Your solution for the Mexican drug war? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14763427
This is all just ways of spending money on more police while ignoring the root causes of the violence. In fact, many of these steps exacerbate the violence.


This is your opinion and worthy of discussion. It is not necessarily the truth. Clearly the US could reduce the market for illegal drugs by a combination of decriminalizing THE SALES of cocaine, heroin, etc. Nothing short of that will have much effect at all. That begs two questions. First. Is it in the US's interest to do that? Second. Does the question of Mexico's inability to control lawlessness within its own borders convince the US that it ought to sacrifice a considerable number of its citizens in order to help them?

I believe that we should not legalize the sales of cocaine heroin, etc. I further believe that, using my state's experience with pot as an example, opening retailers of hard drugs will not drive down the price of said drugs, will not make them more available to the average addict, or have any effect on Mexico at all. I believe that what would be required of the US to have any impact on Mexico is a price far to high to pay. There are other alternatives. Maybe military intervention through covert ops to destroy the cartels? Perhaps installing a Mexican government that is willing to actually go after the cartels might work. Or maybe simply cutting off traffic between the US and Mexico with only a few exceptions might help. Declaring a "no-man's land" along the border and engaging anyone who enters it might work wonders.

Draconian? Perhaps. But likely to work pretty well.
#14764120
Drlee wrote:Tell me Thunderhawk. Do you see legalization of hard drugs as a good thing for the US to do? I am speaking solely of US interest and not Mexico.

I have been thinking about this for quite some time and have concluded that there is no practical way to do it. We certainly don't want a cocaine aisle in the grocery store and crack stores on the corner. This leave some kind of physician assisted centers like the medical marijuana places in the states where it is legal. These are mostly a sham but more importantly, they have proved to be fairly expensive. So consider that it costs a couple of hundred dollars to get the prescription and dispensary prices of pot are better than $200.00 an ounce. But if an oz lasts a month for moderate recreational use that is not too bad for the average person.

You have a problem with alcohol and cigarettes being sold in the supermarket, grocery store? You have a problem with alcohol and cigarettes being advertised (heavily) on the streets, tv, etc?
Objectively speaking there is little to no difference between alcohol and drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Alcohol is just as dangerous (even more so actually) than either of them. Alcohol is just as addictive, alcohol kills many more people and leads to accidents and violence as well. This is not an argument of saying "heroine is good, why prohibit it". No, it is quite clear heroine/cocaine/marijuana/mushrooms/you name it are bad. The real issue is that prohibition does not work. Prohibition did not work for alcohol either! This comes down to choosing the lesser of 2 evils essentially. Both choices will include a bunch of drug-addicts... the difference is 1 choice the money goes to criminals killing people, enslaving children and women and terrorizing citizens and in choice 2 the money goes to legitimate business, tax to government and eventually to education/rehabilitation/medical support. Neither of the two choices include a drug-free society as evidenced by the fact that drugs are illegal TODAY and we have a big drug problem, hence prohibition does not work.

It makes no sense to me to legalize heroin (for example) unless it is accessible affordably. The addict today is paying quite a bit but not enough for legal sources to count on. Certainly an out of work addict has enough trouble as it is without paying inflated prices in a dispensary. So we are too the doctors office. Of course their are doctors who might prescribe maintenance doses of heroin. Not very many, and not for free. Doctors (should) look for a way to wean the patient off of addicting drugs so that would have to be part of the mix.

Actually doctors should (and probably will) stay out of this. Doctors do not prescribe alcohol do they? Why should they prescribe a different recreational drug? (unless you somehow want to justify this in the same shady way as some people are disguising the "medical marijuana" thing, which i my opinion is a big sham.) But no, doctors should not prescribe this. They might (and should) advice their patients to cut down/quit in the same way they advice patients to do the same with smoking and alcohol. Doctors should also be supportive of those trying to quit and offer them whichever available treatments are appropriate.

