Not sure how you figure this is rationalization. The History of China and drugs is available for anyone who cares to look at it.
Beyond that, we have the more recent experiment in Switzerland. That was an utter failure too.
Posted on 07/02/2014 11:27:52 AM PDT by Rebelbase
$19 million in new tax revenue.
Marijuana-related arrests, which make up 50% of all drug-related crimes, have plummeted in Colorado, freeing up law enforcement to focus on other criminal activity. By removing marijuana penalties, the state saved somewhere between $12 million and $40 million in 2012, according to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.
According to government data, the Denver city- and county-wide murder rate has dropped 52.9% since recreational marijuana use was legalized in January. This is compared to the same period last year, a time frame encompassing Jan. 1 through April 30.
(Excerpt) Read more at mic.com ...
Conversely they could represent a mistake and/or bad data. How they would get accurate data on drug addiction in 1880 is itself a cause for speculation.
If you have better numbers on U.S. drug addiction in 1880, I'd be fascinated to see them. Absent that, the available evidence is that U.S. opium addiction was low and declining when it was legal.
For China
China is not America, and there's no evidence that America's addiction rate was ever anything remotely like China's. Addiction experts tell us that culture and environment are important factors in addiction.
Liquor use would be down a little.
Crime use would be up a LOT.
Great post of actual opium shipments - about 10 million pounds sterling per year.
So with your 100 million Chinese addicts, that’s about 2 shillings a year per user.
Either that’s some cheap smack, or your number of addicts is off by a factor of say...an order of magnitude or two.
Existential crisis? Hah!
And you will provide no evidence whatsoever for your claim.
I'm not going to bother looking at any of your information regarding Prohibition. [...] I feel no obligation to be reasonable or consistent
Naturally - you're a drug war supporter.
Two points.
1. Drugs push themselves by acting on receptors in your brain in such a way as to induce craving.
2.Even if drugs were pushed in China, (which they were.) how are you going to stop pushing of a legal product? Drugs and pushing are inseparable.
The very notion of "free choices" becomes blurry where drugs are involved. Drugs act directly on the decision making portion of the brain, and at some point you can no longer distinguish free will from chemically induced desire.
The only people who can truly make a "free choice" regarding drugs are those who have tried them and had the will power (or lack of effect) to give them up. A huge swath of the populace simply cannot do this.
Sometimes we have to just laugh and walk away. Your debate partner has made your point. Why try to gild the lily?
I have quite made it clear over years that any kind of ban aimed at the inanimate will serve only as a pitiful, dirty band-aid.
Even the bible says so.
No, not even a drug pushes itself; attitudes about their use push them, or in contradistinction keep them to sane purposes such as medicinal.
Don't worry, he isn't using facts. He's using made up bullshit, misleading arguments, false history, suspicious data, propaganda sources, and a bunch of emotional appeals.
Sounds a lot like your actions in some respects.
He may be - see post #195 and replies.
I don't have any major heartburn with legal alcohol. Were I in a position to do so, I would not ban it, but I would tighten up on the indulgence of drunks killing and injuring people.
Also would probably allow insurance companies to charge higher prices for people who consume large quantities of alcohol. Someone has to pay for that expensive Hospital care when they blow their livers. It OUGHT to be the indulgers paying for themselves.
If "Z" constitutes a substance of sufficient deadliness, (Such as VX Gas, Anthrax, Fissionable material or mind altering drugs) then yes.
Do you think governments should tolerate substances which can end governments and kill millions?
Do you support the current federal pot ban, given that all your arguments posted here against pot also apply to the alcohol you wouldn't ban?
I can't help but notice that only one of those items is self-administered. To people who care about individual rights, that makes a great deal of difference.
And this is "Ad Hominem." For what it's worth, I think you're pretty obtuse as well. You simply want to blame Alcohol for the victims of stoners. You seem to think that because Alcohol is bad, weed gets a pass for doing the same thing.
No worries, your secret's safe with us.
I mostly regard drug advocates as short sighted and simpleminded. Their contortions at rationalization are a thing to behold.
Not sure how you figure this is rationalization. The History of China and drugs is available for anyone who cares to look at it.
Beyond that, we have the more recent experiment in Switzerland. That was an utter failure too.
They are "inanimate objects" when they are sitting on a table. When they get to your brain, they become part of your thinking (or lack thereof) process. They are no longer inanimate, they are now part of your consciousness. The consumer makes them "animate."
It's just like a vial of cholera. It's harmless on a table, but introduce it to your biology and it can become a deadly threat to everyone around you.
Given that widespread opium and Heroin usage mostly began due to the treatment of wounds suffered in the civil war, it is no great leap of faith to conclude that if usage declined, it was likely the result of death. Dying will reduce usage you know.
I would be suspicious of any hard numbers coming from this era because there was little reason for anyone to be keeping records of such things at that time.
China is not America, and there's no evidence that America's addiction rate was ever anything remotely like China's.
Of course it wasn't. In 1842 the Chinese legalized Opium. By 1900, half of Manchuria was addicted. We started pretty much in the 1863 era. By 1906 we started regulating drugs and in 1914 we started banning them. We never let it get as bad as China did because we took steps to stop it before it got that bad. Had we not taken these steps, we would have seen the same addiction rates that China suffered.
Crime use would be up a LOT.
I'm not following you. How do you mean?
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.