Alcohol or Marijunana. Which is worst when overused?

[lovett]

That's not a trend. That's two: decriminalization reducing drug use and decriminalization having no effect. You have no right to mash the two together. But if you wanna do stupid statistical crap, I can't stop you.

The best I can conclude from the above, combined with everything else I already know, is that (gee, I already said this!) decriminalization has different effects in different places.

Actually, no. It's the trend {Usage does not increase}. Your arguing usage will increase. It hasn't elsewhere. You argue this is because differentcountries react differently. Usage not increasing is a phenomena seen in a variety of different countries. You argue, what? American exceptionalism?

On a related note, This is an interesting study which sheds light on how similiar American patterns of drug use are to those elsewhere. It compares Amsterdam With San Fransisco.

Highlights include:

*
The mean age at onset of use was 16.95 years in Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco
*
The mean age at which respondents began using marijuana more than once per month was 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.
*
In both cities, users began their periods of maximum use about 2 years after they began regular use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98 years in San Francisco.
*
About 75 percent in both cities had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all in the year before the interview.
*
Majorities of experienced users in both cities never used marijuana daily or in large amounts even during their periods of peak use, and use declined after those peak periods.

These two cities were chosen because of their similiarity:

San Francisco was selected as the US comparison city not because its representative of the United States but because it is the US city most comparable to Amsterdam. Both cities are large, highly urbanized port cities with diverse populations of slightly more than 700,000. They are financial and entertainment hubs for larger regional conurbations, and they have long been perceived within their home countries as cosmopolitan, politically liberal, and culturally tolerant.

The main difference then, as concerns patterns of drug use, is drug law. It doesn't really seem to be having an affect.



On a side not, let's accept the whole 'America is different' arguement. Would you accept that British statistics can be used in, say, Britain - to guide policy?

 

[OttoManD]

That's an excellent straw man you've constructed out of my argument BasketCase.

To wit:

Pieces of the U.S. itself vary widely, so comparing Vancouver to the entire United States is basically impossible.

But that's not what I argued. I contend that

Vancouver is much more similar to Seattle than it is to Toronto, Montreal or Calgary.

Similarly, Seattle is much more similar to Vancouver than it is to Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami, Minneapolis, Boston, or Washington D.C.

So, I asked

Why should Vancouver's results apply more to cities that are substantially different from it than to the city that is very similar to it

To which you responded:

Pieces of the U.S. itself vary widely, so comparing Vancouver to the entire United States is basically impossible.

So I guess we're agreed. The experiment in Vancouver is much more applicaple to Seattle than it is to any other city in North America.

 

[CaptainF]

Your proofs are bogus, every last one. At least the ones I've read. I probably missed one somewhere.

Why are they bogus? WebMD and others not good enough for you?

All talk, no substance. That's a basketcase.

You do realize I was yanking your crank when I said I was putting people on ignore?? If people were on ignore, how could I quote them.

Ahh, so now you're just trivially immature. In addition to your ignorance and cowardice, this can make quite a triumvirate.

Pick on every pathetic little thing. Anything to avoid coming up with decent arguments, I guess. That's why people play "fling the dictionary".

How interesting, you evoke your own debate tactics in a negative light.

 

[BasketCase]

So, right, you have a host of statistics from all round the world suggesting that decrimilization either does not effect, or reduces marijuania use. The evidence, from Britain to Canada to Holland, all seems to follow this basic trend.

What makes America different?

I'll answer that question, Your Honor.

My answer is, I don't have the first damn clue.

Why does America still use pounds and feet, when almost everybody else has converted to the metric system? Why do we drive on the right side of the road, when our own ancestors drive on the left?? Why do we still have the death penalty, when most of the civilized world has banned it? Why do police officers in the U.S. still carry guns, when other police in many other nations don't?

The U.S. is different from everybody else in a whole lot of ways--so it should be no big surprise that the Drug War (allegedly) works over here but not in the Netherlands or Vancouver or wherever.

I have no idea why the U.S. is the way it is. But the fact that I don't know why the U.S. is the way it is, does not change the fact that the U.S. is the way it is.


Try again. I learned how to beat the "if you're so sure of that, then explain how it works" fallacy three years ago.

