Blankbeard wrote:Diogenes wrote:
Yes, the mathematics describing exponential acceleration of gravity are completely different from the mathematics which describe the exponential acceleration of a disease.
Most diseases don't undergo unlimited exponential growth. They undergo
logarithmic growth. That's biology 101 material. You. Should. Know. This.
Edit: I have used the underlined word incorrectly. The correct statement is that "They grow in a fashion consistent with their characteristics and usually cannot be accurately described with a simple function."
At least I got a concession out of you that they grow, which is in fact, the only salient point. If left alone, Drug usage grows.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
And with your methodology, were we to discuss glass, we would have to find out the exact silica content in it before we could determine that it was transparent.
No, we just wouldn't treat glass, plastic, air, and water as if they were the same thing simply because all can be transparent.
When the only relevant characteristic is transparency, a forced focus on the details is just a dodge. If left alone, Diseases grow. The exact curve describing that growth in detail is irrelevant in the extreme, and that is precisely why you wanted to focus on it.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
You must REALLY, REALLY, REALLY be afraid of my argument to run so hard and fast away from it. It's like "Blankbeard bane" or something.
So fine, you aren't going to address the point. I guess we can just snipe at each other than.
I'd addressed what little of an argument you've made. You cannot simply generalize about all diseases, particularly between broad classes like communicable diseases and mental/social "diseases" like addiction. You can't even generalize between different drugs. Do you think, just to give you an example, that withdrawal from Alcohol, Oxycotin, and Marijuana are the same? Would you treat them the same way? Would you give a benzo to all three to combat symptoms? Because with two of those three, you're getting nothing done while the patient is in withdrawal. Which one is fatal if unattended? Which one is the most disconcerting to the patient? Hint: The last two questions do not have the same answer.
And not a lick of this addresses the only point that matters in this discussion. If left alone, Percentage of people addicted to drugs increases over time.
Blankbeard wrote:
(The pharmacologically astute will notice that we treat withdrawal from one addictive drug by giving the patient another addictive drug.)
Look, I understand that you're almost certainly not involved in a field where you have to see any of this. And you're probably a generally law-abiding person (having not read
Three Felonies A Day 
) so you've never had to live with the effects. You're not a doctor who risks going to jail if the DEA thinks he's been too easy with pain control medication. I seriously hope you never have to deal with back pain or another chronic pain because more than likely your doctor will have issues effectively treating you. Every time the DEA revises its guidelines it's a bit harder for doctors. Since not having a DEA license is the same as not having a job, it's best not to complain too loudly. Pain management clinics take the load but the rules are no easier for them. It's just the appearance of a new specialist to handle the regulations around pain medications.
Yup, drug addicts are screwing it up for everybody else. Another example of how it's not a victimless crime. Still irrelevant to the point though.
Blankbeard wrote:
Regardless of what you think, I'm not sniping at you. I'm bringing up basic methodological problems with your argument. You are arguing from a position of ignorance (no judgement intended) and assuming that there's nothing more to a situation than what you know about.
I would be surprised if you had more intimate and personal knowledge than do I, about the consequences of drug addiction as seen up close. As for methodological problems, you are trying to make the very simple, overtly complex. One does not need to know an exact solution (to the rate of disease or drug usage growth) as long as it is possible to determine that it lies within a range, which is for all intents and purposes, above zero.
Blankbeard wrote:
But let me extend an olive branch. You say I'm missing the point. I'll play the inadequate student and ask what is the point I'm missing. Put your cards on the table and we'll go from there.
This is simple. As with many phenomenon in nature, unencumbered drug usage exhibits logistic growth. (doesn't matter what the curve is.) If you want to make it even simpler, you have to argue that the growth of unencumbered usage is flat. Very similar to arguing that anti-gravity exists IMO.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
It's funny that you think this is about epidemiology. And here I thought you might actually be perceptive or something.
In the spirit of clear communication what is this about?
It is about demonstrating that exponential growth is the norm in many areas of science, and it is the correct principle to apply to drug usage and addiction. If the norm for drug addiction is to grow, (in the absence of interference) then the fact that it has not grown for >100 years (still at 2%) indicates that the methods being used to halt it's growth are indeed effectively halting it's growth.
i.e. "the drug war" is having a successful effect. (Might be another approach would work better, but that isn't the point.)
