Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
While a healthy level of agnosticism is warranted, it is true that legality is no real barrier towards people getting drugs. Why, pray tell, would people suddenly start doing drugs if they were legalized? Cost would be the only real change as far as buying drugs, but realistically, most people aren't averse to trying drugs because they are expensive.

there's no risk of penalty at all if it was legal, would be cheaper and more socially acceptable.

alcohol, for example, is socially acceptable, and legal. is it any shock that more people get in DWIs rather then DUIs?
To the best of my knowledge, DUIs are the exact same as DWIs; just different terminology for the same thing. Are you asking why people get arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol than drugs? Well, there's a lot of reasons; there are a lot more people drinking alcohol, the effects of alcohol are more obvious than with some (probably most) drugs, and the tests for alcohol are a lot easier to perform and are thus used more.

I couldn't find any hard data on whether driving whilst under the influence of drugs is more socially acceptable; teens think it is safer, though I am not sure whether this opinion is universal. However, if this is the general opinion (which it might well be), it may be partly because most drugs are safer to drive while under the influence of than alcohol. Yes, someone who has drank 2 pints of beer (enough to put most people just over the .08% limit) makes a safer driver than one who just taken 5 lines of coke, but in general, cocaine is a safer drug to drive under than alcohol.

The Comrade wrote: and i know this will sound rather stupid but there is peer pressure. i know alot of people who have been asked to go smoke weed and they say no because they don't want to get in trouble. no risk of penalty, and they probably would. although this doesn't mean they'll start using coke or something, but why would marijuana be any different from any other
If someone's only aversion to doing drugs is getting in trouble, then that really will not prevent them from doing drugs in the long run at all. Heck, even with all the legal dangers of marijuana steadily growing, use has remained fairly consistent. Quite bluntly, laws aren't keeping anyone from getting or wanting to use drugs at all; they are simply imprisoning the unfortunate ones who get caught and don't have a finger of blame to point at someone else.

And even if they would do marijuana, so what? That's their prerogative, not yours.

Edited to fix code.

[The Comrade]

Prole wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, DUIs are the exact same as DWIs; just different terminology for the same thing. Are you asking why people get arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol than drugs? Well, there's a lot of reasons; there are a lot more people drinking alcohol, the effects of alcohol are more obvious than with some (probably most) drugs, and the tests for alcohol are a lot easier to perform and are thus used more.

no, i was just stating that DWIs are more common because alcohol is legal, socially accepted, and a social activity. where as drugs, marijuana in this case, isn't legal, isn't socially acceptable, and is generally a stay at home kind of drug. because of this, you have far less people crashing under the influence of marijuana. that was my general point, that if it was legalized, it could go the way of alcohol, and increase car accidents.

Prole wrote: I couldn't find any hard data on whether driving whilst under the influence of drugs is more socially acceptable; [urlhttp://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1104432032.html]teens[/url] think it is safer, though I am not sure whether this opinion is universal. However, if this is the general opinion (which it might well be), it may be partly because most drugs are safer to drive while under the influence of than alcohol. Yes, someone who has drank 2 pints of beer (enough to put most people just over the .08% limit) makes a safer driver than one who just taken 5 lines of coke, but in general, cocaine is a safer drug to drive under than alcohol.

some drugs are in fact safer to drive with, but depressants and hallucinogens, which make quite a large category of drugs, are just as unsafe to drive while using as while being drunk. and i would imagine that stimulants would make you too alert, a little too jumpy while driving.


Prole wrote: If someone's only aversion to doing drugs is getting in trouble, then that really will not prevent them from doing drugs in the long run at all. Heck, even with all the legal dangers of marijuana steadily growing, use has remained fairly consistent. Quite bluntly, laws aren't keeping anyone from getting or wanting to use drugs at all; they are simply imprisoning the unfortunate ones who get caught and don't have a finger of blame to point at someone else.

And even if they would do marijuana, so what? That's their prerogative, not yours.


and it cycles back to individualism.


i understand that people can use drugs responsibly. i understand that the chances of my rights being infringed aren't 100%. but that saying "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" certainly applies to this. especially considering how dangerous drugs are, and how drugs make a hefty percentage of people act.

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, DUIs are the exact same as DWIs; just different terminology for the same thing. Are you asking why people get arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol than drugs? Well, there's a lot of reasons; there are a lot more people drinking alcohol, the effects of alcohol are more obvious than with some (probably most) drugs, and the tests for alcohol are a lot easier to perform and are thus used more.

no, i was just stating that DWIs are more common because alcohol is legal, socially accepted, and a social activity. where as drugs, marijuana in this case, isn't legal, isn't socially acceptable, and is generally a stay at home kind of drug. because of this, you have far less people crashing under the influence of marijuana. that was my general point, that if it was legalized, it could go the way of alcohol, and increase car accidents.
Social acceptability of drug use is at the bottom of the list as to why people are caught intoxicated on alcohol more often than on drugs. And until you can produce some evidence that drug use would for whatever reason increase were drug prohibition to be ended, you really don't seem to have a leg to stand on beyond baseless paranoia. Alcohol use may be more legally and socially acceptable, but in regards to driving whilst under the influence, drugs equally if not more socially acceptable.

Why would people suddenly start doing drugs if they were legalized, even though legality is no real barrier towards doing them? And why, for that matter, would they increasingly start driving under the influence of drugs? It would remain just as illegal and just as unsafe were drugs legalized.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: I couldn't find any hard data on whether driving whilst under the influence of drugs is more socially acceptable; teens think it is safer, though I am not sure whether this opinion is universal. However, if this is the general opinion (which it might well be), it may be partly because most drugs are safer to drive while under the influence of than alcohol. Yes, someone who has drank 2 pints of beer (enough to put most people just over the .08% limit) makes a safer driver than one who just taken 5 lines of coke, but in general, cocaine is a safer drug to drive under than alcohol.

some drugs are in fact safer to drive with, but depressants and hallucinogens, which make quite a large category of drugs, are just as unsafe to drive while using as while being drunk. and i would imagine that stimulants would make you too alert, a little too jumpy while driving.
Agreed, though in general, I'd say a stimulant is a much safer than a depressant (such as alcohol).

