(12-16-2014 01:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Making something illegal opens up the black market which could make it easier for people (especially underage kids) to obtain. You are also opening up a coolness/rebel factor that by making it illegal, more people will want to do it simply because it's illegal. again that is especially true for underage kids.

Does your logic also apply to guns, or just the pot you want to smoke?

I dunno how many times I must state this:

1. the liberal position on guns =/= banning all guns like the GOP does with all drugs except alcohol

2. I am not a major supporter of gun legislation. so go ask someone else who is a supporter of the two.

3. in my post I was VERY CLEAR that this philosophy works best with drugs.

learn to read dude.

(12-16-2014 01:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Making something illegal opens up the black market which could make it easier for people (especially underage kids) to obtain. You are also opening up a coolness/rebel factor that by making it illegal, more people will want to do it simply because it's illegal. again that is especially true for underage kids.

Does your logic also apply to guns, or just the pot you want to smoke?

Just wondering, but does your logic do the same, but in reverse?

Quote:This is the problem with todays republican party.

Fail

Quote:national & international trends agree with my position.

Show this

Quote:You think it's wrong but can't give one reasonable explanation as to why.

What the OP shows is an insignificant dip in teen usage nationwide. What it does not show is why. Colorado is roughly 1.5% of the US population. You trying to project their legalization as the cause of this insignificant dip in nation-wide numbers is illogical.

ER your question is essentially a giant research paper and given your past history I am not going to waste my time on you because you will disregard whatever I post regardless of how good or bad it is. You are free to research Portugal & Belgium who had had success with drug policies that contradict that of the GOP. you can research our incarceration rate being among the highest in the world, you can research the billions we waste in law enforcement. You can research crime waves that were singlehandedly caused by the DEA removing a major drug lord only to cause violence to increase as various gangs fought each other to replace him. No but instead you choose to focus on the first & only state that legalized weed at the time of this study seeing a decrease in drug usage among teens is irrelevant because it's only one state

and you see why I am opting to not waste time on you

(12-16-2014 01:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so the "it's BS because I don't want to believe it due to my political ideology" category?

It's BS because it doesn't make sense. What was the point of legalizing something if less people use it? How does making something legal and easier to get drop usage?

May want to read up on the success Portugal has had decriminalizing all drugs.

exactly.

It's odd that people do not equate marijuana decriminalization/legalization with repealing prohibition.

I blame partisan politics & misinformed voters.

(12-16-2014 02:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ER your question is essentially a giant research paper and given your past history I am not going to waste my time on you because you will disregard whatever I post regardless of how good or bad it is. You are free to research Portugal & Belgium who had had success with drug policies that contradict that of the GOP. you can research our incarceration rate being among the highest in the world, you can research the billions we waste in law enforcement. You can research crime waves that were singlehandedly caused by the DEA removing a major drug lord only to cause violence to increase as various gangs fought each other to replace him. No but instead you choose to focus on the first & only state that legalized weed at the time of this study seeing a decrease in drug usage among teens is irrelevant because it's only one state

and you see why I am opting to not waste time on you

Let's just stick to one topic instead of moving the goalposts.

(12-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'm putting this in the same category as more illegals will increase wages, higher minimum wages will create jobs, and so on.

so the "it's BS because I don't want to believe it due to my political ideology" category?

It's BS because it doesn't make sense. What was the point of legalizing something if less people use it? How does making something legal and easier to get drop usage?

May want to read up on the success Portugal has had decriminalizing all drugs.

exactly.

LOL you two are a special pair. You guys live in a fantasy land where yall think "if it's legalized people will not do it as much"

(12-16-2014 02:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ER your question is essentially a giant research paper and given your past history I am not going to waste my time on you because you will disregard whatever I post regardless of how good or bad it is. You are free to research Portugal & Belgium who had had success with drug policies that contradict that of the GOP. you can research our incarceration rate being among the highest in the world, you can research the billions we waste in law enforcement. You can research crime waves that were singlehandedly caused by the DEA removing a major drug lord only to cause violence to increase as various gangs fought each other to replace him. No but instead you choose to focus on the first & only state that legalized weed at the time of this study seeing a decrease in drug usage among teens is irrelevant because it's only one state

and you see why I am opting to not waste time on you

Let's just stick to one topic instead of moving the goalposts.

It's not moving the goal posts, its an admission of reality that for numerous reasons, the "war on drugs" is not working.

rehabilitation > long prison sentences

Weakening a drug cartels customer base > removing drug leaders by arresting them

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so the "it's BS because I don't want to believe it due to my political ideology" category?

It's BS because it doesn't make sense. What was the point of legalizing something if less people use it? How does making something legal and easier to get drop usage?

May want to read up on the success Portugal has had decriminalizing all drugs.

exactly.

LOL you two are a special pair. You guys live in reality where yall think "if it's legalized so it can be regulated teens will not do it as much" basing that conclusion on proven data/historical trends.

FIFY

(12-16-2014 01:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:13 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'm putting this in the same category as more illegals will increase wages, higher minimum wages will create jobs, and so on.

so the "it's BS because I don't want to believe it due to my political ideology" category?

