Prohibition 2012-- and other rantings.

[DorostheConqueror]

That would be mighty leet indeed.



But hey, who needs Segways and overpriced French garbage-food when you've got... ummmm... abortion clinics? San Francisco: city of tomorrow, today!

[Wolf]

Spoiler:

I'm having to go through these posts and point out how you're all making assumptions from things that I've said (and things I didn't say), and how they're wrong.

Spoiler:

Witchery, I read over that graph again, and... What? Where on earth are you getting that people with more education vote republican? That graph states how many of the random sample are republican or democrat, and if you actually look at it, you'll notice the differences are miniscule until college graduation, and even then the difference is less than 10%. Furthermore, the totals don't ever equal 100%. This means that there's an unaccounted-for pool of third parties that the rest of the registered voters are going to. Your graph actually does not at all substantiate your claim that More education = Vote to the right.

This is actually pretty ironic because one of the things that causes stupid arguments like prohibition-era rhetoric is contrived claims with no substantiating evidence.

P.S.-- I never actually said "Conservative = dumb". What I did say, in fact, is that people in Oklahoma are dumb and that Bible-hashed dogma contributes to a lot of it. So.. Yeah. Another poorly contrived argument.

link

Here’re some 1990 Gallup poll numbers relating education to political affiliation:

Rep = Republican
Dem = Democrat
Ind = Independent/Unaffiliated

Grade school education:
23.4% Rep, 54.6% Dem, 22.5% Ind

Some High School:
22.8% Rep, 51.3% Dem, 26.0% Ind

High School Grad:
29.4% Rep, 40.5% Dem, 30.2% Ind

Some College and/or Tech:
36.0% Rep, 35.0% Dem, 29.3% Ind

College Grad:
42.0% Rep, 30.7% Dem, 27.7% Ind

Spoiler:

You could argue that conservatives also tend to be more wealthy than liberals, and therefore can send their kids to school. But you'd probably be wrong, because the Southern states are stereotypically poor and vote Republican, while the cities that have the surplus of Democrats have many poor people as well. (There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules," of course.) College professors tend to be more liberal, though Republicans tend to be more educated. It's not that I'm saying they're smarter, just that they went to school. You called these "Bible-thumpers" "ill-educated, illogical, morally self-righteous expletives." Not true. At least on the first point.

Now, back to my main point. It's not nice to insult others.

Once again, Witchery, this does not actually support your claim that more educated people are conservative. This lack of evidence becomes substantially obvious when you actually read the goddamn article. His concluding line is, "Therefore, the assertion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is an overly simplistic notion with little basis in the actual data." I'm going to simplify what he is saying so that you can see what it is you're apparently missing: He is saying only that liberal people are not smarter that conservative people. He is not saying that conservative people are smarter than liberal people. Frankly, his evidence is a little bone dry since correlation != causation. I mean, this is the freaking One Rule of statistics that you do not break, and this guy broke it.

Anywho, on to address a few more lines: You said that because of your claim that conservatives are smarter than liberals, that means the people of Oklahoma are not ill-educated because they are conservative: again, you broke the One Rule. Correlation != Causation. I will say this again: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. I happen to personally know that Oklahoma is one of the least-educated states in the country. We ranked in the bottom 10 for standardized test scores, and our rate of high school dropouts is tremendous.

Lastly, I'll address "It's not nice to insult others." Yes. I agree with that. But as I was saying before and will say again, this is a thread designed to rant. I was using emotional language. I have a right to that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving to San Fran because you're upset about moderate liquor licensing laws makes as much sense as moving to Iran in search of religious freedom. But hey, don't let me stop you.

Doros, watch who you're provoking. I never said that I was going to move to San Francisco. That was a suggestion from another member. Please try not to get mixed up next time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change,
The courage to change the things you can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

The secret, is that you can only change yourself... You cannot change others.

You can spend your life moving all around the world, and you are going to find people that you do not get along with, or like. They are everywhere and there is no getting away from them. You can spend your life getting upset about the things that you cannot change, and do not matter... or you can be happy with who you are, and enjoy life. Because really... It only matters if you allow it to matter.