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: If someone's only aversion to doing drugs is getting in trouble, then that really will not prevent them from doing drugs in the long run at all. Heck, even with all the legal dangers of marijuana steadily growing, use has remained fairly consistent. Quite bluntly, laws aren't keeping anyone from getting or wanting to use drugs at all; they are simply imprisoning the unfortunate ones who get caught and don't have a finger of blame to point at someone else.

And even if they would do marijuana, so what? That's their prerogative, not yours.


and it cycles back to individualism.


i understand that people can use drugs responsibly. i understand that the chances of my rights being infringed aren't 100%. but that saying "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" certainly applies to this. especially considering how dangerous drugs are, and how drugs make a hefty percentage of people act.
I understand your fears, and do appreciate that drug users to commit crimes whilst on drugs or in an attempt to get money for drugs. How exactly, though, is drug prohibition helping solve these problems? Anti-drug laws are not doing anything to make drug users less inclined to commit crimes or act dangerously because of the effects of intoxication, and if anything, they are worsening drug addicts tendency to need to steal to get drugs by driving up drug price.

I understand that you think drugs are bad. (What we Southpark lovers tend to call the "Mr Garrison" approach). But the reality is that they do exist, and drug prohibition is doing nothing to change this. It's time for those who both oppose drug use and those who accept it to be pragmatic, and recognize that regardless of what drugs are, prohibition of them does nothing to change this, and accepting and making the best of the situation is the best solution.

Yes, perhaps a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. But making drugs illegal does nothing to make those apples disappear.

[ja]

The Comrade wrote:
i understand that people can use drugs responsibly. i understand that the chances of my rights being infringed aren't 100%. but that saying "a few bad apples spoil the bunch" certainly applies to this. especially considering how dangerous drugs are, and how drugs make a hefty percentage of people act.

It may be that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I think a large part of our fear of the "craziness" caused by drugs is unfounded. Just say someone is a misfit in society to the point that they don't accept our values that murder or stealing is wrong. And just say this misfit is not respectful of our laws against murder or theft. Furthermore, imagine this person isn't concerned enough with their own future to consider that their behaviors may land them in prison. This person is a sociopathic theif and murderer.

But, this same person would also have no qualms about using drugs for all the same reasons. In at least some cases, it is not the drug that causes the "crazy" behavior, but the "crazy" behavior that causes the drug use. After committing a crime this misfit would test positive for drugs. Furthermore, to get leniency in sentencing, the person would blame their behavior on the drug. (Disturbingly, they often get leniency for this reason. We actually blame the drug, not the person.)

There's no doubt that addiction drives many otherwise normal people to steal, rob and even mug to afford their addiction. This behavior can be greatly reduce by legalization (by reducing the expense of drugs). But "normal" addicted people aren't becoming psycho killer-rapist-child abusers, at least not in large numbers.

PCP, which has probably the worst reputation for causing violence except for methamphetamine does not cause violent behavior. Even methamphetamine, although associated, has yet to be causally linked to violent behavior. http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/ntlc_meth.pdf (PDF)

[Free Thinkr]

The Comrade wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: No. That is a problem in and of itself. I am saying that prohibition makes the problem worse. Examples include:

-gang warfare
-drug pushers (particularly on young children)
-imprisonment of users (making their situation worse, and harder to recover from)
-impure drugs causing overdoses
-shared needles spreading disease

There's 5 separate reasons why prohibition exacerbates the problem of drug abuse. Add in the fact that it has been wholly unsuccessful in curbing drug use, and a rational person is compelled to question whether prohibition should continue. Oh, yeah: and then there's the fact that it also costs taxpayers billions annually.

all of this makes people abuse drugs and become addicted to them?

i'm still not getting how a law is making people use drugs more, and become addicted more
Dude, were you dropped as an infant? I'm not claiming it makes people use drugs more or become addicted more. I'm claiming it makes the negatives that result from abuse worse, while doing nothing whatever to prevent abuse.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: So you admit that drugs are only half the problem? ;)
where did i claim that?
YOU: "prohibition is only half the equation."

Presumably, drug abuse is the other half, right?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Your analogy is retarded. I don't disagree that drug use is a personal problem; I disagree that prohibition is an effective means of addressing it.
and that is not what the analogy was getting at, so who's the retarded one?


i think it's you
No, it's clearly you. I have explained my position in 3 consecutive posts now, and you still seem unable to addres it, and choose to continue to argue against a strawman position, for some inexplicable reason.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Are you asking me or telling me? BTW, you don't seem to know what a red herring is; I suggest wikipedia.
telling you. and i know what it is, thank you very much.
Mmm, evidence contradicts this claim.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: How substantial? How did that ruin the country?
you don't seem to know what the opium wars were; i suggest wikipedia.
I'm well aware. You've made a claim, you can support or withdraw it.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: What claims are those? If you're argument is that legalization is bad because usage would increase, you'd better have some actual evidence or reasoning that would support it; it's the premise of your argument. I can show that the drug war has not had a positive effect on drug usage, if you don't believe me. That's the difference between us.
that's merely a small part of my argument. and since i DON'T HAVE A TIME MACHINE i can't find evidence backing that up. it's opinion. as is much debate about drugs.
Opinions are like ****. The facts are as I listed in the first part:

1. the drug war has been unsuccessful in curbing drug use
2. the drug war costs billions annually
3. the drug war causes a wide range of drug-trade crime

All I've seen you argue is the baseless claim that drug use would increase dramatically were it not for the drug war. I think most would agree that a baseless opinion isn't worth much when arguing against facts.