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Let me clue you in on something champ. All those boundaries you see between disciplines in science? Those are all illusions created by our desire to see a boundary. In fact, there are no boundaries between Chemistry\Physics\Biology. It is merely a human artifice that we regard them as having boundaries.
True but irrelevant. You
could describe any problem using only the language of physics but for any non-trivial problem this description would take most of a human lifetime. For almost any real problem, it would take longer than the lifetime of human civilization to do so. If you'd like to show me the peer-reviewed studies that you've done a few tens of thousands of years of work creating a description of drug addiction that would almost certainly be longer than the combined literary output of the rest of mankind in all of history (and almost certainly, the rest of history) then by all means, give me a link. Otherwise, you just come off as another crackpot.
That's actually the effect I was going for. As for the physics explanation of all other phenomena, one does not have to explain each discipline in accordance with the molecular theory of heat, one describes basic characteristics and then assign them to a class, and assign those classes to another iteration of a higher class, and thereby creates a series of class trees at which the bulk of information can be manipulated at the higher level without the need for getting mucked up with the details, as you attempted to do with your need for specificity in insisting on some particular disease.
All diseases follow the same general rule, and the only point that mattered was that they were in the category that followed that rule. (The category of "logistic growth.")
Blankbeard wrote:
We have different sciences to break reality down into manageable pieces. Holistic views are nice but above your paygrade. When a physicist manages to produce workable models for epidemiology, it won't be some forum guy who introduces it to the world.
I wouldn't presume to predict that one way or the other.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Now you just can't comprehend the concept of logistic growth, and I dare say it won't matter how I present it to you, because you just don't want to concede that logistic growth is the determining factor in the spread of drug addiction because that would utterly screw your argument. What you are suffering from is "cognitive dissonance" because what you have is a religion and not a set of beliefs based on reason.
The small text is at least partially wrong and perhaps completely wrong. Rather than confuse the issue please skip to the bolded text below for the correct argument.
Dude, you've been posting graphs showing exponential growth, not logistic. Exponential growth produces a graph where as x goes from 0 to some point lower than infinity, y approaches infinity. Functions that do this are called exponential functions and the simplest one is y=x^2. Exponential functions approach infinity more quickly than any other type. In laymen's terms, exponential growth makes a graph with a simple curve that quickly straight up.
Logarithmic, or if you prefer logistic, growth looks completely different. They start off similarly and for a while it may even grow faster than exponential, but the line levels off and heads straight right. Technically, logarithmic growth produces a curve that approaches its finite limit asymptotically. The simplest of these are the functions of type y=log(x) where the logarithm may be in any base, commonly base 10 or the natural logarithm.
Edit: Thanks to 93143 for pointing out that the above paragraph is wrong. Rather than continuing to torture my decade old calculus, let me get to the heart of the issue:
Diseases don't grow that way. Sometimes their behavior can be approximated by different functions but each disease follows its own rules based on its characteristics and environment.
I'll assume this is a simple mistake on your part. Also, a simple mistake on my part.
I don't see it as any kind of mistake on my part. The Characteristic of disease that is salient to the point is that their infection spreads. Were it not spreading, it is doubtful that a disease would even come to our attention.
I'll re-iterate the point. For the sake of this discussion, the rate of growth doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that it not be zero. Any growth rate above zero will eventually become significant, the time required for this is not really relevant to the point.
As populations live beyond the span of individuals, individual times scales don't apply to them.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
No law against that, but to those of us who don't share your religion, your arguments don't make any sense because they violate obvious and easy to understand principles. Now you can try to dress it up any way you like, but at the end of the day, we heretics are not going to buy your faith based arguments.
This is craven slander and you know it. I've posted evidence for all of my statements. Are you another clown like GIThruster? I rather believe you aren't. Do better.
I would like to think I am as much of a clown as he, if that is how you want to characterize it. I find his arguments for the most part to be reasonable, usually well thought out, and consistent with my experience.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Oh, I don't know, you are making a pretty good case that you are an expert on not knowing something.