So what you have is a giant, government funded program to give hard drugs to people who can't afford them in the first place. People who are largely prevented from working by their addiction. People who should have rehab available but can't afford that either. So without solutions to those problems we would be gaining nothing except the dubious claim that street crime might go down in some places.

Sadly this mirrors exactly what is happening with alcohol. About 80% of the profits of the alcohol industry is provided by the top 20% of alcohol consumers (mostly alcoholics or heavy drinkers). The alcohol industry would be really really tiny if only "moderate" drinkers existed. This of course have its ethical and practical implications, but regardless, the alternative is not a word without alcohol or without drugs (if that was a possibility I could actually potentially be persuaded in favor of total prohibition) but rather a world with the same amount of alcohol/drugs but that the money goes to criminals (among other things, tainted "product" that kills more people, HIV/Hepatitis infected needles/etc)....

Also please consider. We already have the proven rehab methods and legal drugs doctors can prescribe to help people get off illegal drugs. We don't need legalization to fix our addiction problem. We need money. And under a conservative government that is just not going to happen.

We need more than just money. We need education, we need improved standard of living. People with "shitty" lives (child abuse, low income family, bad neighborhoods, poor education, etc) are at higher risk to be substance abusers, they are also the hardest to rehabilitate.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As you note, this would not be good for Mexico. The violence in Mexcio would continue, and more innocent Mexicans will did because of US cocaine customers and US laws.

How many pages did you waste trying to argue the opposite just to flip flop the second someone other than myself said the same thing I said long ago. Good job! :lol:
Drlee wrote:I think that is probably right. That is Thunderhawk's point as well.

2 for 2. Yay! :lol: :lol:

Drlee wrote:I am glad though to add you to the people who support the border wall that President Trump advocates. This would help a great deal in hindering the cartels and by your estimation thereby lowering the criminal violence rate in Mexico. You will also be happy that President Trump intends to instantly deport any immigrant who commits a crime. This will help remove the cartel's people in the US and thereby lower the rate of violence in Mexico. At least by your estimation it will.

Hard to tell if you seriously believe that lot of bullshit or if you are being sarcastic. Certainly I hope you are being sarcastic as a wall will not do shit. There are tunnels, airplanes, submarines, boats, bribery of border officers, smuggling inside shipping containers, etc perhaps even damaging of the wall/fence to get through. The wall can't do shit about any of that, furthermore they will always come up with solutions as they have done so far. A wall could have worked back in the 1100s and 1200's to keep away the aborigines!
Drlee wrote:Perhaps installing a Mexican government that is willing to actually go after the cartels might work.

Are you advocating for an invasion of Mexico or a us-sponsored coup d'etat? As if that has worked for us before :roll: ...
#14764162
You
have a problem with alcohol and cigarettes being sold in the supermarket, grocery store? You have a problem with alcohol and cigarettes being advertised (heavily) on the streets, tv, etc?


Yes. But they are a fact of life. But here comes another 'two wrongs argument'.



Objectively speaking there is little to no difference between alcohol and drugs such as heroine and cocaine.


Oh please. Of course there is. There is a huge difference.

Alcohol is just as dangerous (even more so actually) than either of them.


Nonsense.

Alcohol is just as addictive,


No it is not. (You just lost the doctor coat again.)

alcohol kills many more people and leads to accidents and violence as well.


Meaningless in this context.

This is not an argument of saying "heroine is good, why prohibit it". No, it is quite clear heroine/cocaine/marijuana/mushrooms/you name it are bad.


Correct. So why legalize them with all of the promotion of them that would follow?
#14764164
Drlee wrote:This is your opinion and worthy of discussion. It is not necessarily the truth. Clearly the US could reduce the market for illegal drugs by a combination of decriminalizing THE SALES of cocaine, heroin, etc. Nothing short of that will have much effect at all. That begs two questions. First. Is it in the US's interest to do that? Second. Does the question of Mexico's inability to control lawlessness within its own borders convince the US that it ought to sacrifice a considerable number of its citizens in order to help them?