[The Comrade]

Prole wrote: Social acceptability of drug use is at the bottom of the list as to why people are caught intoxicated on alcohol more often than on drugs.

i had two other reasons as well.


Prole wrote: And until you can produce some evidence that drug use would for whatever reason increase were drug prohibition to be ended, you really don't seem to have a leg to stand on beyond baseless paranoia. Alcohol use may be more legally and socially acceptable, but in regards to driving whilst under the influence, drugs equally if not more socially acceptable.

Quote:
Contrary to popular opinion, Prohibition was quite successful. It didn't eradicate drinking, but it did significantly reduce consumption rates and thereby improve the public health. In his book The Devaluing of America, William Bennett, former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush, said: "One of the clear lessons of Prohibition is that when we had laws against alcohol there was less consumption, less alcohol-related disease, fewer drunken brawls, and a lot less drunkenness. Contrary to myth, there is no evidence that Prohibition caused any big increases in crime. The real facts are these: As a result of Prohibition, 180,000 saloons were shut down, and 1,800 breweries went out of business. In ten years of Prohibition, the death rate due to alcohol decreased 42 percent, the death rate due to cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 70 percent, crime decreased by 54 percent, and insanity decreased by 66 percent."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/051122

granted this is just a quote from a book, but the statistics are what i'm talking about. at first glance i know you're thinking they aren't credible, but they correlate with history textbooks and health textbooks that i've read.

alcohol use did in fact decrease during prohibition. the same applies to the current "war on drugs". claiming that if drugs were legalized, drug abuse wouldn't go up is also wholly wrong. any sociologist would laugh at you if you told him/her that making something legal doesn't increase it's use

Quote: In addition to finding an overall decline in drug use, the survey also found the use of MDMA (Ecstasy) showed statistically significant declines for the first time after rising rapidly in recent years. Past month and past year MDMA use decreased significantly for all three grades lumped together, and, for individual grades, significant reductions were found for the 10th graders in these time periods. There were no increases in MDMA use for any of the grades.

hmmm drug use is going down is it? would it have anything to do with law enforcement and drug prevention programs? i find it especially good to know that it's in highschools.

Quote: In addition, LSD use declined sharply and significantly at all three grades in 2002. The decline was particularly large for 12th graders. Rates of LSD use are the lowest in the history of the survey among students in all three grades

going down again i see.

Quote: Marijuana

* Among 10th graders, marijuana/hashish use in the past year and past month decreased and daily use in the past month was down. Past year use decreased from 32.7 percent to 30.3 percent; past month use went from 19.8 percent to 17.8 percent, and daily use in the past month declined from 4.5 percent to 3.9 percent.
* For the 8th graders, there has been slow but steady progress toward reduction of marijuana use. The past year marijuana use rate for 8th graders in 2002 -- 14.6 percent -- is the lowest rate seen since 1994, and well below the recent peak of 18.3 percent in 1996.

looks like marijuana use is declining.

Quote: Inhalants

* Inhalant use in the lifetime decreased among 8th and 10th graders and past use decreased among 8th graders. Lifetime use went from 17.1 percent in 2001 to 15.2 percent in 2002 among 8th graders and from 15.2 percent to 13.5 percent among 10th graders.
* In 2002, inhalant use among 8th and 10th graders in all reporting periods was the lowest seen in the history of the survey and the lowest in about 20 years for seniors.


inhalant use is also down it seems.

Quote: Hallucinogens

* Hallucinogen use in the lifetime, past year, and past month declined for 12th graders, and past year use was down among 10th graders.
* LSD showed major changes from 2001 to 2002. Rates of use decreased markedly in each grade and reporting period. Past year use, for example, declined from 6.6 percent to 3.5 percent among 12th graders, from 4.1 percent to 2.6 percent among 10th graders and from 2.2 percent to 1.5 percent among 8th graders. These are the lowest rates of LSD use in the history of the survey for each grade.


hallucinogens seem to have also decreased in use.

Quote: Club Drugs

* Rates of MDMA (Ecstasy) use decreased significantly among 10th graders. For this grade, past year use declined from 6.2 percent to 4.9 percent and past month use went from 2.6 percent to 1.8 percent. Use by 8th and 12th graders also showed signs of decline.


ecstasy use down as well.


Quote: Perceived Harmfulness, Disapproval, and Perceived Availability

* Both perceived risk and disapproval of trying marijuana once or twice increased among 10th graders, but among 12th graders perceived risk of smoking marijuana regularly declined.
* Attitudes toward MDMA (Ecstasy) use hardened. Perceived risk of occasional MDMA use increased among 8th graders and perceived risk of trying it once or twice increased among 10th and 12th graders. Disapproval of MDMA use increased significantly from 2001 to 2002 among students in all three grades.
* Perceived risk and disapproval of trying LSD once or twice both increased among 12th graders, but among 10th graders perceived risk of regular LSD use decreased. Notably, perceived availability of LSD declined among students in all three grades.
* Perceived risk of trying inhalants once or twice declined among 8th graders, and perceived risk of regular use of these substances decreased among 10th graders. Seniors are not asked about their attitudes regarding inhalant use.
* Perceived availability of amphetamines decreased among 8th graders.


it seems as though drugs aren't as easily available as you claim they are.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Newsroom/02/NR12-16.html


now, you're probably thinking "this deals with high school students and is irrelevant". however, wouldn't this just help to show that our current drug enforcement teams and laws are working? i am fairly certain it shows exactly that.



Prole wrote: Why would people suddenly start doing drugs if they were legalized, even though legality is no real barrier towards doing them?

because sociology says so? when you make something more easily available, legal, and socially acceptable use will go up.