 

[BasketCase]

Pages ago, in arguments long gone, I commented that coke and heroin do not kill few people, if you take into account howmany people use them. You cling to (edit: damn you 'Bama! Look what you made me do ) the absolute numbers, but in fact, to judge the danger of a drug, you look at the effect of the drug per user.

I already covered that. Probably before you did.

I said a long time ago that weed, coke, and heroin kill fewer people BECAUSE FEWER PEOPLE USE THEM. Why do fewer people use these three? I say it's BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL.

Yes, coke and heroin are a good deal more dangerous than weed. This doesn't change the fact that very few people die from these three drugs. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE ILLEGAL.

 

[Sidhe]

I'll answer that question, Your Honor.

My answer is, I don't have the first damn clue.

Why does America still use pounds and feet, when almost everybody else has converted to the metric system? Why do we drive on the right side of the road, when our own ancestors drive on the left?? Why do we still have the death penalty, when most of the civilized world has banned it? Why do police officers in the U.S. still carry guns, when other police in many other nations don't?

The U.S. is different from everybody else in a whole lot of ways--so it should be no big surprise that the Drug War (allegedly) works over here but not in the Netherlands or Vancouver or wherever.

I have no idea why the U.S. is the way it is. But the fact that I don't know why the U.S. is the way it is, does not change the fact that the U.S. is the way it is.


Try again. I learned how to beat the "if you're so sure of that, then explain how it works" fallacy three years ago.

It works on coke, crack, crystal meth, angel dust, LSD, heroin: drugs that really cause problems? I don't think MJ has anything to do with the drug war, to be frank, it has more to do with the puritans. Something that is in the nature of your country, and has nothing to do with reality, but there you go. I think you have quite neatly proved that, despite your willingness to prove otherwise: well done.

I think we all learnt about the slippery slope fallacy a long time ago also. But you seem to want to enamour yourself of comparing drugs that are somewhat harmless in comparison, to tobacco and alcohol, drugs that are extremely harmful when over used, and not even in the same league, nor should be in the same category according to scientific research, not close.

 

[BasketCase]

Why are they bogus?

Well, since in that same post you called me ignorant, immature, and a coward all in one sentence. So just about everything you type in here is crap.

If you can't prove a case without resorting to such pathetic tactics, then you have no case.

 

[Sidhe]

Well, since in that same post you called me ignorant, immature, and a coward all in one sentence. So just about everything you type in here is crap.

If you can't prove a case without resorting to such pathetic tactics, then you have no case.

Hey dude, anyone who fights this long for a lost cause is far from being a coward, and anyone who says as much is using logical fallacies. The fact is your case does not stand up to science. And that is enough, case closed.

 

[BasketCase]

Case open.

Marijuana is harmless? Millions of doctors and other medical professionals have already disproved that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to post 4 million links to prove this, but every last one of you knows those links are out there. You refuse to surf for them because you don't want the truth to appear on your monitor. The ostrich in the sand thing.

The Drug War is a waste of money? I already disproved that by presenting the correct statistics demonstrating how to calculate actual dollar losses from drugs, as well as how much we can expect to earn if we legalize. I also pointed out how you all used the wrong numbers in many wrong ways.

Calculating the costs in terms of human lives was a lot simpler (as well as more important) and those figures demonstrate the same thing. Illegal drugs hardly kill anybody in the US.

Legalization (appears to) work in other countries? Covered that in a previous post. The US is different from other countries in many, many ways.

San Francisco is virtually identical to Vancouver? No, it's not. Folks in here pointed out half a dozen (meaningless) ways in which the two cities happen to be very similar. Look hard enough for coincidence and you will find it. How about posting all the ways in which those two cities are different? (Since I don't live in Vancouver, the answer is no--I won't do that because I can't)


My case stands.

(Were there any other major points I forgot?)

 

[Sidhe]

Case open.

Marijuana is harmless? Millions of doctors and other medical professionals have already disproved that. I have neither the time nor the inclination to post 4 million links to prove this, but every last one of you knows those links are out there. You refuse to surf for them because you don't want the truth to appear on your monitor. The ostrich in the sand thing.

The Drug War is a waste of money? I already disproved that by presenting the correct statistics demonstrating how to calculate actual dollar losses from drugs, as well as how much we can expect to earn if we legalize. I also pointed out how you all used the wrong numbers in many wrong ways.