Please note that this emtire situation exists because the US is unable to control the illegal distribution, selling, and use of cocaine.

And it is definitely in Mexico's interest if the US could resolve this. Because Mexico is currently sacrificing a considerable number of its citizens in order to help the US ineffectively control this lawlessness.

I believe that we should not legalize the sales of cocaine heroin, etc. I further believe that, using my state's experience with pot as an example, opening retailers of hard drugs will not drive down the price of said drugs, will not make them more available to the average addict, or have any effect on Mexico at all. I believe that what would be required of the US to have any impact on Mexico is a price far to high to pay. There are other alternatives. Maybe military intervention through covert ops to destroy the cartels? Perhaps installing a Mexican government that is willing to actually go after the cartels might work. Or maybe simply cutting off traffic between the US and Mexico with only a few exceptions might help. Declaring a "no-man's land" along the border and engaging anyone who enters it might work wonders.

Draconian? Perhaps. But likely to work pretty well.


Most of these things have been tried. They have not worked. Mind you, since the casualties suffered from this policy are almost all south of the Rio Grande, I understand why the US does not actually care about changing policy to something more useful.
#14764167
Drlee wrote:Yes. But they are a fact of life. But here comes another 'two wrongs argument'.

Why are they a fact of life? What kind of sleezy and lazy argument is that. We have experience with alcohol prohibition, DID NOT WORK either, just like drugs today.
Oh please. Of course there is. There is a huge difference.

You seem to believe you are an expert. Tell me what is the difference.
Nonsense.

I will be waiting....
No it is not. (You just lost the doctor coat again.)

Yes it is. Depending on whose rank system (this is subjective so there is variation) alcohol is in similar grounds in terms of addiction as cocaine and heroine (nicotine is also up there just FYI). Most people (again there is a subjective component here) would give a slight edge to heroin in terms of addiction potential with alcohol just slightly behind. Both alcohol and heroin are far more addictive than cocaine or nicotine which in turn are more addictive than marijuana.
Meaningless in this context.

Care to explain why you think deaths are meaningless?
Correct. So why legalize them with all of the promotion of them that would follow?

I already explained. Prohibition does not work. Prohibition simply perpetuates the status quo in which the bad guys get the money and the bad guys keep killing, kidnapping, extorting, etc. With the alternative we will probably have the same number of addicts and users (perhaps even slightly higher) but we will have more resources for rehabilitation, control/regulate supply (e.g. make sure the drugs addicts are taking do not also contain rat poison or some other crap), better rehabilitation potential, potentially identifying addicts sooner (as family/friends notice that the addict is buying drugs, something that might go unnoticed if he/she is doing it illegally), controlling HIV, etc. This solution is not meant to fix the problem, it is meant to make it more manageable. The prohibition solution does not fix the problem either and it is making it less manageable!
#14764723
Drlee wrote:Tell me Thunderhawk. Do you see legalization of hard drugs as a good thing for the US to do? I am speaking solely of US interest and not Mexico.
Spoiler: show
I have been thinking about this for quite some time and have concluded that there is no practical way to do it. We certainly don't want a cocaine aisle in the grocery store and crack stores on the corner. This leave some kind of physician assisted centers like the medical marijuana places in the states where it is legal. These are mostly a sham but more importantly, they have proved to be fairly expensive. So consider that it costs a couple of hundred dollars to get the prescription and dispensary prices of pot are better than $200.00 an ounce. But if an oz lasts a month for moderate recreational use that is not too bad for the average person.

It makes no sense to me to legalize heroin (for example) unless it is accessible affordably. The addict today is paying quite a bit but not enough for legal sources to count on. Certainly an out of work addict has enough trouble as it is without paying inflated prices in a dispensary. So we are too the doctors office. Of course their are doctors who might prescribe maintenance doses of heroin. Not very many, and not for free. Doctors (should) look for a way to wean the patient off of addicting drugs so that would have to be part of the mix.