Prole wrote: And why, for that matter, would they increasingly start driving under the influence of drugs? It would remain just as illegal and just as unsafe were drugs legalized.

people don't generally get stoned and then go around in public, therefor, there isn't much use for a car is it? alcohol is a SOCIAL DRUG and is done in public, where as drug use is usually done in private(for obvious reasons). people have no reason to drive while using drugs since they don't have anywhere to go. however, if legalized, they can go do it where ever they want. and as such, getting home would be on their mind. they would most likely drive, considering their altered state.

[quote="The Comrade"] Prole wrote: I couldn't find any hard data on whether driving whilst under the influence of drugs is more socially acceptable; teens think it is safer, though I am not sure whether this opinion is universal. However, if this is the general opinion (which it might well be), it may be partly because most drugs are safer to drive while under the influence of than alcohol. Yes, someone who has drank 2 pints of beer (enough to put most people just over the .08% limit) makes a safer driver than one who just taken 5 lines of coke, but in general, cocaine is a safer drug to drive under than alcohol.


Prole wrote: Agreed, though in general, I'd say a stimulant is a much safer than a depressant (such as alcohol).

seconded

Prole wrote: I understand your fears, and do appreciate that drug users to commit crimes whilst on drugs or in an attempt to get money for drugs. How exactly, though, is drug prohibition helping solve these problems? Anti-drug laws are not doing anything to make drug users less inclined to commit crimes or act dangerously because of the effects of intoxication, and if anything, they are worsening drug addicts tendency to need to steal to get drugs by driving up drug price.

anti-drug laws only help prevent possible crimes. i would agree that they aren't solving the problem, only making it less prevalent. prevention and education of drugs needs to be just as vigilant as anti-drug policy to be as effective as possible in reducing drug abuse and sale to as low a number as possible.

Prole wrote: I understand that you think drugs are bad. (What we Southpark lovers tend to call the "Mr Garrison" approach). But the reality is that they do exist, and drug prohibition is doing nothing to change this. It's time for those who both oppose drug use and those who accept it to be pragmatic, and recognize that regardless of what drugs are, prohibition of them does nothing to change this, and accepting and making the best of the situation is the best solution.

i don't at all expect drug use to be stamped out entirely. i know something, once introduced into society, can never be fully removed. however, i am 100% for the decrease of drug use and drug sales, and i see anti-drug laws as being the most effective.

Prole wrote: Yes, perhaps a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. But making drugs illegal does nothing to make those apples disappear.

they're arrested, but more replace them. it's not as if once gone, those "bad apples" are gone forever. there's always someone waiting to replace them.

[The Comrade]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Dude, were you dropped as an infant? I'm not claiming it makes people use drugs more or become addicted more. I'm claiming it makes the negatives that result from abuse worse, while doing nothing whatever to prevent abuse.

then try stating that plainly next time.


Free Thinkr wrote: YOU: "prohibition is only half the equation."

Presumably, drug abuse is the other half, right?

yes


(i had forgotten what you were responding too until i looked back and and reread. sorry for the confusion)

Free Thinkr wrote: No, it's clearly you. I have explained my position in 3 consecutive posts now, and you still seem unable to addres it, and choose to continue to argue against a strawman position, for some inexplicable reason.

i have in fact addressed it.

perhaps you should peruse the thread again?


Free Thinkr wrote: Mmm, evidence contradicts this claim.

then provide it.


Free Thinkr wrote: I'm well aware. You've made a claim, you can support or withdraw it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

enjoy


Free Thinkr wrote: Opinions are like ***holes. The facts are as I listed in the first part:

1. the drug war has been unsuccessful in curbing drug use
2. the drug war costs billions annually
3. the drug war causes a wide range of drug-trade crime

All I've seen you argue is the baseless claim that drug use would increase dramatically were it not for the drug war. I think most would agree that a baseless opinion isn't worth much when arguing against facts.


1. is wrong(see post i made to prole)
2. so don't most government programs
3. that effects other drug cartels

[ja]

The Comrade wrote:
Quote:
Contrary to popular opinion, Prohibition was quite successful. It didn't eradicate drinking, but it did significantly reduce consumption rates and thereby improve the public health. In his book The Devaluing of America, William Bennett, former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush, said: "One of the clear lessons of Prohibition is that when we had laws against alcohol there was less consumption, less alcohol-related disease, fewer drunken brawls, and a lot less drunkenness. Contrary to myth, there is no evidence that Prohibition caused any big increases in crime. The real facts are these: As a result of Prohibition, 180,000 saloons were shut down, and 1,800 breweries went out of business. In ten years of Prohibition, the death rate due to alcohol decreased 42 percent, the death rate due to cirrhosis of the liver decreased by 70 percent, crime decreased by 54 percent, and insanity decreased by 66 percent."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/creech/051122

granted this is just a quote from a book, but the statistics are what i'm talking about. at first glance i know you're thinking they aren't credible, but they correlate with history textbooks and health textbooks that i've read.

alcohol use did in fact decrease during prohibition. the same applies to the current "war on drugs". claiming that if drugs were legalized, drug abuse wouldn't go up is also wholly wrong. any sociologist would laugh at you if you told him/her that making something legal doesn't increase it's use

You are correct that alcohol consumption fell during prohibition. It dropped sharply once the supply was interrupted, but quickly recovered. Quote: It's true that alcohol consumption fell during Prohibition, at least initially. In a 1991 paper, economists Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel estimated, based on four measures (cirrhosis, alcoholism deaths, arrests for drunkenness, and alcoholic psychoses), that consumption dropped 60 to 80 percent immediately after Prohibition was enacted, then rebounded sharply beginning in 1921. By the end of the decade, consumption was 50 to 70 percent of the pre-Prohibition level according to three measures and slightly higher according to one. Drinking did not rise precipitously after repeal. Alcohol consumption in the late 1930s was about the same as in the final years of Prohibition; it returned to the pre-Prohibition level during the next decade.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/110854.html

Since alcohol use rates didn't increase immediately after prohibition, it indicates that it was attitudes against alcohol use (the same attitudes necessary to enact prohibition) that kept use low, not the laws against alcohol.

