Posted on 02/13/2013 2:23:16 PM PST by honestabe010
Such as?
Protection of minors is equally important to deconstructing the WOD industry.
Since kids started reporting several years ago that they could get pot more easily than they could get cigarettes or beer, it appears that the more effective way to keep pot out of kids' hands is to legalize it for adults - so sellers have an incentive not to sell to kids (namely, the loss of their legal adult sales).
In my opinion, repeal should be offset by clearly defined capital consequences.
Including the deadly addictive drug alcohol?
More than that, it incentivizes the production and use of stronger forms - such as the crack form of cocaine, and heroin strong enough for a high via snorting. (And the rise in popularity of hard liquor during Prohibition.)
And yet you've never posted a single one.
That is a flat out lie. The amount of a drug that can, and does, result in deficits in the developing fetus, whether physical or cognitive, DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAVY OR REPEATED USE! See, I can use caps too.
I'm not surprised by your, "He did it too" argument (And birth defects are also linked to alcohol and tobacco;) either. It's the same type of argument used by liberal idiots almost on a daily basis. So, because there are substances which can result in birth defects that are not drugs, therefore, society should embrace drug use. Wow. the level of stupidity that goes into that argument is stunning.
The amount of a drug that can, and does, result in deficits in the developing fetus, whether physical or cognitive, DOES NOT REQUIRE HEAVY OR REPEATED USE!
Evidence?
so your argument no more supports a drug ban than a conception ban.
This logical conclusion stands unrefuted.
And birth defects are also linked to alcohol and tobacco; do you favor banning those drugs too, or is your concern for yet-unconceived potential victims selective?
So, because there are substances which can result in birth defects that are not drugs,
Actually, they are drugs - legal ones.
therefore, society should embrace drug use.
What a transparent and feeble misrepresentation of my argument. My actual argument, as I clearly stated, is that genuine concern for birth defects - as opposed to using them as a smokescreen - would call for a ban on those legal drugs just as surely as a continued ban on illegal drugs.
"The good news for men is that sperm is produced continuously in a 74-day cycle, so the body does clean itself over time." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/19/health.drugsandalcohol
We will agree to disagree on this issue. You are free to go snort your cocaine, inject your heroin, smoke your pcp laced dope, etc etc. Just, for God’s sake, DO NOT procreate.
Not sure where you get your numbers from but I'll share with you what I know.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health was performed initially in 1971 by Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and is now an annual event sponsored by SAMHSA. Illegal drug use peaked in 1979 with 14.1% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days. The 2012 survey results are not yet available, but the 2011 survey results reported that 8.7% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days.
This is a decrease in the rate of illegal drug use of 38%! This would be an enormous success for anyone much less for the Federal government. Since most of their programs tend to be colossal failures.
Drug use during pregnancy was first reported in a survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1992. They reported that just over 5% of pregnant mothers used illegal drugs. The NSDUH survey from 2008 reported 4.3%.
Another decrease in rate of use. This time of 14%!
Finally your 540% increase for drug overdoses seems to be another complete fabrication. Nowhere in the literature can I find such a claim.
I assume you're referring to this CDC report based on the dates you used. However this report also includes poisoning deaths due to things like carbon monoxide poisoning, something that was never intended to be addressed by the War on Drugs.
In fact, data on overdoses due to the use of illegal drugs seems to have been swamped by overdoses due to legal drugs. Now that more states have been trying to make marijuana legal, I believe that data on overdoses of illegal drugs will be lost entirely.
I suspect you're involved in one of these harm reduction groups. You only care about your "right" to do whatever you want regardless of the damage and cost to others.
The War on Drugs was an attempt to prevent people from getting lost in the drug underclass. Drug using workers have a higher incidence of involuntary absences from work. 32% of drug using workers lose their jobs due to degrading work performance and unsafe events on the job. They start jumping to increasingly lower salary jobs until they drop out of the work force. The rest of us pay for this in increased prices.
In Chicago, 82% of persons arrested test positive for illegal drugs. 35% of these are using multiple illegal drugs. Since they can't work, they're forced to steal from the rest of us so they can get the money they need to satisfy their addictions. In 1989, a New York city study found that 67% of DUI suspects were taking 2 or more illegal drugs. Putting the safety of the rest of us at risk.
I stand by my original comment.
If your user name is correct, I thank you for your service and pray you get help for your addictions.
With all posted evidence being on my side.
You are free to go snort your cocaine, inject your heroin, smoke your pcp laced dope, etc etc. Just, for Gods sake, DO NOT procreate.
I use no mind-altering drugs, legal or illegal - and my children are healthy and very intelligent. Your snide insinuations are down to the usual Drug Warrior low standards.
Oh, it peaked then? What was the 1971 figure? It's not available at http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nhsda/ar18tbl.htm.
The 2012 survey results are not yet available, but the 2011 survey results reported that 8.7% of the population 12 years and older using drugs in the previous 30 days.
This is a decrease in the rate of illegal drug use of 38%! This would be an enormous success for anyone much less for the Federal government.
And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm), while from 1973 to 2006 cigarette smoking dropped by 59% (http://www.lung.org/finding-cures/our-research/trend-reports/Tobacco-Trend-Report.pdf) - all while alcohol and cigarettes remained legal. Correlation is not causation. Giving the War on Drugs credit is the ancient logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this") - like the rooster who claimed his crowing caused the sun to rise.
Drug using workers have a higher incidence of involuntary absences from work. 32% of drug using workers lose their jobs due to degrading work performance and unsafe events on the job. They start jumping to increasingly lower salary jobs until they drop out of the work force. The rest of us pay for this in increased prices.
If individuals choose to make themselves less productive - through drugs, alcohol, or staying up too late - it's the rankest collectivism to regard this as a "cost" to "the rest of us" that justifies restricting individuals' liberties.
And note that the DEA says 75% of adults who used drugs in the past month are employed.
In Chicago, 82% of persons arrested test positive for illegal drugs. 35% of these are using multiple illegal drugs.
You say 8.7% of the population uses drugs - has anything close to 8.7% of the population been imprisoned? If not, then drug use does not cause criminal behavior.
Since they can't work, they're forced to steal from the rest of us so they can get the money they need to satisfy their addictions.
They'd steal less - if at all, instead of can collecting or panhandling - if the War on Drugs wasn't hyperinflating drug prices.
In 1989, a New York city study found that 67% of DUI suspects were taking 2 or more illegal drugs. Putting the safety of the rest of us at risk.
Alcohol DUI puts the safety of the rest of us at risk - is that sufficient reason to ban that drug?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.