Tobacco use eliminated by Legalization.

[palladin9479]

I wouldn't go so far as to say its no longer used, but usage has definitely dropped in the last 2 decades due to laws preventing the targetting of children and programs like the Truth.org Most college campuses and many cities have general public smoking bans now and that number is increasing. This is the real trick to lower and/or preventing usage, legalize it, stigmatize it, ban it publically, and watch it mostly disappear. Has been working pretty well so far.

So you would agree that working on reducing the demand for a product is more effective then trying to reduce it's supply?

I vaguely remember making a similar argument, followed shortly by D's typical foot stomping, mouth frothing tantrum throwing tirades.

[Stubby]

The first anti-opium edict dated from 1729. (Start of prohibition)
In 1838 a war a opium was declared in 1838. (Start of the drug wars)
In 1858 China lost the drug wars because the 'gangs' (i.e. GB, FR, USA etc.) they were fighting had almost unlimited resources and superior weapons.

If anti-opium laws existed for the entire period of your graphs, then to say opium was 'legal' during that period is false.

Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[17] Opium was banned completely in 1799, and this prohibition continued until 1860

Source: ^ "Opium timeline". The Golden Triangle. Archived from the original on June 26, 2008. Retrieved September 13, 2009.

Now that you have explained it better, there is a reason I didn't understand it the first time. It is an irrelevant and stupid point.


100 years of nothing (1729 1838) constitutes prohibition? Really?

And still you don't grasp the salient point. Legalized drugs killed China.

I haven't 'grasped' your point because you have failed to meet any burden of proof that it is valid.

You assert and provide pretty graphs for the argument that legalization of drugs prompted increased usage.
There were active anti-opium laws in existence during the time period of your graphs. The edicts against opium were introduced in 1729, 1796 and 1800. Furthermore, in 1838 the Chinese government seized and burned thousand of tons of opium from the Bristish which prompted the drug war.

You don't get to make an assertion and provide irrelevant graphs and stomp your feet in a tantrum when someone points out your graphs are wrong and your assertion unsupported by the presented evidence. You have not demonstrated a linkage between legalization and increased usage.

[MSimon]

And present day evidence to the contrary ignored:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

[Diogenes]

Simon's argument that "prohibition" is futile is contrary to the evidence demonstrated by tobacco's slow decline.

If you call that prohibition it's no wonder you have problems getting your ideas across..

Let's not nitpick about terminology. "Prohibition" is Simon's favorite word, and I happened to use it because it's as close as it needs to be for the purpose of this discussion.

The point, which I am seemingly obliged to repeat, is that legal tobacco achieved an addiction rate of ~ 50%. Regulation and public consciousness efforts have helped reduce it down to ~21%. I suspect they could keep taxing and regulating it nearly to death if they wanted to, but I suspect they won't because they want the money it brings in.

Here's a thought: If you want to get rid of dangerous drugs, invest in research for less dangerous ones.

If we make them legal, I would advise you to invest in companies that make them more and faster addicting.

[Diogenes]

I wouldn't go so far as to say its no longer used, but usage has definitely dropped in the last 2 decades due to laws preventing the targetting of children and programs like the Truth.org Most college campuses and many cities have general public smoking bans now and that number is increasing. This is the real trick to lower and/or preventing usage, legalize it, stigmatize it, ban it publically, and watch it mostly disappear. Has been working pretty well so far.

So you would agree that working on reducing the demand for a product is more effective then trying to reduce it's supply?

I vaguely remember making a similar argument, followed shortly by D's typical foot stomping, mouth frothing tantrum throwing tirades.

It's hard to suffer fools gladly.

[Diogenes]

Now that you have explained it better, there is a reason I didn't understand it the first time. It is an irrelevant and stupid point.


100 years of nothing (1729 1838) constitutes prohibition? Really?

And still you don't grasp the salient point. Legalized drugs killed China.

I haven't 'grasped' your point because you have failed to meet any burden of proof that it is valid.

The word "Axiomatic" comes to mind. What kind of proof do you need to understand that 2,500 metric tons of opium per year are not good for a country? (And that was only in 1842!)

Are you arguing that it had no ill effects? There are plenty of articles online claiming that it caused the collapse of 2,000 years of Imperial rule.

You assert and provide pretty graphs for the argument that legalization of drugs prompted increased usage.
There were active anti-opium laws in existence during the time period of your graphs. The edicts against opium were introduced in 1729, 1796 and 1800. Furthermore, in 1838 the Chinese government seized and burned thousand of tons of opium from the Bristish which prompted the drug war.

The graphs show increased supply shipments. Those shipments are a proxy for usage. If shipments were increasing, Usage was keeping pace. Do you have a different interpretation?

You don't get to make an assertion and provide irrelevant graphs and stomp your feet in a tantrum when someone points out your graphs are wrong and your assertion unsupported by the presented evidence.