If we spend billions of dollars on the war on drugs just to keep peoples attitudes against drugs we are wasting our money. Education against drug use is much cheaper and can be much more effective than the drug war. This is how we reduced smoking rates.

[The Comrade]

ja wrote: You are correct that alcohol consumption fell during prohibition. It dropped sharply once the supply was interrupted, but quickly recovered. Quote: It's true that alcohol consumption fell during Prohibition, at least initially. In a 1991 paper, economists Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel estimated, based on four measures (cirrhosis, alcoholism deaths, arrests for drunkenness, and alcoholic psychoses), that consumption dropped 60 to 80 percent immediately after Prohibition was enacted, then rebounded sharply beginning in 1921. By the end of the decade, consumption was 50 to 70 percent of the pre-Prohibition level according to three measures and slightly higher according to one. Drinking did not rise precipitously after repeal. Alcohol consumption in the late 1930s was about the same as in the final years of Prohibition; it returned to the pre-Prohibition level during the next decade.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/110854.html

fair enough.

ja wrote: Since alcohol use rates didn't increase immediately after prohibition, it indicates that it was attitudes against alcohol use (the same attitudes necessary to enact prohibition) that kept use low, not the laws against alcohol.

i believe the laws added a fair amount of deterrence. especially considering the rough way in which the police carried out prohibition. although i agree that the attitude was a large contributer.

the same can be said for the harrison narcotics act. when drugs were legal, people started becoming scared from the effects they saw that drugs were having. now that people want it legalized, i can say with a fair bit of certainty that we'll just repeat the years of 1865-1914 in terms of drugs and our attitude towards them.



ja wrote: If we spend billions of dollars on the war on drugs just to keep peoples attitudes against drugs we are wasting our money. Education against drug use is much cheaper and can be much more effective than the drug war. This is how we reduced smoking rates.

i think a combination of the two would be the most effective. strong teaching of the dangers of drugs and the risks, with the the law backing it up. all bark and no bite isn't always effective.

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Social acceptability of drug use is at the bottom of the list as to why people are caught intoxicated on alcohol more often than on drugs.

i had two other reasons as well.
That alcohol is a social activity pretty much goes hand in hand with that alcohol is socially acceptable; heck, drug use is a very social activity in it's own right (varying greatly depending on the drug), just not a mainstream socially accepted one.

Alcohol being legal does not change that DUIs are illegal, and I'm guessing that your claim that's alcohol's legality increases the rate at which it is used, and thus the rate that it is driven under. But a drug being legal has little to do with it being popular, if anything. Alcohol is widely used because people enjoy it, and it is conducive (as you mentioned) to socialization. Certainly, it is not simply because it is legal.

Ja has addressed your points on prohibition; I don't see the need to elaborate on what has already been well said. The main point of his that I think deserves re-emphasizing is that while making something illegal does reduce it's use, at least temporarily, legalizing it does not increase it's use, at least in this historical case.

The Comrade wrote: alcohol use did in fact decrease during prohibition. the same applies to the current "war on drugs". claiming that if drugs were legalized, drug abuse wouldn't go up is also wholly wrong. any sociologist would laugh at you if you told him/her that making something legal doesn't increase it's use
Sociology is hardly a science at all; it is merely an observation of trend(s) and attempt to persuasively attatch specific cause(s) to them; it cannot dictate what the result of an action would be. It most certainly does not have any laws, including your universal assertion that legalizing something increases its use.

The Comrade wrote: now, you're probably thinking "this deals with high school students and is irrelevant". however, wouldn't this just help to show that our current drug enforcement teams and laws are working? i am fairly certain it shows exactly that.
I do not think that high school drug use is irrelevant, but is hardly indicative of all drug users. Additionally, the war on drugs really hasn't changed much in the past few years; on the other hand, much more thorough and aggressive (anti-)drug education programs have been enstated in schools. Then again, it could be a lot of other factors; but from a purely statistical standpoint, that the war on drugs has not changed, unless there is an unknown factor which has been somehow removed and allowed drug prohibition to become somehow more effective (a factor which I cannot conceive), it simply is not feasible that the war on drugs has any casual relation with the recent decline in teen drug use.

Also, your claim that "drugs are difficult to get" is based entirely upon one statistic: that 8th graders have lower perceived availability of amphetamines. This is hardly much proof of drugs being difficult to get, let alone them being difficult to get for highschoolers, and what's more, just shows that 8th graders have no idea that Ritalin and other ADD/ADHD treating drugs are amphetamines. Heck, amphetamines are probably even easier to get than marijuana; you don't need a drug dealer, just a friend with ADD.


The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Why would people suddenly start doing drugs if they were legalized, even though legality is no real barrier towards doing them?

because sociology says so? when you make something more easily available, legal, and socially acceptable use will go up.
Sociology doesn't say so; sociology cannot definitively claim anything, because there are no laws when it comes to sociology, only general trend. Some sociologist might argue it, but it is really just him attatching an opinion to a general trend, when a myriad of other related and unrelated factors are at work.

And, from what we've seen (at least with the ending of alcohol prohibition), the trend with legalization of a drug is that it does not neccesarily increase it's usage, at least not in any obvious, significant way, as would be necessary if you were to make such a vast assertion with any credibility.

Anthony Giddens' "Sociology" (4th edition) doesn't have anything to say on such a matter; considering that it is a pretty comprehensive general textbook on sociology, I would have thought he would have mentioned it if any other prominent sociologist supported the theory that legaliztion of something increases it's use.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: And why, for that matter, would they increasingly start driving under the influence of drugs? It would remain just as illegal and just as unsafe were drugs legalized.

people don't generally get stoned and then go around in public, therefor, there isn't much use for a car is it? alcohol is a SOCIAL DRUG and is done in public, where as drug use is usually done in private(for obvious reasons). people have no reason to drive while using drugs since they don't have anywhere to go. however, if legalized, they can go do it where ever they want. and as such, getting home would be on their mind. they would most likely drive, considering their altered state.
People don't get stoned and go out in public because stoned people are not interested in doing anything active. Marijuana is generally not conducive to socializing at places like clubs.