I understand this, Jeff, and it's very good advice. However, I will definitely be moving to an area where there is less concentration of people like this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to things like gay marriage, there is also a cost to society. For one, people tend to get tax breaks for it, which affects the state and federal budget. More subtly, very conservative people like Witchery are going to feel a certain level of disgust at the degradation of society. For me personally, that second cost is exactly zero, or maybe it's a negative cost in that I become happier seeing people in a stable, loving relationship, but considering how the people of California have voted on this issue, I will assume this social aspect is a real burden on people. I don't think that these costs even remotely outweigh the cost to gay couples who are not allowed to have the same rights as straight couples, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a tradeoff.

Actually, in the countries (and in some states) that have allowed it, there's been a sizable boost in tourism and great revenue from marriage licenses.

And California was a botched vote. Most of the money for the Pro-Prop 8 campaign was funded by people (churches) from Utah. One state telling another state what to do. Isn't that nice?

I'm ignoring the rest of your post because you know I agree with you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Baker Nine, we had 1337 in progress downtown."

"Baker Nine here, repeat?"

"Baker Nine, we have sightings of someone riding a Segway carrying cooked goose-liver. In a plastic bag."

"That dirtbag's goin' down..."

In case anyone missed this bit of gold.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But hey, who needs Segways and overpriced French garbage-food when you've got... ummmm... abortion clinics? San Francisco: city of tomorrow, today!

Please be so kind as to go make your own thread about how much you hate San Francisco instead of using my thread to troll your little ass off.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'm going to ask that you read what I actually write and respond only to it when addressing me. Do not make assumptions because it's rude, misleading, and so far they've been horribly wrong.

xoxo

[DorostheConqueror]

Doros, watch who you're provoking. I never said that I was going to move to San Francisco. That was a suggestion from another member. Please try not to get mixed up next time.

Um, you DO know I wasn't directing that comment towards you, right? I was replying to that "other member". You're not the only person in this thread.

Please be so kind to go make your own thread about how much you hate San Francisco instead of using my thread to troll your little ass off.

Who said I hate San Francisco? I love San Francisco. It just happens to be run by some of the most horrible people on the face of the planet.

Question: do you think that San Francisco is better than your hometown? Is the ability buy liquor at certain convenience stores (ones that have a liquor permit) worth all the other restrictions? If not, why make a deal about it? Also, I'm still not quite sure how "you can buy booze in bars and liquor stores in Oklahoma" translates to "prohibition 2012". Last I checked, Prohibition was a bit more... prohibitive.

-EDIT-
You know, you've got me wondering something here, Wolf mah boy. Why exactly is this a big deal for you? I mean, who told you about Oklahoma's liquor laws, and got you stirred up?

I'm asking because I'm wondering if there's some kind of national lobbyist push going on. There's been all kinds of hullabaloo about alcohol laws here in CT, specifically, re: CT's "No sale on Sundays" blue laws. There's been tons of commercials and astroturf nagging- hell, they've even got "call your local representative" ads pumping through the intercoms at grocery stores now. I'm wondering if there's a similar effort being made in OK, and if this is why you've gotten your bee in a bonnet over an issue that, on the surface, seems trivial to the rest of us.

[Wolf]

RE Line 1: Considering you were talking about moving from Oklahoma to San Francisco, I found it hard to think that you were talking to anyone but me... but as you say it.

RE Line 2: I don't know much about San Fran's politics, so I can't debate you there. Not sure I would if I could, from what you're saying.

RE Question: I don't know about San Fran so I can't say. I'm probably going to say no about the restrictions, but San Fran is not my only choice, sir. Again, I know I'll encounter these kinds of people in all shapes and sizes, but I plan to move to an area where there's less of them.

And the reason why I titled the thread "Prohibition 2012" is because I was ranting about the prohibitionist arguments they were using to stop progress on the initiative. I have no personal investment in that law aside from bringing in places like Costco to compete with the Sams Clubs we already have. My rant was only about the arguments they were using, and how daft they must be to think that it's a valid argument in a highly different context from its original use-- and also how the validity of the argument was absolutely dissolved nearly 100 years ago in its more relevant context. My issue isn't the policy that they're making-- I have little investment in that; it's about how little these people seem to understand about logic and critical thinking.