Actually, it could be even further down than that, or it could be further up. You'd probably get a much different number if you polled every tweener in the 8th (times are really shiit if you're polling 8th graders about weed), 10th, and 12th grade.

give it a rest. 8th graders using drugs and polling them to see if they do goes back decades.

Okay, let's try this again. This time, I'll remove anything inside parentheses, this way you'll figure out the talking point.

Actually, it could be even further down than that, or it could be further up. You'd probably get a much different number if you polled every tweener in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grade.

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It's not moving the goal posts, its an admission of reality that for numerous reasons, the "war on drugs" is not working.

rehabilitation > long prison sentences

Weakening a drug cartels customer base > removing drug leaders by arresting them

How many people will go to rehab? And why? Wouldn't that drop sales?

We're not going to weaken drug cartels, those that move truckloads of weed will start moving truckloads of something more dangerous.

As far legalizing to stop locking people up, that's like throwing your hands up and saying "I quit." You can't just say "Oh forget it, they'll NEVER listen to me, let's just legalize it since they refuse to obey THAT law."

(12-16-2014 02:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:13 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I'm putting this in the same category as more illegals will increase wages, higher minimum wages will create jobs, and so on.

so the "it's BS because I don't want to believe it due to my political ideology" category?

Actually, it could be even further down than that, or it could be further up. You'd probably get a much different number if you polled every tweener in the 8th (times are really shiit if you're polling 8th graders about weed), 10th, and 12th grade.

give it a rest. 8th graders using drugs and polling them to see if they do goes back decades.

Okay, let's try this again. This time, I'll remove anything inside parentheses, this way you'll figure out the talking point.

Actually, it could be even further down than that, or it could be further up. You'd probably get a much different number if you polled every tweener in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grade.

i gave you the benefit of a doubt last time but you did it again. the "this poll isn't valid because you didn't poll everybody...if you polled everybody it would be different" talking point is about as stupid as it gets and the only people who use it are the ones fighting a losing argument and have nothing else to fall back on.

I was really hoping you weren't using such a dumb talking point.

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so the "it's BS because I don't want to believe it due to my political ideology" category?

It's BS because it doesn't make sense. What was the point of legalizing something if less people use it? How does making something legal and easier to get drop usage?

May want to read up on the success Portugal has had decriminalizing all drugs.

exactly.

LOL you two are a special pair. You guys live in a fantasy land where yall think "if it's legalized people will not do it as much"

If you define special as using empirical evidence and historical context to support a position of the benefit of legalization, then sure, I am special.

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ER your question is essentially a giant research paper and given your past history I am not going to waste my time on you because you will disregard whatever I post regardless of how good or bad it is. You are free to research Portugal & Belgium who had had success with drug policies that contradict that of the GOP. you can research our incarceration rate being among the highest in the world, you can research the billions we waste in law enforcement. You can research crime waves that were singlehandedly caused by the DEA removing a major drug lord only to cause violence to increase as various gangs fought each other to replace him. No but instead you choose to focus on the first & only state that legalized weed at the time of this study seeing a decrease in drug usage among teens is irrelevant because it's only one state

and you see why I am opting to not waste time on you

Let's just stick to one topic instead of moving the goalposts.

It's not moving the goal posts, its an admission of reality that for numerous reasons, the "war on drugs" is not working.

rehabilitation > long prison sentences

Weakening a drug cartels customer base > removing drug leaders by arresting them

You are moving the goalposts. The OP was on teen use in the US. You are now blabbing about Portugal, Belgium, incarceration, the DEA, and financials, none of which have a thing to do with teen use in the US.

(12-16-2014 02:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 01:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It's BS because it doesn't make sense. What was the point of legalizing something if less people use it? How does making something legal and easier to get drop usage?

May want to read up on the success Portugal has had decriminalizing all drugs.

exactly.

LOL you two are a special pair. You guys live in a fantasy land where yall think "if it's legalized people will not do it as much"

If you define special as using empirical evidence and historical context to support a position of the benefit of legalization, then sure, I am special.

Relax man, I just copy/pasted what he said when I responded to another poster with "Exactly" just like he responded to you.

(12-16-2014 02:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i gave you the benefit of a doubt last time but you did it again. the "this poll isn't valid because you didn't poll everybody...if you polled everybody it would be different" talking point is about as stupid as it gets and the only people who use it are the ones fighting a losing argument and have nothing else to fall back on.

I was really hoping you weren't using such a dumb talking point.

Actually, it doesn't fit your narrative. What I said means that the poll could fall more in your favor, or more in mine if you polled all the kids, not just some. I don't care for polls, only statistics... especially the College Football Playoff Poll

(12-16-2014 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It's not moving the goal posts, its an admission of reality that for numerous reasons, the "war on drugs" is not working.

rehabilitation > long prison sentences

Weakening a drug cartels customer base > removing drug leaders by arresting them

How many people will go to rehab? And why? Wouldn't that drop sales?

We're not going to weaken drug cartels, those that move truckloads of weed will start moving truckloads of something more dangerous.