So what you have is a giant, government funded program to give hard drugs to people who can't afford them in the first place. People who are largely prevented from working by their addiction. People who should have rehab available but can't afford that either. So without solutions to those problems we would be gaining nothing except the dubious claim that street crime might go down in some places.

Also please consider. We already have the proven rehab methods and legal drugs doctors can prescribe to help people get off illegal drugs. We don't need legalization to fix our addiction problem. We need money. And under a conservative government that is just not going to happen.


I will qualify some of my thoughts:
1) I see cigarettes, booze, marijuana and recreational/mood drugs in general as part of the same thing: chemical alteration of your mood/mind. 'Harder' drugs being those with a strong (often instant) addictive property and potential for great harm (damage, death) makes them a different animal.
2) I do not believe any big government policy or solution will work. Your post about the shops and my own experience in the construction industry leads me to believe big government is ill suited to deal with minutiae.
3) usage. I know potheads, those who take E and those that use much harder. Ive also heard about that rat experiment with normal and drugged water, and rat park and the comparisons to Vietnam Vets - massive drug usage that stopped once they were back home living a 'normal' life. Seems to me that humans act a lot like rats and other animals. Some drug usage is about comfort/escapism in a shitty situation and I think minimizing harm is the ideal since life will always have hard moments.


What would be better for America? (or Canada? or other countries with a usage problem?)
Low harm, individual liberty, low cost.

I don't believe drug use can be removed as its a known, available and wanted technology. Declaring war on drugs is like declaring war on technology. You can get some isolated victories, but the Luddites always lose. I also view altering out mental states as something normal and largely down to the individual. Why run a mile to feel euphoria or hunt a bear for a rush, when one can get the same from drugs? What if we don't have the opportunity or ability to? Old alternatives of tobacco and booze are still there, but there is better (and worse).

So, how to get those 3 objectives..

I think no usage of hard drugs is ideal, but practically speaking there will probably always be some level. Having it at as low a level as possible would mean few lives/families lost and destroyed. Keep the pressure on the hard drugs as their harm (and potential harm should they be legal or easily accessible) is massive and outside the average person's ability to know and deal with. So, little change on that front. The illegal drug business, be it hard/soft usage or just transport and support, ends up involves the criminal justice and law enforcement system in one way or another, and that means a high cost. Yet what is the harm to people or society of non-addictive non-harmful drugs? Even those with low level addiction and harm, such as cigarettes, are low enough that most people can quit with some help. I have issue with the harm, but its mild enough and well known that I will leave that to personal responsibility.


When I look at drug usage, to me it fall into three categories: Recreational, Addiction, and Escapism.
- Recreational usage should be left to the person with basic regulations (such as age and FDA, etc.. basically, soft drugs are ok).
- Addiction should be attacked. 'Strongly addictive' drugs I dump into the hard drug category - continue illegal status. Research (not just ivory tower: talk to the users and those on the ground) to get the metrics to measure what is addictive and how to remove it. Non addictive non-harmful variants of 'hard drugs' are no longer hard, and should be allowed.
- Escapism: If it isn't one drug it will be another. If you make everything illegal, what is the disadvantage to buying the hard drug vs the soft drug? I think large scale alcohol abuse and pot usage is preferable to widespread meth usage. I also think escapism is fine, we routinely do so with pain killers and fantasy. Surely a population blitzed out with little harm is better than blitzed out with great harm or seething with discontent and unable to make changes.

All of which require only light social and government involvement for soft drugs, like most things in life. What is the consumption of illegal booze and illegal cigarettes compared to legal ones? Probably small, and a comparable situation could arise with soft drugs. The existing channels would be competition, but I suspect the market for legal cheap-ish good quality drugs would dominate compared to illegal cheap dubious drugs. The only practical problem I see is figuring out harm and addiction metrics.. and the politics of convincing people that there should be a change in mindset, policy and getting politicians to not sabotage it. I dont see a practical problem really -there would be hurdles but nothing insurmountable- except the ease to which this issue can be exploited for political gain.
#14765099
Thunderhawk wrote:'Harder' drugs being those with a strong (often instant) addictive property and potential for great harm (damage, death) makes them a different animal.