[DorostheConqueror]

Alcohol "causing violence" wasn't the most important prohibitionist argument, though. You're probably thinking of the argument that alcohol caused domestic violence, which it did (or rather, it exacerbated a problem caused by Victorian marital norms and gender politics). Don't forget, the biggest supporters of "Prohibition" were feminists, and their crusade against the Devil Drink was less about "Christian fundamentalists" (whom you seem to believe is the root cause of all your problems) than it was about "woman's lib" and "getting drunk husbands to stop beating their wives". Horrible goals, I know.

Besides, who says that preventing violence is a bad argument? Even if modern opponents of expanded liquor licensing (remember: NOT prohibition. Nobody's advocating prohibition here) were using arguments similar to those used by early feminists, so what? The biggest problem with Prohibition was the impossibility of enforcing it. People wanted booze, and they were going to get it one or another, nanny state be damned. That's why Prohibition failed. Not because arguments about social order and preventing violence were flawed. And, under current laws, that's no longer a problem. People can still get booze, perfectly legally, perfectly easily. Sure, they might have to go to a liquor store rather than a 7-11, but so what? You can't buy flamethrowers, X-Boxes, and Japanese sex dolls at 7-11s, either, doesn't mean it's the end of the world. So what does that leave us with? The perfectly reasonable arguments about violence, which hold as true today as they did a century ago (unless Oklahoma has developed some kind of "drunk suppression" pill that renders it's citizens totally immune to the angrying effects of a dozen shots of Jack).

You chide "these people" about not understanding logic or critical thinking. Well, here's the thing: right now, you're making a classic mistake: you're "poisoning the well". You're claiming that one group of people, whom you don't like, is using an argument made by another group of people, whom you also don't like. We all know what scoundrels "the Prohibitionists" were, right? So these other scoundrels must be just as bad. Worse, you're throwing all of your dice behind a terrible analogy (your state's liquor laws != Prohibition laws) and you're displaying a remarkably unsophisticated understanding of the arguments surrounding Prohibition, and what was and was not "learned" from the experience. Not to be a jerk, but maybe there's a reason why the people arguing these laws are the ones actually arguing these laws, and you're just a random angry dude on the internet?


You also haven't addressed my initial point yet. In case you missed it, it's that Prohibition has always been a Progressive cause, and once they're done with smoking and fast food, they'll turn right back to booze. It's historically inevitable, and, since you seem to generally support progressive causes, why aren't you trying to be ahead of the curve?

Alcohol is the most Red State drug there is. Why NOT ban it, if you hate your fellow Oklahomans so much?

[Wolf]

I'm going to address the quickest one first: I actually did respond to your first statement in an edit.

Now I'm going to reprimand you once again for assuming two things about me that are not true: I don't think Christian Fundamentalists are the cause of all of my problems. I just disagree with them vehemently and get tired of having to deal with them on a daily basis-- especially when it comes to policy. I also don't lean towards progressivism. I'm entirely unsure of where you got that from.

Now, then. For your arguments: You seem to be under the impression that I think alcohol does not cause violence. What the goddamn hell? Yet another instance of where you pull something from my words that wasn't there. I do not at all think that. What I think is that the notion that attempting to ban alcohol will cause less violence is absolute [&@%!], because it's true. As it was proven, attempting to ban alcohol only results in crime-- Fun fact: if the U.S. government had not banned alcohol, organized crime would not have organized so quickly and readily. Now then, for a more modern take on this: We already have alcohol. Their argument is that keeping it out of convenience stores will keep alcohol-related violence down. This is also absolute [&@%!]. Do you understand now why I'm of the impression that these people don't have a grasp on logic and critical thinking?

As for poisoning the well... no. I can see how you interpreted it that way, and that was my mistake. However, I did not automatically assume that because they were Christian fundies, and because prohibitions were "bad people" (what?), that their arguments were automatically wrong.

Now, then. If you're done with the ad hominem about how I'm just an angry guy on a computer, and the straw man about how I think alcohol is the best thing ever, can we please continue this rationally and without assumptions?

[Wolf]

Unfortunately, it's exactly the way the system is designed that disallows for such a thing. Legislation is oriented around popular vote, and adjudication is based on how it applies to the constitution, and whether or not it violates clauses therein.