Look, I'm as guilty of indulging in the occasional ad hominem attack as the next guy but you really can't base an argument on them. Do better.
Dude, sniping is for fun. Anybody who really gets offended at crap people say at them on the internet is simply taking it too seriously.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Very pretty. And of course Opium is such a fad that it lasted over a hundred years. Katy Perry should be so lucky.
If the US government enforced sales of her records, she wouldn't need luck.
You seem to be mistaking a lack of interference for explicit intervention. I have no knowledge of China's government sticking pipes into people's mouths. Even if they did such a thing, it would never work unless the substance was addictive.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Yeah, you must have missed that documentary on PBS which explained all the efforts leading up to that Act.
(I think this is the one.)Apparently they found out that the drug cartels were getting their pseudo-ephedrine from a certain factory in India. They (the feds) went over there and had a little chat with the Factory and ouila, suddenly the supply of cheap meth took a big nose dive.
But please, do go on about your theory.
I wonder if you mean this 2009 bust in India?
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-north ... regon.html
I see no dates on your link but it doesn't actually matter. How does this change what I said? The Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005 was claimed as the reason that meth usage dropped. In 2003. If a different effort reduced meth supply, that still doesn't make that claim true.
I think you've got me on the detail, but I don't live and breath this stuff everyday, so I can ask forgiveness if I get some details wrong. It has been a long time since I watched that documentary, but one of the main points being made in that documentary was that every time they restricted the supply of pseudo ephedrine (or variations thereof) they showed a quick and dramatic decline in the availability of street meth.
Now either they were lying, or the tactic was working.
It certainly looked like it in the documentary. They explain the price going up and down with their interdiction efforts. When they would show some success, the dealers would shift tactics in an effort to restore the supply. Tracking the various spy v spy efforts between the two groups is not something that I feel strongly about doing personally. I am content to accept the variation of which you speak as having been the results of these maneuverings by both sides.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Which as far as I can tell means the exact same thing. It is also as sensible as saying that our current murder policy is not depressing the number of murderers. Errant nonsense that is in complete conflict with deterrence, the theory upon which the entire Legal system is based.
Again, how can anyone take this claim seriously?
1) There would be more murders if murder were legal.
2) There would be the same number of murders if murders were legal.
3) There is no evidence that there would be more murders if murder were legal.
Not the same. Three separate claims. In fact, 3 could be a true claim even if 1 or 2 turned out to be factually correct or even if they both turned out to be wrong.
There is plenty of historical evidence that there would be more murders if Murder were legal. One only need look at the Legal murders performed by Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. to conclude that legal murder does indeed increase the likelihood of it's occurrence.
It is unfathomable to me that legalization of anything would result in less of it. Do you have any examples where legalization of a behavior resulted in less of it?
Blankbeard wrote:
1) There would be more drug users if drug use was legal.
2) There would be the same numbers of drug users if drug use was legal.
3) There is no evidence that there would be more drug use if drugs were legal.
3 separate claims, of which 3 is the one I've made. Not hard to understand.
Do I need to post that Chart regarding Opium Imports again? Your argument begs the question, if usage isn't going to change upward, then why bother legalizing it?
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
The proxy evidence of exponentially increasing shipments of drugs into a nation is not sufficient to imply usage? What on earth kind of evidence do you need to prove it?
It would be nice to have that happen in a situation that at least vaguely resembles the situation in the united states.
You mean a land mass with Homo Sapiens running around on it? Yeah, that factor is pretty much replicated exactly. No other characteristics are pertinent.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
That is one possible explanation. Another is that Libertarians are unknowingly colluding with Socialists to torture statistics to scream out what they want to hear. As Frederick Hayek put it:
That's not an explanation, that's a social conservative indulging in conspiracy theory so he can avoid admitting the evidence doesn't support him.
Less of a conspiracy theory and more of a case of "intellectual phase lock" otherwise known as "herd mentality."
Blankbeard wrote:
Please provide evidence that libertarians are running the show in any of the named countries.