There is a degree of subjectivity to ranking drugs based on addictive potential but most lists put nicotine (tobacco) and alcohol certainly above marijuana, LSD, metanphetamine, ectasy and to even some forms of cocaine. There are also problems with co-founding variables, being legal, tobacco and alcohol are enjoyed on moderation by people with high degree of social functioning which might help mitigate some of its addictive potential when compared to the effect of the illegal drugs that are more common among disenfranchised people and poor social support which might potential the addictive potential. Even with that problem, alcohol and nicotine is certainly comparable to even the "hard drugs". The only drug that is consistently considered more addictive is heroine but only by a slight margin, all others often switch places depending of which method is being used to evaluate them.
In terms of danger well the evidence that alcohol (and perhaps even tobacco) are bigger problems than most other drugs have been mounting for years. I will only post one link but if you really want to read more in the topic you will find far more information with some googling.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addi ... r-heroin#1
In my own experience, I have never seen a patient in an ICU for heroic related drug problem. I saw 1 patient in the ICU for an infarction that we thought could be related to cocaine use but I have seen over 100 patients hospitalized, in my cases for 3d+ and in a few cases for multiple weeks because of alcohol withdrawals. I even saw a couple of patients spend nearly 1 month in the hospital between ICU, medical floor and rehabilitation (after 1 week lying in the ICU your muscles turn into smooch.)
So these 2 classifications to distinguish between drugs are very fuzzy and even perhaps worthless.
#14765292
There is a degree of subjectivity to ranking drugs based on addictive potential but most lists put nicotine (tobacco) and alcohol certainly above marijuana, LSD, metanphetamine, ectasy and to even some forms of cocaine.


This is just nonsense. Stopped reading here. :roll:
#14766203
Ugh. my previous post was a meandering mess written after a night of no sleep. I hope it was still understandable.

XogGyux wrote:So these 2 classifications to distinguish between drugs are very fuzzy and even perhaps worthless.

Sure.
Can you think of a better metric for my concerns?
#14766446
Thunderhawk wrote:Ugh. my previous post was a meandering mess written after a night of no sleep. I hope it was still understandable.


Sure.
Can you think of a better metric for my concerns?

You are assuming that a classification might be useful or helpful somehow. It might, who knows but this is an assumption that might not necessarily be true.
Also, the lack of an alternative, better classification does not make the current one any more legitimate. Like I said, the evidence points towards little difference between "hard drugs" and some drugs we have legalized (in this case alcohol and to a lesser degree tobacco). If you accept this evidence then a classification based on danger/addictive potential becomes useless. You can reject this evidence (as Drlee does) but that is willingly blinding yourself because you don't want to see the truth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16146458 Alcohol-related
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8879288 ICU admissions are among the most common and they are very expensive.
Now this evidence can be interpreted in 2 ways. Either we should prohibit/restrict alcohol just the same way we do with "hard drugs" or there is no real point restricting "hard drugs" because apparently we are OK with other substances that can be just as bad to the individual and society. If someone presented a reasonable plan with a reasonable chance of success for the prohibition of both alcohol and "hard drugs" that does not include opressing/abusing the people I might actually favor such plans (perhaps, depending on specifics) as I consider both similar in damage to society. But in the absence of such mythical plan. Without such a "mythical" plan and with the experience we have from the past and present (prohibition era did not work, drugs are rampant on street today even though they are illegal) prohibition of "hard" drugs seem futile ultimately.
As I have pointed out before my position is not one of "if we legalize them, they will go away on their own" but rather one of "we prohibit them now and it is causing harm to people yet the drugs are still ubiquitous, legalization could help us have the resources and access to victims that could help us deal with this problem more efficiently, the problem will still exist we will just be better at dealing with it".
Last edited by XogGyux on 23 Jan 2017 02:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14766527
If you accept this evidence then a classification based on danger/addictive potential becomes useless. You can reject this evidence (as Drlee does) but that is willingly blinding yourself because you don't want to see the truth.