I did not create the graphs. How are the graphs wrong? How are the graphs irrelevant? Do you have better data? I think the truth is you just do not like them because you don't have a good response for them. They do not fit what you really really really WANT to believe, and therefore you need them to be wrong or irrelevant. "Please daddy, make the bad graphs go away!"

You have not demonstrated a linkage between legalization and increased usage.

I do not understand why you are hung up on this "legalization" word. If the sh*t was getting into the country without being stopped, it was defacto legalized whether it was technically legalized or not.

If it makes you feel better, let us use the term "Widely Available" as opposed to "legalized." It makes no difference to the salient point anyway. Drugs really really really F*****-up China.


At this point though, we might as well do the same thing. There will be fewer people to have to fight if the addicts end up removing themselves from the Gene pool.

[Diogenes]

And present day evidence to the contrary ignored:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

As all the news reports for this pretty much come from the same source (the Portuguese government) The fact that there are so many stories such as you linked has no real significance. As a matter of fact, if you would actually READ the link I sent you regarding how the Portugal experiment is a failure, you might notice that it specifically addresses the point that so much media has been issued claiming the program was a success when it really isn't.

But I know how this works. You WANT to believe, and so you do. For you, this topic is a Religion. You worship it daily and include all of us in your daily prayers to this drug god of yours.

You are an Evangelist for the church of the Drug Sacrament. I am a Heretic spouting blasphemy. I get it.




I wish you would become an agnostic.

[Teahive]

Let's not nitpick about terminology. "Prohibition" is Simon's favorite word, and I happened to use it because it's as close as it needs to be for the purpose of this discussion.

The point, which I am seemingly obliged to repeat, is that legal tobacco achieved an addiction rate of ~ 50%. Regulation and public consciousness efforts have helped reduce it down to ~21%. I suspect they could keep taxing and regulating it nearly to death if they wanted to, but I suspect they won't because they want the money it brings in.

It's not nitpicking, it's a completely different approach.

Here's a thought: If you want to get rid of dangerous drugs, invest in research for less dangerous ones.

If we make them legal, I would advise you to invest in companies that make them more and faster addicting.

No thanks, I'm not a fan of high risk investment.

[ScottL]

I wouldn't go so far as to say its no longer used, but usage has definitely dropped in the last 2 decades due to laws preventing the targetting of children and programs like the Truth.org Most college campuses and many cities have general public smoking bans now and that number is increasing. This is the real trick to lower and/or preventing usage, legalize it, stigmatize it, ban it publically, and watch it mostly disappear. Has been working pretty well so far.

So you would agree that working on reducing the demand for a product is more effective then trying to reduce it's supply?

I vaguely remember making a similar argument, followed shortly by D's typical foot stomping, mouth frothing tantrum throwing tirades.

Yes. Basically what is going on now is you're telling people not to push the red button, and what do the inevitably do? Well they push that button of course. This pertains to initial drug use not habitual drug use due to addiction, although those people likely went through the same red button scenario when they started.

[Teahive]

To be fair, the awareness, opposition, and public use bans don't apply to the drug, nicotine, but to a way of taking it, smoking, and its ill health effects.

It's hard to see the same work for, say, caffeine.

[paperburn1]

Hey guys, using data that's over one hundred years ago is probably not representative of our current economic and social profile. Just saying is all. You would not use data from the revolutionary times to predict the outcome of last week's election.
Just my two cents worth

[Diogenes]

Hey guys, using data that's over one hundred years ago is probably not representative of our current economic and social profile. Just saying is all. You would not use data from the revolutionary times to predict the outcome of last week's election.
Just my two cents worth

Obviously drugs work on humans differently now then they did a Hundred years ago. Our bodies have developed an immunity in the intervening time.

[paperburn1]

Hey guys, using data that's over one hundred years ago is probably not representative of our current economic and social profile. Just saying is all. You would not use data from the revolutionary times to predict the outcome of last week's election.
Just my two cents worth

)

Obviously drugs work on humans differently now then they did a Hundred years ago. Our bodies have developed an immunity in the intervening time.

obviously they are different, no, the points tried to make was social factors canchangethe dynamics of acceptance and also the rejection of the same. I feel any addiction should be avoided. Whether it is meth or chocolate. Addiction changes the normal response to simulation.
This is true for every drug. (except for caffeine )
On a side note I believe the interduction of caffeine is what stimulated our meteoric rise to or current level of technology

[ScottL]

To be fair, the awareness, opposition, and public use bans don't apply to the drug, nicotine, but to a way of taking it, smoking, and its ill health effects.

It's hard to see the same work for, say, caffeine.

New York's ban on large soft drinks.... it's a start I guess? Though an odd tactic to me.

[choff]

Regarding Portugul and the EU in general, there's a lot going on that's not being reported in the mainstream these days, mainly with reference to the economic breakdown. But it also means you can't always trust data the government puts out about anything else pro or con. It's plausible they gave up on drug enforcement because they couldn't afford it, or as a change agent to hasten breakdown, in order to bring in a more draconian system.