[Deandra]

Now, then. For your arguments: You seem to be under the impression that I think alcohol does not cause violence. What the goddamn hell? Yet another instance of where you pull something from my words that wasn't there. I do not at all think that. What I think is that the notion that attempting to ban alcohol will cause less violence is absolute [&@%!], because it's true. As it was proven, attempting to ban alcohol only results in crime-- Fun fact: if the U.S. government had not banned alcohol, organized crime would not have organized so quickly and readily. Now then, for a more modern take on this: We already have alcohol. Their argument is that keeping it out of convenience stores will keep alcohol-related violence down. This is also absolute [&@%!]. Do you understand now why I'm of the impression that these people don't have a grasp on logic and critical thinking?

I can't figure out if you're saying that restricting the sale of liquor to liquor stores will create a black market for liquor that will strengthen organized crime, or if you're saying that it's completely unthinkable/illogical that people will consume less alcohol if they need to go out of their way to acquire it from a liquor store instead of the local convenience store.

If it's the former, I would refer back to Doros's point about why that's not the case. If it's the latter, I would want to see some kind of support beyond insults of the people making the claim that people would indeed consume less alcohol.

[Wolf]

Okay, first off, I want to differentiate the insults of the people from the actual argument. I've said this many times over-- that was a rant. I'm not using my impression of their daftness as an argument against their reasoning.

Secondly, it's neither. I'm saying that selling alcohol in yet more places than it already is (liquor stores are everywhere, here) will not affect alcohol-related violence. If someone's going to be violent on alcohol, they already have the alcohol. It doesn't matter whether they got it from Costco or Brandy's Wines and Spirits next door.

[Wolf]

Scozzar... That's a valiant attempt at providing reasons against alcohol, but it's a complete miss of my original point.

Again, I do not care about that law. I cannot stress enough. What I care about is the way in which one side of the issue is arguing: "If we put alcohol in two stores instead of one, alcohol-related violence will increase."

That right there is my entire reason for making this thread. Yes, I ranted a bit about the general reasoning behind policy in Oklahoma, but my entire focus was on the fact that for this issue, policy-makers are not being intelligent. I whole-heartedly admit that my intent was blurred in passion, but I'm stating it now. Anyone who continues to debate on the foundation that those two different aspects are one will receive no response from me. I'm quite tired of people reading into my posts and contriving patterns that simply aren't there.

As for Prop 8: Again, those "few people whining" are exactly what the courts are for. And if you took a look at the original case, a [&@%!]-ton of people actually filed suit-- a sort of representation of the LGBT community-- but only two couples were allowed to state their case.

[Deandra]

Secondly, it's neither. I'm saying that selling alcohol in yet more places than it already is (liquor stores are everywhere, here) will not affect alcohol-related violence. If someone's going to be violent on alcohol, they already have the alcohol. It doesn't matter whether they got it from Costco or Brandy's Wines and Spirits next door.

Ok, well I think this is not a conclusion that is totally obvious to me. In Washington state they recently changed a similar law, and the projections showed that they expected twice as much alcohol to be sold once it was available in supermarkets and convenience stores compared to when it was sold only in liquor stores. I think a lot of purchases, alcohol included, are done on impulse, and having it for sale when you're actually looking to buy something else makes it more likely that you'll buy it on a whim. Then, once you've got it, you're probably going to consume it. And I think it is also a logical step to think that doubling the alcohol consumption of a community will increase things like violence and drunk driving.

Again, you might be totally correct, and there might be no change in alcohol consumption whatsoever regardless of the law, but so far you've given no evidence to support your assumption.

[Wolf]

Secondly, it's neither. I'm saying that selling alcohol in yet more places than it already is (liquor stores are everywhere, here) will not affect alcohol-related violence. If someone's going to be violent on alcohol, they already have the alcohol. It doesn't matter whether they got it from Costco or Brandy's Wines and Spirits next door.

Ok, well I think this is not a conclusion that is totally obvious to me. In Washington state they recently changed a similar law, and the projections showed that they expected twice as much alcohol to be sold once it was available in supermarkets and convenience stores compared to when it was sold only in liquor stores. I think a lot of purchases, alcohol included, are done on impulse, and having it for sale when you're actually looking to buy something else makes it more likely that you'll buy it on a whim. Then, once you've got it, you're probably going to consume it. And I think it is also a logical step to think that doubling the alcohol consumption of a community will increase things like violence and drunk driving.