Good heavens! Who suggested that they were? I am suggesting that the Socialist government of Portugal, being incompetent in everything, tried a new governmental policy, and then declared it a success! Libertarians, seeing a policy that they liked better than others, and seeing a government that declared it successful, immediately amplified the claims by copying them and repeating them ad nauseum through every media outlet of which they had influence.
This is why I said Libertarians are unknowingly colluding with socialists.
Blankbeard wrote:
Heck, show they're even an important political force in any of those countries. Double heck, find me one country run by libertarians. I'll move there and leave you to turn this country into the United States of Jail.
Ha ha ha... Yeah, if we don't let everyone do drugs, we're tyrants! Don't know of a country run by Libertarians, (even in History, nothing comes to mind. That ought to tell you something.) but I do know of a city that was founded and ran by Secular Libertarians. Turned out to be a complete and total failure. Rather funny in fact.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”[/b][/i]
― Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Ooh, quoting Hayek as if he were an authoritarian! Trollish goodness. Description is not Prescription, Diogenes.
I would think his point is self evident. Immoral governments have no compunction about lying to the people when it suits them. Why, is quoting Hayek only good when Simon does it?
Blankbeard wrote:
Triple troll score for trying to tie libertarians to socialists. You just ad hom'ed millions. As I mentioned to GIThruster, the next step is ad hom'ing Jews.
We are having a communications problem here, It is the Socialist Government of Portugal whom I am accusing of Lying. I'm merely accusing the Libertarians of being naive dupes.
Blankbeard wrote:
(Why did a social conservative take the name of a greek philosopher known for flouting tradition and pissing off conservatives? I hope it's not simple irony.)
No, it was well thought out and intentional. Diogenes couldn't abide fools, and would skewer them at every available opportunity. He and I are a sort of kindred spirit in some respects. I have never been comfortable with the notion that those in power should automatically engender respect from me. They have to earn it by being sensible.
When someone is right, I say so. When they are wrong, I also say so. Outspoken and curmudgeonly, that's me. As for flouting tradition, something does not garner respect merely because it's a tradition. It should garner respect if it serves some worthy purpose.
Blankbeard wrote:
Did you read that study? Or just see it was critical of the Cato foundation and assume it supported you?
Here's their conclusion
The promulgation and uptake of different accounts of the Portuguese reform is a clear indicator of the interest in it. Considered analysis of the two most divergent accounts reveals that the Portuguese reform warrants neither the praise nor the condemnation of being a ‘resounding success’ or a ‘disastrous failure’, and that these divergent policy conclusions were derived from selective use of the evidence base that belie the nuanced, albeit largely positive, implications from this reform.
It supports my point that Portugal is being held up as a wonderful miracle by all the people who want to legalize anyway, and in fact what Portugal has done is not a success story. It is more along the lines of "to be determined."
Blankbeard wrote:
Given their potential for use in promoting or blocking drug law reform in Portugal and elsewhere, the selective uses of data and divergent conclusions are perhaps to be expected. Yet, while we found evidence that the misinterpretation of evidence may garner national or international support and contribute to the uptake of misconceptions and erroneous accounts (that may align with core beliefs), we contend that particularly for proponents of reform, that is, those challenging the status quo, deliberate misinterpretation of evidence is a high-risk game. The dissemination of incredibly certain [6] and overly positive accounts provides easy grounds for discrediting reforms, ignoring the lessons that they provide and shifting public debate in directions that may prove detrimental to future proponents.
More broadly, the dissemination of loose accounts poses serious risks of devaluing the case for evidence-based drug policy [7]. Indeed, the divergent accounts of the Portuguese reform provide ample grounds for questioning the implicit assumption that evidence will generate policies ‘devoid of dogma’[7]. At a time when many countries in the developed world have shifted electorally to the right, there may be a temptation to throw evidence-based drug policy out, under the pretext that science proves nothing at all. Careful communication of claims is thus critical for both academics and advocates, so that evidence-informed accounts are more than mere ammunition for the policy battlefield.
Yup, bad claims damage scientific credibility.
