Now who would have ever thought that when you legitimize a drug, provide more of it and make it more readily available that you actually get more users instead of less?
This confounds logic!
LOL[/quote]
Yes - a massive increase in supply and a decrease in costs, which would include the “cost” associated with prohibition and deterrence (getting thrown in jail, fines, and social stigma, etc.), but apparently demand will stay fixed and we can expect basically no new consumers of this newly readily available product.
Sure thing. Economic logic controls, except when it hurts stoners’ arguments, and then economic logic doesn’t control. See what I did there?
Now who would have ever thought that when you legitimize a drug, provide more of it and make it more readily available that you actually get more users instead of less?
This confounds logic!
LOL[/quote]
Yes - a massive increase in supply and a decrease in costs, which would include the “cost” associated with prohibition and deterrence (getting thrown in jail, fines, and social stigma, etc.), but apparently demand will stay fixed and we can expect basically no new consumers of this newly readily available product.
Sure thing. Economic logic controls, except when it hurts stoners’ arguments, and then economic logic doesn’t control. See what I did there?[/quote]
Aweome! Do you even read your own cited materials?
Of course, thereâ??s no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy â?? without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect…
Under Portugalâ??s decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a “dissuasion” commission… (that doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me)
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell â?? the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper…
Aweome! Do you even read your own cited materials?
Of course, thereâ??s no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy â?? without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect…
Under Portugalâ??s decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a “dissuasion” commission… (that doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me)
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell â?? the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper…
Aweome! Do you even read your own cited materials?
Of course, thereâ??s no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy â?? without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect…
Under Portugalâ??s decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a “dissuasion” commission… (that doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me)
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell â?? the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper…
Read something other than a headline. [/quote]
I did read it. You apparently did not. Of course there is no way of knowing without a control group. The point of that article was that there was no change for the worse and not any different than the rest of Europe. So decriminalization of all drugs didn’t cause anything to get worse.
This would be a more pro article but it ignores the lack of a control.
Aweome! Do you even read your own cited materials?
Of course, thereÃ?¢??s no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy Ã?¢?? without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect…
Under PortugalÃ?¢??s decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a “dissuasion” commission… (that doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me)
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell Ã?¢?? the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper…
Read something other than a headline. [/quote]
Ouch groo that one had to hurt huh?[/quote]
Not at all. It says what I thought it said you guys just miss the point. The drug use stayed the same as the rest of Europe in that time. It did not get worse and no clear causality can be drawn to the things that got better since there is no control group. Where is the worsening that you guys predicted? Much less money was spent though so economically things were better.
Zeb you ever seen that old loony toons cartoon where the little dog follows around the bulldog and basically never says anything other than you go Spike , what do you want me to do Spike…food for thought.
But the article says precisely the opposite - it’s not clear what caused what.
And, note: there was a spike in usage after decriminalization. Well? Isn’t that a cause for concern? Usage fell after that, but usage clearly first went up. That’s a red flag - what if in the US, that same trend holds (usage spikes after decriminalization) but doesn’t come down because European countries/cultures are far different in terms of consumption patterns?
We always, always, always hear about the big differences in Europe’s consumption patterns and the US’ - i.e., Americans love to overeat, overconsume, and go nuts, and don’t tend to level off or slide backwards. Isn’t there good reason to worry that the Portugal event won’t translate into the same event in America due to these differences - that once the door is open to drug consumption that Americans won’t decrease their consumption, just like they have done with, say, fast food?
The statistics re: usage spikes in US states after decriminalization I posted above lend credibility to this worry.
I don’t have an answer, but neither do you, and neither does this “case study” in Portugal, even setting aside the other issues it has. But any rational analysis of these events has to be wary of the “apples-oranges” problem where we may not get the same outcome, and wary of the higher risk of a bad (really bad) outcome in one place than another due to differences.
Stoners don’t care about such analysis or logic, and they don’t care about such worries. The rest of us do.
Aweome! Do you even read your own cited materials?
Of course, thereÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s no way of knowing which, if any, of these changes were caused by the change in policy Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? without a control group, this kind of research cannot determine cause and and effect…
Under PortugalÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s decriminalization policy, users are not arrested but referred by the police to a “dissuasion” commission… (that doesn’t sound like “freedom” to me)
The changes in teen drug use were complex: throughout Europe, teen drug use rose sharply during the period in which Portugal decriminalized and then fell Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? the same trend was seen in Portugal but the fall was steeper…
Read something other than a headline. [/quote]
Ouch groo that one had to hurt huh?[/quote]
Not at all. It says what I thought it said you guys just miss the point. The drug use stayed the same as the rest of Europe in that time. It did not get worse and no clear causality can be drawn to the things that got better since there is no control group. Where is the worsening that you guys predicted? Much less money was spent though so economically things were better.
Zeb you ever seen that old loony toons cartoon where the little dog follows around the bulldog and basically never says anything other than you go Spike , what do you want me to do Spike…food for thought.
[/quote]
I never saying anything else huh?