Ecstasy, on the other hand, is most certainly a social drug. People most certainly do go out in public on drugs; it just happens that alcohol is conducive to socializing in most situations, while many drugs are not.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: I understand your fears, and do appreciate that drug users to commit crimes whilst on drugs or in an attempt to get money for drugs. How exactly, though, is drug prohibition helping solve these problems? Anti-drug laws are not doing anything to make drug users less inclined to commit crimes or act dangerously because of the effects of intoxication, and if anything, they are worsening drug addicts tendency to need to steal to get drugs by driving up drug price.

anti-drug laws only help prevent possible crimes. i would agree that they aren't solving the problem, only making it less prevalent. prevention and education of drugs needs to be just as vigilant as anti-drug policy to be as effective as possible in reducing drug abuse and sale to as low a number as possible...

...i don't at all expect drug use to be stamped out entirely. i know something, once introduced into society, can never be fully removed. however, i am 100% for the decrease of drug use and drug sales, and i see anti-drug laws as being the most effective.
Perhaps it is time to take another look. Although after an initial decline at the start of the war on drugs, in the past 20 years drug use has not declined, or at least, the percentage of people using drugs has not declined. (Alas, Ja, I fall into the same trap as you; that we have no hard evidence for total illegal drug consumption). Why then do you remain so convinced that drug laws are effective at curbing drug consumption?

[Malcolm Kyle]

The Comrade wrote: alcohol use did in fact decrease during prohibition. the same applies to the current "war on drugs". claiming that if drugs were legalized, drug abuse wouldn't go up is also wholly wrong. any sociologist would laugh at you if you told him/her that making something legal doesn't increase it's use
Get your facts right Comrade. When you make such claims it might be wise to do some research first.

Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.

Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.

As you can see Comrade, before the introduction of prohibition, alcohol use was declining, after the introduction of prohibition it increased.
And not only that. the alcohol beverages consumed become more potent and were adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances.
Going on your past form Comrade, you will no doubt ignore these facts.

[Free Thinkr]

The Comrade wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: I'm well aware. You've made a claim, you can support or withdraw it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars

enjoy
Again, I'm familiar with the Opium wars. You can support your claim, or withdraw it.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Opinions are like ***holes. The facts are as I listed in the first part:

1. the drug war has been unsuccessful in curbing drug use
2. the drug war costs billions annually
3. the drug war causes a wide range of drug-trade crime

All I've seen you argue is the baseless claim that drug use would increase dramatically were it not for the drug war. I think most would agree that a baseless opinion isn't worth much when arguing against facts.


1. is wrong(see post i made to prole)
Your post to prole in no way shows that the drug war has been successful in curbing abuse. Usage rates go in cycles naturally, as is readily observed by looking at statistics from numerous nations. Anyone that thinks the drug war is curbing marijuana use is an idiot.

Quote: 2. so don't most government programs
Yes, they do. I advocate cutting all government programs that are wastes of money, but they're not the subject of this thread.

Quote: 3. that effects other drug cartels
And anyone who happens to live anywhere near where one of these cartels operate. Too bad for them, I guess. Right?

[The Comrade]

Malcolm Kyle wrote:
Get your facts right Comrade. When you make such claims it might be wise to do some research first.

Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.

Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72.

As you can see Comrade, before the introduction of prohibition, alcohol use was declining, after the introduction of prohibition it increased.
And not only that. the alcohol beverages consumed become more potent and were adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances.
Going on your past form Comrade, you will no doubt ignore these facts.


and after prohibition there was a sharp decline in use, and after two years your graphroughly evens out to pre prohibition.

but i'm not sure what the hell it's showing. it gives me a date and gallons. is that gallons consumed or is that gallons sold? is it a nation wide average or is it for one sector?

try proving a little more evidence malcolm.

[The Comrade]

Free Thinkr wrote:
Again, I'm familiar with the Opium wars. You can support your claim, or withdraw it.

if you are infact familiar with it, then i do not need to repeate myself verbatim on the issue.


Free Thinkr wrote: Your post to prole in no way shows that the drug war has been successful in curbing abuse. Usage rates go in cycles naturally, as is readily observed by looking at statistics from numerous nations. Anyone that thinks the drug war is curbing marijuana use is an idiot.

marijuana use was a very small part of my post. apparently you didn't read it.

and, as i've said literally a dozen times, i don't care that much about marijuana.


Free Thinkr wrote: Yes, they do. I advocate cutting all government programs that are wastes of money, but they're not the subject of this thread.

then don't bring up the subject of governmental programs and wastes of money


Free Thinkr wrote: And anyone who happens to live anywhere near where one of these cartels operate. Too bad for them, I guess. Right?

indeed.

[The Comrade]

Prole wrote:
That alcohol is a social activity pretty much goes hand in hand with that alcohol is socially acceptable; heck, drug use is a very social activity in it's own right (varying greatly depending on the drug), just not a mainstream socially accepted one.

my point was that there aren't drug bars in the same sense that there are alcohol bars. most drug use(besides that of club dugs) is most likely done in a familiar setting.



Prole wrote: Alcohol being legal does not change that DUIs are illegal, and I'm guessing that your claim that's alcohol's legality increases the rate at which it is used, and thus the rate that it is driven under. But a drug being legal has little to do with it being popular, if anything. Alcohol is widely used because people enjoy it, and it is conducive (as you mentioned) to socialization. Certainly, it is not simply because it is legal.

well, if marijuana is as popular as you say it is, for every ten alcohol related accidents, there are three marijuana related accidents. now, considering how alcohol is legal and more social then that of marijuana, is it not obvious why alcohol related accidents would increase? now, assuming marijuana was legal, there were social clubs for it, and people did it socially(obviously), isn't it likely that the amount of marijuana related accidents would go up? most likely not as high as alcohol, but even a ratio of 10:4 or 10:5 is a very significant increase.