Blankbeard wrote:
And here's a bit about the effects of the reform on the drug rate:
The question is: how meaningful is this information for determining the effects of the reform? Portugal has historically had very low prevalence of drug use and was one of the last European nations to experience significant increases in heroin use. During the 1990s it had very high prevalence of all the indicators referred to by Pinto (excepting homicides). It is only by taking into account rates pre-reform—or more preferably trends pre- and post-reform—that we can examine the extent to which Portugal's current drug situation, relative to the rest of Europe, can be attributed to the reform.
Our article examined trends in Portugal relative to Spain and Italy (chosen for their similarity in geography and drug situation) and concluded that post-reform Portugal is similar or performing better for most indicators. In relation to drug use we identified that between 2001 and 2007 there were similar increases in all three nations for lifetime and recent drug use for cannabis and cocaine [8]. For school students, lifetime prevalence (using ESPAD data) increased in all three nations from 1999 to 2003 before a drop in 2007, with the major difference being that in Portugal, the drop in reported use of any illicit substance appeared more pronounced and the decline in reported cannabis use appeared less pronounced. Significantly, Portugal was the only nation to exhibit declines in problematic drug use.
Regarding drug-related deaths, Portugal, Spain and Italy had different trends, reflecting the different stages of the heroin epidemic, but ‘it is clear that since the Portuguese introduction of its drug strategy and the decriminalization, all three nations showed declines in drug-related deaths, but that the declines were more pronounced in Portugal and Italy than in Spain’[8]. The main point of difference was that Portugal alone showed an increase in drug-related mortality in 2007 and 2008; however, as illustrated earlier this was attributed to the increase in toxicological autopsies. The more recently available INE evidence largely supports this attribution. Broader examination of the EMCDDA reports and data supports our earlier conclusion that post-reform Portugal is performing—longitudinally—similarly or slightly better than most European countries.
Bold print is mine. So both the "resounding success" and the "complete disaster" were overblown. No surprise there. Politics is the home of the overblown, exaggerations, and panics over nothing. But what they found was consistent with my position.
But guess which false claim got the most press, and thanks to whom?
Blankbeard wrote:
Noticeably, the drug use apocalypse you warn against didn't happen.
To early to tell. It only took China 100+ years to show the horrendously bad results.
Blankbeard wrote:
So again, this suggests you are wrong. Legalization will probably not increase the usage of drugs.
I find it hard to believe you can keep a straight face when you say such things as this. When has legalization ever resulted in a reduction of some sort of behavior?
Blankbeard wrote:
Legalization advocates who claim that legalization would lower drug rates were also wrong. Yay! Moderation and science win the day!
Lesson: Make sure you read and comprehend your sources.
Well, I knew legalization advocates are wrong. I've seen the front lines first hand. I know how the stuff gets spread.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Oh God! If I ever hear "This won't happen to us because our culture is COMPLETELY different from the Chinese!" again, I think i'm going to puke. Physiological characteristics are for all intents and purposes, exactly the same between Americans and the Chinese. That which will addict them, will also addict us.
This argument that Cultural differences will shield us from poison is just another dodge for someone who doesn't want to accept what is true.
The British Empire isn't trying to force opium on us.
The British forced it into the Country, they didn't force it into peoples mouths. It wound up there on it's own as a result of being available.
Blankbeard wrote:
Occupation by drug pushers is not a cultural difference. It's a difference in reality. Goebbels said if you keep repeating a big lie, people believe it. He didn't say it becomes true.
And you think that if drugs were legalized that we wouldn't have pushers? We have pushers for Coca-Cola for crying out loud! I see Pharmaceutical companies hawking their wares on Television nearly every day. Don't worry about pushers, they come with the product.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Especially not hung over like that. For strung out addicts, odds of 8-1 just aren't good enough.
Inaccuracy and racism, all in one convenient image. How efficient of you.
You must not have much experience with Japanese Culture. That pic is a big fat nothing
given what passes for Japanese image art. In any case, it was meant as a compliment. A Testament to the ferocity of a people that can whip their weight in Chinese at an 8-1 ratio.
Blankbeard wrote:
(Shout out to Babylon 5 for that adapted quote.)
Loved Babylon 5. Best and most serious Sci-Fi series i've ever seen. (apart from all the nonsense stuff, that is.)