As far legalizing to stop locking people up, that's like throwing your hands up and saying "I quit." You can't just say "Oh forget it, they'll NEVER listen to me, let's just legalize it since they refuse to obey THAT law."

this is essentially an essay worth response to do it correctly and like ER I am not gonna bother because you seem to lack a basic understanding of this stuff.

for example you don't even understand the first point that i am not referring to voluntary rehab as you suggest, but drug treatment programs being mandatory to avoid prison for those caught.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/jus..._ac-dp.pdf

read for yourself. they save the taxpayers money and the user is less likely to use again.

it's not "throwing our hands up & quitting" it's changing to a type of policy that works and walking away from a type of policy that has only failed us. by taking a more lenient approach on drugs we are not waving the white flag, we are simply changing our battleplans. You wouldn't say an army has quit if they change from large scale engagements to guerrilla warfare now would you?

(12-16-2014 02:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i gave you the benefit of a doubt last time but you did it again. the "this poll isn't valid because you didn't poll everybody...if you polled everybody it would be different" talking point is about as stupid as it gets and the only people who use it are the ones fighting a losing argument and have nothing else to fall back on.

I was really hoping you weren't using such a dumb talking point.

Actually, it doesn't fit your narrative. What I said means that the poll could fall more in your favor, or more in mine if you polled all the kids, not just some. I don't care for polls, only statistics... especially the College Football Playoff Poll

dude it's a stupid narrative. the only people who use it are partisan trolls. it's essentially like saying "your evidence is so overwhelming that I must resort to this BS as my only way of countering it"

(12-16-2014 02:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It's not moving the goal posts, its an admission of reality that for numerous reasons, the "war on drugs" is not working.

rehabilitation > long prison sentences

Weakening a drug cartels customer base > removing drug leaders by arresting them

How many people will go to rehab? And why? Wouldn't that drop sales?

We're not going to weaken drug cartels, those that move truckloads of weed will start moving truckloads of something more dangerous.

As far legalizing to stop locking people up, that's like throwing your hands up and saying "I quit." You can't just say "Oh forget it, they'll NEVER listen to me, let's just legalize it since they refuse to obey THAT law."

this is essentially an essay worth response to do it correctly and like ER I am not gonna bother because you seem to lack a basic understanding of this stuff.

for example you don't even understand the first point that i am not referring to voluntary rehab as you suggest, but drug treatment programs being mandatory to avoid prison for those caught.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/jus..._ac-dp.pdf

read for yourself. they save the taxpayers money and the user is less likely to use again.

it's not "throwing our hands up & quitting" it's changing to a type of policy that works and walking away from a type of policy that has only failed us. by taking a more lenient approach on drugs we are not waving the white flag, we are simply changing our battleplans. You wouldn't say an army has quit if they change from large scale engagements to guerrilla warfare now would you?

Do you really have to be a dick in every response?

Anyways, why can't they opt for jail time OR rehab when they're caught with weed as it stands right now? The stuff people are coming up with can be done while not legalizing weed. And to be honest, I'm not too sure that many people will be able to afford rehab. They'd eventually whine about that, then it'd be all on the taxpayers, yet again, to pay their tab.

(12-16-2014 02:54 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 02:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It's not moving the goal posts, its an admission of reality that for numerous reasons, the "war on drugs" is not working.

rehabilitation > long prison sentences

Weakening a drug cartels customer base > removing drug leaders by arresting them

How many people will go to rehab? And why? Wouldn't that drop sales?

We're not going to weaken drug cartels, those that move truckloads of weed will start moving truckloads of something more dangerous.

As far legalizing to stop locking people up, that's like throwing your hands up and saying "I quit." You can't just say "Oh forget it, they'll NEVER listen to me, let's just legalize it since they refuse to obey THAT law."

this is essentially an essay worth response to do it correctly and like ER I am not gonna bother because you seem to lack a basic understanding of this stuff.

for example you don't even understand the first point that i am not referring to voluntary rehab as you suggest, but drug treatment programs being mandatory to avoid prison for those caught.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/jus..._ac-dp.pdf

read for yourself. they save the taxpayers money and the user is less likely to use again.

it's not "throwing our hands up & quitting" it's changing to a type of policy that works and walking away from a type of policy that has only failed us. by taking a more lenient approach on drugs we are not waving the white flag, we are simply changing our battleplans. You wouldn't say an army has quit if they change from large scale engagements to guerrilla warfare now would you?

Do you really have to be a dick in every response?

Anyways, why can't they opt for jail time OR rehab when they're caught with weed as it stands right now? The stuff people are coming up with can be done while not legalizing weed. And to be honest, I'm not too sure that many people will be able to afford rehab. They'd eventually whine about that, then it'd be all on the taxpayers, yet again, to pay their tab.

I believe they do have the chance. & seriously, do you really think its a 50/50 thing. anyone with common sense would take the drug treatment program. anyone who doesn't want drug treatment is likely not getting that option to begin with because they woulda pissed off the judge long beforehand.

again these are taxpayer funded options. The drug treatment programs as shown in the link I provided are 1/4th the cost of sending someone to prison.