Prole wrote: Ja has addressed your points on prohibition; I don't see the need to elaborate on what has already been well said. The main point of his that I think deserves re-emphasizing is that while making something illegal does reduce it's use, at least temporarily, legalizing it does not increase it's use, at least in this historical case.



Prole wrote: Sociology is hardly a science at all; it is merely an observation of trend(s) and attempt to persuasively attatch specific cause(s) to them; it cannot dictate what the result of an action would be. It most certainly does not have any laws, including your universal assertion that legalizing something increases its use.

and are trends in something irrelevent?


Prole wrote: I do not think that high school drug use is irrelevant, but is hardly indicative of all drug users.

of course it isn't, but considering that they have, atleast somewhat, grown up with the most current drug policies, doesn't it suggest that perhaps they're working?




Prole wrote: Additionally, the war on drugs really hasn't changed much in the past few years; on the other hand, much more thorough and aggressive (anti-)drug education programs have been enstated in schools. Then again, it could be a lot of other factors; but from a purely statistical standpoint, that the war on drugs has not changed, unless there is an unknown factor which has been somehow removed and allowed drug prohibition to become somehow more effective (a factor which I cannot conceive), it simply is not feasible that the war on drugs has any casual relation with the recent decline in teen drug use.

more agressive policies? better enforcement of laws?

atleast from a historical standpoint, law enforcement is more "on the ball" then they were, lets say thirty or forty years ago? hell, even ten or twenty years ago.

Prole wrote: Also, your claim that "drugs are difficult to get" is based entirely upon one statistic: that 8th graders have lower perceived availability of amphetamines. This is hardly much proof of drugs being difficult to get, let alone them being difficult to get for highschoolers, and what's more, just shows that 8th graders have no idea that Ritalin and other ADD/ADHD treating drugs are amphetamines. Heck, amphetamines are probably even easier to get than marijuana; you don't need a drug dealer, just a friend with ADD.

fair enough.



Prole wrote: Sociology doesn't say so; sociology cannot definitively claim anything, because there are no laws when it comes to sociology, only general trend. Some sociologist might argue it, but it is really just him attatching an opinion to a general trend, when a myriad of other related and unrelated factors are at work.

are those trends still irrelevent?

Prole wrote: And, from what we've seen (at least with the ending of alcohol prohibition), the trend with legalization of a drug is that it does not neccesarily increase it's usage, at least not in any obvious, significant way, as would be necessary if you were to make such a vast assertion with any credibility.



http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564677/Prohibition.html#461517773



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

both graphs suggest that after the repeal of prohibition, alcohol use did infact rise.





Prole wrote: People don't get stoned and go out in public because stoned people are not interested in doing anything active. Marijuana is generally not conducive to socializing at places like clubs.

what about in amsterdam where there are marijuana "cafes"?

that seems rather social.


Prole wrote: Perhaps it is time to take another look. Although after an initial decline at the start of the war on drugs, in the past 20 years drug use has not declined, or at least, the percentage of people using drugs has not declined. (Alas, Ja, I fall into the same trap as you; that we have no hard evidence for total illegal drug consumption). Why then do you remain so convinced that drug laws are effective at curbing drug consumption?

perhaps i'm misunderstanding the chart, but every single one of those numbers is going downfrom 1979 to 2001

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
That alcohol is a social activity pretty much goes hand in hand with that alcohol is socially acceptable; heck, drug use is a very social activity in it's own right (varying greatly depending on the drug), just not a mainstream socially accepted one.

my point was that there aren't drug bars in the same sense that there are alcohol bars. most drug use(besides that of club dugs) is most likely done in a familiar setting.
There may not be drug bars per se, but there are huge number of clubs where drug consumption quite commonplace. I'd agree that alcohol consumption at clubs is certainly a lot more common; however alcohol is a more widely consumed drug anyway, and some drugs just aren't suited to the club scene.

I cannot definitely say where most drug use takes place, nor do I think it is an assertion that has any huge worth in the drug debate, because regardless of where it is most commonly done, it is commonly done in both a public and private setting.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Alcohol being legal does not change that DUIs are illegal, and I'm guessing that your claim that's alcohol's legality increases the rate at which it is used, and thus the rate that it is driven under. But a drug being legal has little to do with it being popular, if anything. Alcohol is widely used because people enjoy it, and it is conducive (as you mentioned) to socialization. Certainly, it is not simply because it is legal.

well, if marijuana is as popular as you say it is, for every ten alcohol related accidents, there are three marijuana related accidents. now, considering how alcohol is legal and more social then that of marijuana, is it not obvious why alcohol related accidents would increase? now, assuming marijuana was legal, there were social clubs for it, and people did it socially(obviously), isn't it likely that the amount of marijuana related accidents would go up? most likely not as high as alcohol, but even a ratio of 10:4 or 10:5 is a very significant increase.
You seem to assume that marijuana users are as dangerous as drug users, when in fact the others are a much greater danger to both themselves and others. Furthermore, I cannot see accidents significantly rising. Doing something at a cafe rather than someone's house does not make it any less or more safe.

The Comrade wrote: and are trends in something irrelevent?
Certainly not. Does sociology have any laws? Certainly not. Honestly, you seem to have some good ideas Comrade, but when your demonstrate such faith in and simultaneous misunderstanding of sociology, especially considering it's status as a psuedo-science at best, you knock yourself down a peg.

The Comrade wrote: of course it isn't, but considering that they have, atleast somewhat, grown up with the most current drug policies, doesn't it suggest that perhaps they're working?
It really does not, considering that there have been plenty of people in prior generations who grew up with the current drug laws and had little change in user percentage.