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
And now I think YOU are smoking crack. Force? Persuade? What's the difference when it comes down to the end result? Hell, if we could sell drugs to Iran, *I* would chip in a few thousand to send them there. And I get a return on my money? H3ll YEAH!!!!!
A guy who persuades you to have sex with him is your lover. A guy who forces you to have sex with him is a rapist. You are well aware of the difference. Do not beclown yourself. Iran actually has quite strict laws against drugs and a rather high rate of use and abuse.
The point remains, that drug usage by the people of Iran will do serious damage to them. If I could get the Government of Iran to smoke crack, I would certainly do it. Drugs will destroy any society that embraces them.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Intuitive leap based on a pile of knowledge and experience the likes of which I've yet to see matched let alone surpassed. (although I suspect djolds1 and perhaps DeltaV)
Well, you are certainly a legend in your own mind.
Part of the problem is trying to live in an environment where people will not stop telling you that your the smartest person they've ever met. (They have low standards I think.)
Blankbeard wrote:
Telling me how smart you are will not make up for unsupported arguments. If anything, I've found those who label themselves smart will talk themselves into the most idiotic ideas because they're good at convincing themselves of things based on little evidence. I'm certain you're capable of better.
You drug it out of me. Besides, I wanted to see how you would respond to such a boast. I like to play my little mind games now and then.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
By all means, try to understand the role played by the British East India Company. Especially their, you know, SHIPPING RECORDS!!!!!!!
Yes, we're back to that force/persuade. A man with a knife to your throat is not persuading you to give him a donation. He is robbing you. I don't know of a single world view that doesn't recognize that. Surely you have enough moral sense and rational ability to agree with that.
And here we go with this argument again. It is the CHINESE GOVERNMENT which was forced, and what they were forced to do is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT. They were forced to legalize Drugs.
You guys are funny. You carp about it not being legal, then you complain that some government was forced to make it legal!! (As if it has any bearing on the discussion anyway.) Individual Chinese subjects were not forced to smoke dope. They CHOSE to do that.
How you see an argument that favors your side in this point, I do not understand.
Blankbeard wrote:
Likewise, the East India Company forced opium upon China until the British were finally forced out. Even if you were right about this (and you are not) the counter examples I listed earlier (as well as Portugal) would suffice to disprove any rule.
The British forced China to do what you want to do here. Why are you complaining about it? It got drugs legalized, didn't it? You just don't want to accept the fact that Legalized Opium was a DISASTER for China.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
I dunno, telling the truth has seldom been in favor for those wishing not to hear it. Maybe your methods perhaps?
Well, the absence of them certainly didn't cause it. That would be a neat trick.
This doesn't dispute what I said.
You appear to have taken my quote out of context. I was saying that the absence of drugs certainly did not cause a massive wide spread addiction.
Blankbeard wrote:
Diogenes wrote:
Must have missed it. You probably did too, but not for lack of trying on my part.
Mark 4:12 is most assuredly written to you personally. I believe you're trying to make an argument even if you do seem to resort to trolling when you are frustrated. But in the future, I'm going to attempt to shorten my response according to the amount of effort I see you making. I'm not going to spend a couple hours researching and proofreading a post for you to make ad-hominem attacks. GIThruster did that and if that's how you end up arguing, you're free to sit at the kids table with him.
You suggest that people who want to keep Dangerous Substances out of the hands of those who would misuse them as tyrannical "Statists" and you think WE are being childish? If I don't express the appropriate degree of sympathy for the hours you've spent researching something it is because I paid my dues in that area a long time ago. I found it to be rather pointless.
Facts and evidence really don't carry much weight in this argument, and that is why I regard it as a religion for it's devotees.
Blankbeard wrote:
Oh, ladajo, how about those studies you mentioned? I understand you're probably busy.
Ladajo has the patience of a saint. I find it far more satisfying to just mock and make wise cracks than I do to look up data that no one is going to pay any attention to anyways.
As you are new to this forum, I will point out to you that I have direct and personal experience with many people who were addicted to drugs, specifically crack and meth. (and pot, but that's trivial in comparison.)
I've seen what that sh*t can do first hand, and it's ain't pretty, and it ain't harmless.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