You posted bullshit and you know it. You claimed that alcohol and nicotine were more addictive than Cocaine. This is bullshit. Neither of your citations support this claim. One is about emergency room admissions (a legal substance....well no shit Sherlock) and the other a broken link.

Then just to show completely lunatic thinking you posted this:

If you accept this evidence then a classification based on danger/addictive potential becomes useless.



Ahhh. What? :roll:

You can reject this evidence (as Drlee does) but that is willingly blinding yourself because you don't want to see the truth.


You need to take a class on logic. First you posted no "evidence". Then. Your argument is that because alcohol is dangerous there is no point in controlling other dangerous drugs. What a stupid position to take. Following your line of "reasoning" we ought to sell heroin at 7-11. I am getting sick of this absolutely nonsensical line of "reasoning". You need to bring your A game Skippy.
#14766533
There is a degree of subjectivity to ranking drugs based on addictive potential but most lists put nicotine (tobacco) and alcohol certainly above marijuana, LSD, metanphetamine, ectasy and to even some forms of cocaine.


What bogus lists are these, LSD is not an addictive drug. If you take LSD every day it soon has no affect. LSD is, weight for weight, the strongest drug and exceedingly dangerous but it is not addictive.
#14766567
anarchist23 wrote:What bogus lists are these, LSD is not an addictive drug. If you take LSD every day it soon has no affect. LSD is, weight for weight, the strongest drug and exceedingly dangerous but it is not addictive.

Read the statement again. If LSD is not addictive (I never said it was, just FYI) then in any list it will probably be at the very bottom wouldn't it? This is exactly what I said. I could have also said sugar and tea, they would go to the bottom of such list as well while heroine, cocaine, nicotine and alcohol would be on the to. Again, this still is very subjective. So what exactly is your problem?

Drlee wrote:You posted bullshit and you know it. You claimed that alcohol and nicotine were more addictive than Cocaine.

I said they were similar and depending on which expert/scientist you ask their places switch from method to method (that is method to evaluate addictive potential).
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addicti ... JL0nn.dpbs
"Of the people who sample a particular substance, what portion will become physiologically or psychologically dependent on the drug for some period of time? Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next, followed by marijuana and possibly caffeine. Some hallucinogens—notably LSD, mescaline and psilocybin—have little or no potential for creating dependence."

Do you see how they bunch cocaine, phenobarbital, nicotine, alcohol together? Hint: they are similar. This particular list puts methamphetamine higher than cocaine/alcohol/nicotine. Other lists put them together or lower. Again, there is a degree of subjectivity. Heroin is the only one that is consistently slightly higher. All of this off course is still biased as "illegal drugs" are used disproportionately by "low life", disenfranchised people or young people (low impulse control) which can exaggerate the "addictive" potential and make these drugs seem more addictive than what they are. There has been experiments using rats (Rat Park) that show that the environment plays a very important role in addiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park.
- See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addicti ... JL0nn.dpuf[/quote]
http://www.americanscientist.org/librar ... 35_307.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/
This different source puts heroin slightly ahead of crack and nicotine (which share the same score according to them) and alcohol lagging a bit lower down the list.
http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/t ... ubstances/
Now the point here is not which one comes higher or lower. We see that they keep switching places (except for heroin which as I said before is the only one that we consider slightly above all others, key word slightly as most lists rank the very next "contender" really close almost invariably). The points really are: 1. - They are close (as evidenced by the fact they switch places) and 2.- The methods used to evaluate "addictive potential" are subjective (otherwise they would all agree on a single order).
I am sure I can find you another half dozen different lists with slightly different orders and slightly different scale ratings. I won't, if you want more do some work rather that just posting 1 liner "attempts to offend".
Our MOE results confirm previous drug rankings based on other approaches. Specifically, the results confirm that the risk of cannabis may have been overestimated in the past. At least for the endpoint of mortality, the MOE for THC/cannabis in both individual and population-based assessments would be above safety thresholds (e.g. 100 for data based on animal experiments). In contrast, the risk of alcohol may have been commonly underestimated.