Calculating the costs in terms of human lives was a lot simpler (as well as more important) and those figures demonstrate the same thing. Illegal drugs hardly kill anybody in the US.

Legalization (appears to) work in other countries? Covered that in a previous post. The US is different from other countries in many, many ways.

San Francisco is virtually identical to Vancouver? No, it's not. Folks in here pointed out half a dozen (meaningless) ways in which the two cities happen to be very similar. Look hard enough for coincidence and you will find it. How about posting all the ways in which those two cities are different? (Since I don't live in Vancouver, the answer is no--I won't do that because I can't)


My case stands.

(Were there any other major points I forgot?)

All of them, try posting your medical councils views on MJ, mine, Russias, Khazakhstans? You wont because you know that both alcohol and tobacco are far, far worse, they are not even in the same league. All you keep on doing is saying it's harmful but how harmful? Just refusing to post reality is BS quite frankly. And no one is going to listen to your insipid assertions unless you back them up. Yes: case closed. You refuse to back up your nonsense, no one is listening simple as that...

As I posted earlier direct causes of death MJ: zero, secondary far less than any psychedelic prescribed drug, or alcohol or tobacco as presented earlier? Now you post how it's a nightmare? And why? Show us the money...

 

[BasketCase]

Actually, no. It's the trend {Usage does not increase}.

Wrong. There are always at least three possible results: uage goes up, usage goes down, or usage remains unchanged.

And when the "no change" result comes up, there are always at least four possible reasons why: bad sampling, other factors intervened, or the tested cause and the hoped-for effect actually have no relationship to each other--and the most infuriating one of all: a statistical fluke. Flip a coin ten times, and there is a change you will get heads ten times in a row. Perform the same test many times, and it will happen eventually.


Segue to gun control: in different parts of the US, you can find places that have strict gun control and high shooting rates; strict gun control and low shooting rates; lax gun control and high shooting rates, lax gun control and low shooting rates. It would appear that on a large scale, gun control has no relation to the number of innocent people who get shot per unit time--unfortunately the truth is a good deal more complicated than that.

 

[BasketCase]

All of them, try posting your medical councils views on MJ, mine, Russias, Khazakhstans?

The big picture consists of millions of people and millions of web sites.

You make an impossible demand so that you can point the finger at me when I fail to do the impossible.

You are dishonest and your arguments are worthless.

 

[warpus]

Guys, this is pointless.

BasketCase has obviously won this debate. Let us allow him to bask in his own glory and close the thread.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

The big picture consists of millions of people and millions of web sites.

You make an impossible demand so that you can point the finger at me when I fail to do the impossible.

You are dishonest and your arguments are worthless.

I think you are lazy, and do not want to spend time researching facts that does not equates your views.

 

[BasketCase]

Okay, smartass, put your money where your keyboard is.

How many links must I post, depicting accredited doctors saying "marijuana kills you" in order to convince you (Beaver Cleaver) and cause you to post in this thread "okay, BasketCase, I agree, marijuana kills you"?

How many? Post a number. How many links?

 

[El_Machinae]

I think you are lazy, and do not want to spend time researching facts that does not equates your views.

www.pubmed.com is the best place to go for these types of facts.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

There is a difference of a viewpoint and a fact. Take this as a mental note, my dear fellow.

Once that sink in. then tell me why do you still continue to overlook the facts and side with opinions made by doctors? Can some Doctors make opinions without considering facts supporting their views? Hmm.... It is clear that you do.

 

[BasketCase]

See? Beaver refused to post a number.

If it's impossible for me to ever convince him, then why should I bother trying? Hence: no links for j00.

@El Machinae: since there are a whole lot of sites and people who post conflicting opinions and conflicting facts (with lots of competing explanations as to what the facts are) one web site isn't going to do it. I've spent most of my life reading through gigantic volumes of material on the subject, and God Himself could not compact all of it into five easy lessons.

 

[Beaver Cleaver]

www.pubmed.com is the best place to go for these types of facts.

Why are you providing me the link of the largest medical library database by the Federal government? You should be giving this link to basketcase.

 

[BasketCase]

So that other people besides me can read it. Sheesh.