Again, you might be totally correct, and there might be no change in alcohol consumption whatsoever regardless of the law, but so far you've given no evidence to support your assumption.

That's an extremely valid point. It's a little bit different in Oklahoma, though (as I see it), because the liquor stores are right next to everything. It's easier to grab from a shelf, but the culture here is to drop in next door.

Beyond that, I can't give evidence to conjecture beyond logical thinking. There's no statistics from which to draw.

[Archea47]

RE education leading to conservatism ... the first few chapters of Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity make a pretty good case with empirical data that it's the privileged and educated classes that are most drawn to cult religions, which I here am extending to liberalism. This is complicated though by the issue of social networks (which Stark identifies); that is - people tend to conform to the views of those they have close relationships with, and can benefit from being close to. I believe from my own experiences that education gives way to liberalism, but education for the lucky can yield financially rewarding careers that place them into influential networks of staunch conservatives.

RE prohibition and lobbyists ... I've participated in a couple campaigns against foreign (out-of-state) professional lobbyists pushing prohibition. It's really infuriating. I suppose it's different living in an area that supports what you see as oppressive, in contrast to a majority opposed to it but drowned out by $$$. Either way, hold your head high Wolf. You have something you're passionate about, and rightly so IMO. Educate up, really know your history, study evangelical psychology, attend some [] fundamentalist functions ... be sympathetic with your enemies so that you can reach them in a receptive state. Discounting the opposition leaves yourself open to underestimating them; your best chance is converting them. Find that place where their argument opposes their foundation ...

[Jeff]

I understand this, Jeff, and it's very good advice. However, I will definitely be moving to an area where there is less concentration of people like this.

I knew you understood this, but sometimes it is good to be reminded.

It was also just as much for others, as it was you. A rant is just a simple thing, where you either reply with condolences, agreement, or a bit of advice. It is not an opportunity to jump on your high horse, and promote ones hate mongoring... or trolling... especialy if one does not understand what the rant is actually about.

I do have to wonder though, as you plan on moving to get away from these types of people, yet you spend time on the internets, where you will encounter even more of them?

At the end of the day, it just really doesn't matter, and everthing will be okay.

[DorostheConqueror]

Okay, first off, I want to differentiate the insults of the people from the actual argument. I've said this many times over-- that was a rant. I'm not using my impression of their daftness as an argument against their reasoning.

Then what is your argument against their reasoning? Take out the insults, and what do we have left...?

I'm saying that selling alcohol in yet more places than it already is (liquor stores are everywhere, here) will not affect alcohol-related violence.

Do you have data to back this up? More access to booze means more drinking. More drinking means more violence. Until you can produce some studies that show otherwise, we have to go with the intuitive model.

If someone's going to be violent on alcohol, they already have the alcohol. It doesn't matter whether they got it from Costco or Brandy's Wines and Spirits next door.

Now you're sounding like an NRA spokesman. Worse, you now seem to be admitting that the current setup really isn't that big a deal- if all you have to do is walk across the street to find liquor, where's the problem? Hardly seems like Prohibition to me.

[Oathbreaker]

Every city I've been to has had plenty of liquor stores dotted around the map, at least as many as there are grocery stores (in the town I'm in right now there's -more- liquor stores than grocery stores, although liquor is also available in pretty much any convenience store and gas station here anyway).

I can tell you right now, living up north in a city with no laws making it illegal to sell liquor outside of a store specifically purposed to sell it, there's no dramatic difference in amount of consumption or incidents resulting from it. This is because of one very key thing: bars. If a person isn't drinking in a social venue that serves alcohol then chances are they aren't drinking in an environment that's likely to enable some kind of... statistical anomaly of some sort or what have you. The rare case of domestic violence isn't going to become any more common because it's already extremely easy to buy alcohol no matter what state laws are. The only thing adding them to grocery store shelves is going to do is save people time going out of their way to the liquor store (assuming it's out of the way at all... scratch it's not at all out of the way, just a lot of people take it personally that they have to get out of their car more than once I guess).