I guess you’ve not read my many posts on this topic groo. In fact, while I have not checked, I believe I was the first on this thread to oppose legalization of pot. You need to pay better attention. Use both hands when you try pulling your head out of your ass next time as it was not quite fully out this time around. Now run along and actually read the thread next time.
By the way I still agree with TB your link certainly disproves your original point.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes - a massive increase in supply and a decrease in costs, which would include the “cost” associated with prohibition and deterrence (getting thrown in jail, fines, and social stigma, etc.), but apparently demand will stay fixed and we can expect basically no new consumers of this newly readily available product.[/quote]
FTR…I am undecided about legalization of weed.
I think an increase in consumption is a given (I suppose to what degree is debatable). However; I don’t agree that the decision should be based on consumption rates. If we based all regulation on the ‘pitiful’ willpower of people, there would be few things left unregulated.
The increased rate of auto accidents by people under the influence of pot in a great example. The study indicates a 2X increase in the chance (duh). In the comments section there were links to many studies that listed the increase risk for other things…smoking a cig., eating, reading, texting, talking on the phone, adjusting the radio, applying make-up, etc. all of which were at least a 2X increase, several were much higher than that. Liberty…?
Causation? Correlation? Unclear. But what is clear is that the claim that decriminalization does not lead to higher usage is as hazy as Pittbull’s living room.[/quote]
Cannabis is a gateway drug BECAUSE it’s illegal. Ask your local drug dealer. They’ve all seen it and contributed to it.
It’s not harmless, and it’s subject to abuse just like any other drug, but it should to be pretty well established by now that it’s a lot less harmful than alcohol.
Those lying bastards at RAND are trying to push a new theory of business. It basically says if you decrease price and increase product availability usages goes up. Not to mention the marketing which will drive more people to the product. Ha crazy…
What a wacky theory!
Well, maybe it’s not so crazy with say every other product known to modern man but um…pot is just different…somehow…
Those RAND folks need to spend more time at T Nation where young males want to get high and make up their own theories as to why consumption would go down in order to rationalize the legalization of the drug. As we all know when a product is made more readily available at a cheaper price and is target marketed to the right consumer SALES ALWAYS GO DOWN!
When will those silly people learn these business basics?
No seriously you guys have now reached the point where you are making me laugh.
And…I thank you for it.
Especially you Pittski, but you always make me laugh so that’s nothing new.
Those lying bastards at RAND are trying to push a new theory of business. It basically says if you decrease price and increase product availability usages goes up. Not to mention the marketing which will drive more people to the product. Ha crazy…
What a wacky theory!
Well, maybe it’s not so crazy with say every other product known to modern man but um…pot is just different…somehow…
Those RAND folks need to spend more time at T Nation where young males want to get high and make up their own theories as to why consumption would go down in order to rationalize the legalization of the drug. As we all know when a product is made more readily available at a cheaper price and is target marketed to the right consumer SALES ALWAYS GO DOWN!
When will those silly people learn these business basics?
No seriously you guys have now reached the point where you are making me laugh.
And…I thank you for it.
Especially you Pittski, but you always make me laugh so that’s nothing new.
[/quote]
Talking to you is like talking to a kid that sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps yelling his point of view , I said consumption would go up (IMO) , Price would go down because it is nothing more than a ditch weed. We would save a ton of money a (CONSERVATIVE NOTION) I hope I did not disappoint you and made you laugh.
@Carl I have to disagree with one point . We have people that have smoked pot and I mean a lot of them. Some for 50 , 60 and 70 years . Where are these glaring problems in there life . Most went a life time with no detection. Most have been good mothers and fathers , tax paying citizens , no criminal record, back bone of communities, Stellar members of churches and the list goes on and on but no glaring problems that already are not glaring in our society already
Is that a fact? Where in the article does the CDC say that?[/quote]
Study of the Montana State University, the University of Oregon, and the University of Colorado, Denver based on the CDCs national and state Youth Risky Behavior Surveys (YRBS) for the years 1993 through 2009.
Those lying bastards at RAND are trying to push a new theory of business. It basically says if you decrease price and increase product availability usages goes up. Not to mention the marketing which will drive more people to the product. Ha crazy…
What a wacky theory!
Well, maybe it’s not so crazy with say every other product known to modern man but um…pot is just different…somehow…
Those RAND folks need to spend more time at T Nation where young males want to get high and make up their own theories as to why consumption would go down in order to rationalize the legalization of the drug. As we all know when a product is made more readily available at a cheaper price and is target marketed to the right consumer SALES ALWAYS GO DOWN!
When will those silly people learn these business basics?
No seriously you guys have now reached the point where you are making me laugh.
And…I thank you for it.
Especially you Pittski, but you always make me laugh so that’s nothing new.
[/quote]
Talking to you is like talking to a kid that sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps yelling his point of view , I said consumption would go up (IMO) , Price would go down because it is nothing more than a ditch weed. We would save a ton of money a (CONSERVATIVE NOTION) I hope I did not disappoint you and made you laugh. [/quote]
You want it legal because we would save a ton of money on our efforts to incarcerate the guilty? What about the many more who would be new users? What about the sky rocketing health care costs and traffic fatalities etc.? Do you not care about the money spent on those things?
