I certainly accept that sentences have gotten harsher, and that communication easier. Yet at the same time, the profitability of drug trafficking has also risen, as well as the ease of it due to communication.

which means that law enforcement and drug traffickers are in a tug-o-war of sorts. and i'm going to guess that law enforcement are going to get the upper hand more often then cartels.
Your own guesswork aside, how is this relevant at all, if it remains just as easy to get drugs, and the number of users remains constant?
Thanks prole for your lucid and sensible contribution.
Comrade has been shown to be incapable of logically explaining why vast sums of money continue to be spent in a failed attempt at outlawing these substances when regulation/legalization would bring such obvious benefits to society

Why is this problem taking so long to solve?

Because police and politicians build their careers and empires on it. Because industries like alcohol and pharmaceuticals don't want the competition. Because other interests like the drug treatment/testing industry and the prison industries depend on it for their life's blood.

Once the public understands, then this monstrously destructive fraud will come to an end.