The only law involving alcohol that I've seen going under any realistically significant change is South Carolina is/was getting rid of the law that liquor cannot be sold on Sundays within state borders. That will have a much greater (although still statistically insignificant) impact on consumption than changing exactly how many establishments stock it.



Political crap: ahahahahaha, wow guys, really?

[Wolf]

I understand this, Jeff, and it's very good advice. However, I will definitely be moving to an area where there is less concentration of people like this.

I knew you understood this, but sometimes it is good to be reminded.

It was also just as much for others, as it was you. A rant is just a simple thing, where you either reply with condolences, agreement, or a bit of advice. It is not an opportunity to jump on your high horse, and promote ones hate mongoring... or trolling... especialy if one does not understand what the rant is actually about.

I do have to wonder though, as you plan on moving to get away from these types of people, yet you spend time on the internets, where you will encounter even more of them?

At the end of the day, it just really doesn't matter, and everthing will be okay.

Yeah, I've calmed down quite a bit and distanced myself. I think I was overreacting to some other things I've seen passed by social conservatives that angered/frankly scared me. I apologize for the rant and the insults, and I recognize that they might have possibly had a legitimate reason for such an argument. Although, to be quite honest, the specific argument they were using is still something I can't quite see working out. If someone's a habitual alcohol abuser/violent person, they're going to go to the liquor store anyway.

Okay, first off, I want to differentiate the insults of the people from the actual argument. I've said this many times over-- that was a rant. I'm not using my impression of their daftness as an argument against their reasoning.

Then what is your argument against their reasoning? Take out the insults, and what do we have left...?

A poorly-explained, but still valid point.

Do you have data to back this up? More access to booze means more drinking. More drinking means more violence. Until you can produce some studies that show otherwise, we have to go with the intuitive model.

The problem with the so-called "intuitive" model is that the access doesn't change. Once again, there are a few liquor stores in every moderately-sized town in Oklahoma. Alcohol is a part of the culture here. Keeping it out of convenience stores will not limit access in the same way introducing it won't widen access.

If someone's going to be violent on alcohol, they already have the alcohol. It doesn't matter whether they got it from Costco or Brandy's Wines and Spirits next door.

Now you're sounding like an NRA spokesman. Worse, you now seem to be admitting that the current setup really isn't that big a deal- if all you have to do is walk across the street to find liquor, where's the problem? Hardly seems like Prohibition to me.

Please do go on about how alcohol can do more discreet damage than firearms, Doros. I love your analogies. I have no interest in the current setup or the possible future one beyond economic means. I only pointed out a flimsy argument made by the front-people trying to stop it. By the way, I've done a bit more reading, and it turns out it's the coalition of liquor stores that are trying to keep the bill from passing.

I'm trying very hard not to use incendiary language, Doros, but you seem incapable of getting past the apparently poorly-placed primer of "Prohibition 2012". My point was not that they are trying to facilitate prohibition, but that they were using out-dated, out-of-context arguments. For my sanity, I won't be responding to you again if you keep incorporating this transparent straw-man in your posts.

Spoiler:

Every city I've been to has had plenty of liquor stores dotted around the map, at least as many as there are grocery stores (in the town I'm in right now there's -more- liquor stores than grocery stores, although liquor is also available in pretty much any convenience store and gas station here anyway).

I can tell you right now, living up north in a city with no laws making it illegal to sell liquor outside of a store specifically purposed to sell it, there's no dramatic difference in amount of consumption or incidents resulting from it. This is because of one very key thing: bars. If a person isn't drinking in a social venue that serves alcohol then chances are they aren't drinking in an environment that's likely to enable some kind of... statistical anomaly of some sort or what have you. The rare case of domestic violence isn't going to become any more common because it's already extremely easy to buy alcohol no matter what state laws are. The only thing adding them to grocery store shelves is going to do is save people time going out of their way to the liquor store (assuming it's out of the way at all... scratch it's not at all out of the way, just a lot of people take it personally that they have to get out of their car more than once I guess).

The only law involving alcohol that I've seen going under any realistically significant change is South Carolina is/was getting rid of the law that liquor cannot be sold on Sundays within state borders. That will have a much greater (although still statistically insignificant) impact on consumption than changing exactly how many establishments stock it.

Thank you for framing my argument in a more thorough way (and with viable accounts).