The Comrade wrote: atleast from a historical standpoint, law enforcement is more "on the ball" then they were, lets say thirty or forty years ago? hell, even ten or twenty years ago
Evidence, please.

Additionally, even if law enforcement is getting better, so are drug dealers; something Giddens addresses. Globalization and the ease of communication that accompanies it is making drug dealing easier, even if it it is doing the same for drug enforcement.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Perhaps it is time to take another look. Although after an initial decline at the start of the war on drugs, in the past 20 years drug use has not declined, or at least, the percentage of people using drugs has not declined. (Alas, Ja, I fall into the same trap as you; that we have no hard evidence for total illegal drug consumption). Why then do you remain so convinced that drug laws are effective at curbing drug consumption?

perhaps i'm misunderstanding the chart, but every single one of those numbers is going downfrom 1979 to 2001
Please read what I said more closely: over the past 20 years, drug use has not changed significantly; in fact, if anything, it seems to have risen slightly from 1985 onwards. 20 years ago it was not 1979. Drug enforcement since 1985, however, has not reduced the number of people consuming drugs, at all.

Onto your charts for prohibition. Your first chart, quite frankly, lacks credibility; alcohol consumption was not completely stagnant during prohibition. Your second chart fails to take into account inflation, and is as such incredibly misleading; in fact, a chart from your website shows that percentage of disposable income per capita spent on alcohol has gone down, not up, since 1945. Also, consider that the rise preceding it was during the great depression; of course people were drinking. Alcohol prohibition did not exist in a vaccum; there were other things going on, just as there are today. I'd bet that alcohol consumption among 18-22 year olds has risen in the past 20 years, despite the fact that alcohol laws have not changed; this is because of the increased freedom and disposable income of college students.

My point is that first of all, your charts don't show any of the trends that would validate your point, and second, that even if the charts did, they would just be one of several possible interpretations.

[The Comrade]

Prole wrote: You seem to assume that marijuana users are as dangerous as drug users, when in fact the others are a much greater danger to both themselves and others. Furthermore, I cannot see accidents significantly rising. Doing something at a cafe rather than someone's house does not make it any less or more safe.

no, i'm assuming a depressent like marijuana would be dangerous to drive while under the influence of.


Prole wrote:
Certainly not. Does sociology have any laws? Certainly not. Honestly, you seem to have some good ideas Comrade, but when your demonstrate such faith in and simultaneous misunderstanding of sociology, especially considering it's status as a psuedo-science at best, you knock yourself down a peg.

to be honest sociology isn't where i place a great deal of study. it's merely in amateurs hobby.


Prole wrote:
It really does not, considering that there have been plenty of people in prior generations who grew up with the current drug laws and had little change in user percentage.

then what would be the cause of the decline? more drug education programs for sure, but they can't solve the problem all on their own.


Prole wrote:
Evidence, please.

better techniques, better communication, etc. tracking down a thug is much easier now then it was twenty or thirty years ago. and prosecuting someone is even easier.

i could dig up all sorts of random facts and examples, but isin't just obvious that law enforcement has improved over a matter of three or four decades?

Prole wrote:
Additionally, even if law enforcement is getting better, so are drug dealers; something Giddens addresses. Globalization and the ease of communication that accompanies it is making drug dealing easier, even if it it is doing the same for drug enforcement.

well it will always be a tug of war battle, and i suppose in that sense, drug enforcment and drug cartels will always gain and lose the upper hand.


Prole wrote:
Please read what I said more closely: over the past 20 years, drug use has not changed significantly; in fact, if anything, it seems to have risen slightly from 1985 onwards. 20 years ago it was not 1979. Drug enforcement since 1985, however, has not reduced the number of people consuming drugs, at all.


the chart on the link you provided says otherwise, unless of course, i am misreading it.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: You seem to assume that marijuana users are as dangerous as drug users, when in fact the others are a much greater danger to both themselves and others. Furthermore, I cannot see accidents significantly rising. Doing something at a cafe rather than someone's house does not make it any less or more safe.

no, i'm assuming a depressent like marijuana would be dangerous to drive while under the influence of.

Then your assumption is wrong. It is not dangerous, or hard to drive on at all.

[ja]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: You seem to assume that marijuana users are as dangerous as drug users, when in fact the others are a much greater danger to both themselves and others. Furthermore, I cannot see accidents significantly rising. Doing something at a cafe rather than someone's house does not make it any less or more safe.

no, i'm assuming a depressent like marijuana would be dangerous to drive while under the influence of.
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

[Prole]

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote: Certainly not. Does sociology have any laws? Certainly not. Honestly, you seem to have some good ideas Comrade, but when your demonstrate such faith in and simultaneous misunderstanding of sociology, especially considering it's status as a psuedo-science at best, you knock yourself down a peg.

to be honest sociology isn't where i place a great deal of study. it's merely in amateurs hobby.
Then perhaps you should stop trumping it as an end-all proof that legalization would increase use.


The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
It really does not, considering that there have been plenty of people in prior generations who grew up with the current drug laws and had little change in user percentage.

then what would be the cause of the decline? more drug education programs for sure, but they can't solve the problem all on their own.
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.

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.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
Evidence, please.

better techniques, better communication, etc. tracking down a thug is much easier now then it was twenty or thirty years ago. and prosecuting someone is even easier.

i could dig up all sorts of random facts and examples, but isin't just obvious that law enforcement has improved over a matter of three or four decades?
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.

Law enforcement may well have gotten more effective. This effectiveness, however, has been paralelled if not surpassed by the effectiveness of drug traffickers.

The Comrade wrote: Prole wrote:
Please read what I said more closely: over the past 20 years, drug use has not changed significantly; in fact, if anything, it seems to have risen slightly from 1985 onwards. 20 years ago it was not 1979. Drug enforcement since 1985, however, has not reduced the number of people consuming drugs, at all.


the chart on the link you provided says otherwise, unless of course, i am misreading it.
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