According to the typical interpretation of MOEs derived from animal experiments, for individual exposure the four substances alcohol, nicotine, cocaine and heroin fall into the “high risk” category with MOE < 10, the rest of the compounds except THC fall into the “risk” category with MOE < 100. On a population scale, only alcohol would fall into the “high risk” category, and cigarette smoking would fall into the “risk” category. A difference between individual and whole population MOE was confirmed by the lack of correlation between average values (linear fit: R = 0.25, p = 0.53). This result is different to the previous expert-based surveys, for which the ranking performed at the population and individual level generally led to the same ranking (R = 0.98)3. Nevertheless, we judge our results as more plausible. For an individual heavy consumer of either heroin or alcohol, the risk of dying from a heroin overdose or from alcoholic cirrhosis increased considerably in each case. However for the society as a whole, the several ten-thousands of alcohol-related deaths considerably outnumber drug overdose deaths. Hence, it is plausible that the MOE for alcohol can be lower than the one for heroin, purely because of the high exposure to alcohol in the European society (see also Rehm et al.59).

In other words. For the individual all four alcohol, nicotine, cocaine and heroine are "high risk". In other words they are similar. While from a population standpoint only alcohol is "high risk" (presumably because it is legal).
Furthermore the authors go to state:
Currently, the MOE results point to risk management prioritization towards alcohol and tobacco rather than illicit drugs. The high MOE values of cannabis, which are in a low-risk range, suggest a strict legal regulatory approach rather than the current prohibition approach.

In other words, they think worrying about alcohol/tobacco is more important than worrying about the other drugs.
This is bullshit.

I understand that is what you think, that is why i also said:
Xoggyux wrote:You can reject this evidence (as Drlee does) but that is willingly blinding yourself because you don't want to see the truth.

One is about emergency room admissions (a legal substance....well no shit Sherlock) and the other a broken link.

Sherlock, that is the whole point, we deem alcohol legal when the reality is that is just as much crap (perhaps even more so than many other) as the rest of the drugs in discussion, Sherlock.
The other link is not broken, there was no space between the link and "ICU" so was not working but if you copy/pasted it would work. Don't worry i fixed it for you. No that it matters as you will ignore anyhow :lol: :knife: .

You need to take a class on logic. First you posted no "evidence". Then. Your argument is that because alcohol is dangerous there is no point in controlling other dangerous drugs.

No, perhaps you need a class in reading comprehension. My argument is that prohibition does not work as evidenced by 1.- Alcohol prohibition era, 2.- the fact that drugs are rampant today even though they are illegal. Cappicci? As I said before this is futile. Furthermore our society is OK with substances that are just as problematic if not more so (alcohol being the main one but tobacco not far behind) so the reason for prohibition is not "because they are bad" (as if that was the real reason alcohol and tobacco would also be prohibited, not that it would matter anyhow since as I said before prohibition does not work.)
What a stupid position to take.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Following your line of "reasoning" we ought to sell heroin at 7-11.

We sell tobacco and alcohol. So either yes or prohibit tobacco and alcohol (although like I said prohibition does not work or at the very least we have not found a reasonable way to make it work so legalization and regulation seems more reasonable to me. If you can come up with a good system to prohibit all drugs including tobacco and alcohol I am all ears).
I am getting sick of this absolutely nonsensical line of "reasoning". You need to bring your A game Skippy.

I bet you are. You should control your emotions a little bit more if you really want to have a civil conversation. But by all means, continue with your current pattern of behavior, when the truth is unacceptable to you, ignore the facts, complain/insult people and instead of having a reasonable debate just leave the conversation for just long enough to return later with new baseless accusations and insults. :lol:
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]