[Sloady]

Come to Europe Wolf. Nobody ever stops drinking where I live.

[Wolf]

Sloady, please be aware that I don't actually care about alcohol. Once again, I'm only fairly interested in this initiative for economic reasons. I've said this, maybe, five times in the thread.

[ClottedCream]

Come to Europe Wolf. Nobody ever stops drinking where I live.

That's because you live in Ireland.:p

[Sloady]

Heh, Wolf, I'm definitely inclined to agree with you. Prohibition doesn't stop drinking (or drugs, for that matter). It just creates criminals, and a black market, and increases knock on crime, such as theft, to fuel addiction.

[Oathbreaker]

Prohibition doesn't stop... drug [use], for that matter. It just... increases knock on crime... to fuel addiction.

Disclaimer: I am speaking only in reference to the US**
For what it's worth, prohibition very much is effective at preventing the use of many drugs. There will never be a way to 100% wipe out the use of something short of somehow making it impossible to produce, but Prohibition is keeping a solid landslide majority of the public protected from things like cocaine and heroine. Part of that is because unlike alcohol and smoking, just about every drug you can list hasn't been ingrained into the world-wide culture as a social/recreational norm (a number of them actually render such activity impossible), and part of it is because most drugs that are illegal in the US (which might be legal elsewhere) are understood to cause varying degrees of measurable damage to the human body ranging from flashbacks to large-scale tissue damage to outright permanent brain damage.

Drugs on the whole will always cause crime to fuel addiction regardless of whether they're legal or regulated or not (it even happens over alcohol and cigarettes). The one sort-of-exception I personally know of to this is marijuana, and what a coincidence that it's the only one with actual significant steps being taken to try and legalize/regulate it. That's because it's the only drug illegal in the US (at least that I'm aware of, I'm certainly not any better informed on it than any other random person you could point to) that cannot stimulate an actual chemical addiction in the human body. Therefor, depending on what it would cost when regulated for public consumption, it's the only one that would make any beneficial difference in the statistics when legalized. Granted, crime over it would still exist (again, happens over alcohol and cigarettes), it would be drastically reduced.

Something that causes an actual addiction, especially something like heroine that causes an extremely strong addiction, would cause much more harm than good if legalized because there would be even less incentive not to fuel the addiction, not to mention the effects on the individual and the risk involved with certain methods of use **(and in the case of heroine, there's already a real-world example of the degree of damage it can cause to the public. Something's wrong when Government is keeping the public "healthy" by passing out free needles to mitigate the spreading of disease)**. Cigarettes can be made exempt from that logic because they can be made without addictive agents. Just about every other addictive drug is addictive in its basest form, and removing the addictive agent would entirely change what it is and the effects it would have on the user.


** except that part

[Sloady]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html

I don't really need to comment besides those two link, because portugal does it for me. All drugs are legal, drug abuse is at record lows, and knock on drug crime is down by a significant amount too.

[Oathbreaker]

What I'm reading there is "well we already have some of the highest numbers of use on record, what could we lose?" and then after a couple years of free reign people finally realized "oh, this stuff is actually bad like we learned in school, time to quit."

Thanks for that. I suppose if legislators stop being stubborn the same thing could work here, as given the numbers we're already at the point of "what could we lose" for cocaine use. I'm guessing the only reasons things haven't started happening on that front is 1) a fear that it won't work for any given reason or 2) they're too busy being corrupt, maybe both.

Most of the reason I'm so against drugs is the lifetime exposure to the harsh legal stance against it paired with an intellectual bias. But hey, if the best way to get people to stop using is to let them get so bad that they seek help of their own will, why not.

[Sloady]

People don't like being addicted to drugs like cocaine and heroin - these people are not so stupid to not notice it's ruining their lives. That it's a drain on their life, their finances, and their family. If you want to ignore what actually happens when you decriminalize drugs, by all means do, but I'm going to stick with the facts - that drug users are not criminals, they are victims. That they turn to crime not because it's fun, but because they need it to afford their next fix, or because need it to afford other living expenses because they spent so much money on crime. Meanwhile, real criminals use the underground drugs market to fund their other criminal enterprises, and make an absolute fortune - while the government spends billions trying in vain to stop what is the business opportunity of a lifetime.