The Wall

[MadMojoMonkey]

[...]

Troll.

[BananaStand]

Troll.

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So when all your data, and studies, and drug-dangerousness-rankings get called out as inconclusive because they don't differentiate between a habit that's hard to break, and a dangerous addiction, you resort to name-calling

That's a very convincing argument.

I haven't presented any data or any studies or rankings, so whatever you called out has nothing to do with me.

You haven't effectively offered any substantive information which has answered any of my questions about the actual comparative harm of imprisonment vs. any alternative. Your position is an un-nuanced "illegal drugs are bad and people who use them are bad." This is a disengagement from my line of questioning, and I don't feel I'm learning anything from you on this topic.

I'm not insulting your character or questioning your lineage, nor metaphorically comparing you to any body parts. I'm not discrediting you or your choice to troll this thread and forum. I'm merely citing that I've had enough of playing what it now perfectly clear to me is some game whose rules I don't understand.

I am saying that you renounce that any data could change your position. You attribute ideas and positions to me which I do not espouse. You ask questions which are non-sequitur requests for me to guess what people I've never met will do as though that can possibly be relevant. In short, you side-tracked a million times, and not once helped me to understand my questions.

So calling a troll a troll is not name-calling. It's disengaging from a fruitless conversation with more explanation than you deserve.

***
Oh. I came back to admit that you're right about the average cost to keep an inmate being less than median household income (~54k). It's not.
I went to post the links and saw that I confused the New York state cost per inmate (~$60k) with the national average (~35k).

'Cause when I'm wrong, and the data shows it, I admit it, and I change my position.
If you are unwilling to do the same, then you're a troll in this thread and on this forum.

And no, I'm not asking you to leave.

[BananaStand]

I haven't presented any data or any studies or rankings, so whatever you called out has nothing to do with me.

I didn't know this was a private conversation between us. I thought this was a group discussion and a large portion of that group is waving stats in my face to prove totally nonsensical garbage like 'cigarettes are worse than meth'. If you're butt hurt about being caught in the crossfire, you have my deepest, most sincere, apologies.

You haven't effectively offered any substantive information which has answered any of my questions about the actual comparative harm of imprisonment vs. any alternative.

Yes I have. Not the least of which was to illustrate that if you released every imprisoned drug offender right now, it wouldn't do very much to curb the United State's world-leading incarceration rate. Again, I didn't realize you and I were having a private conversation. I assumed you read the back and forth I had with Jack explaining this very thing.

If your problem is 'too much imprisonment' in America, there are ways to possibly reduce that by addressing certain policies. For example, 'Truth in Sentencing' laws passed in 1994 (long after drugs were declared illegal), has a lot to do with the the world-leading incarceration rate. The illegality of drugs....not so much.

Your position is an un-nuanced "illegal drugs are bad and people who use them are bad." This is a disengagement from my line of questioning, and I don't feel I'm learning anything from you on this topic.

If you're not learning, it's because you're not listening.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your 'line of questioning' goes like this: What if drugs were legal, but heavily controlled through the use of doctor's prescriptions?

Do I have that right?

It doesn't take a very nuanced position to refute that line of thinking. I believe I've done so, quite eloquently, but if you need a recap, here it is:
1) I think it's safe to say that the medical community already has a massive majority consensus on the dangers of illicit drugs. However, I have already committed to reserve judgement on this until you come back with the results of a survey where you ask 100 M.D.'s whether they would prefer their patients drink a glass of wine every day, or take a bump of cocaine every day. Let me know what you find out.

2) I don't believe there is any widespread affliction plaguing mankind that could be solved by prescribing crack. Again, if I'm wrong on this, please tell me exactly what disease can be treated ONLY by an illicit drug, and how many people the CDC claims suffer from this affliction in the United States.

3) Assuming that I'm correct on #1 and #2, the idea that a doctor would ever write a prescription for these drugs is an insane fantasy. What is the point of legalizing drugs, if you've provided no realistic legal method to access them? You haven't done anything to curb the black-market sales of these drugs, which is ruled by violent cartels and street gangs.

4) I'm further convinced that your suggestion is completely untenable by the reality that we live in today regarding prescription pain-killers. These are only accessible for legitimate medical needs and their distribution is controlled by a medical doctor. They exist under the exact set of conditions you propose for illegal drugs. Yet they are still abused. That abuse leads to addictions that leads to further destructive behavior, such as seeking out a better high from heroin. Adding more dangerous substances to that equation, can't possibly make things better.

I am saying that you renounce that any data could change your position.

False. I am open minded and neutral. I espouse a position when data and convincing logic lead me there. But I thought you and I were having a private conversation where you cited no data. I don't want your feelings hurt again, so plug your ears while I explain to the group, yet again, why I renounce the 'data'.

The numbers are cooked. All the data cited in this thread illustrating the dangers of alcohol/nicotine vs other illicit drugs relies on a ridiculous, subjective, vague definition of "addiction". Psychologists have basically listed what they think the symptoms of addiction are, and it's a pretty long list that includes various withdrawal symptoms, development of a tolerance, or simply making bad decisions that you might believe are related to drug use. You only need a few things from the list to qualify for an "addiction". No two 'addictions' present with the same set of symptoms. It's just a nebulous affliction that can be molded like play-dough into whatever form best suits your purpose.

So there is no differentiation between a substance that is 'addictive' and one that is merely 'habit-forming'. I believe that seriously taints the numbers. I believe that smoking and drinking, in the extreme majority of cases, are merely habits that have minimal impact on people's lives.

I believe the idea that 'cigarettes are harder to quit than heroin' is a myth. The accessibility of cigarettes (you can buy em anywhere) and the social prevalence of them increases temptation. So it might *seem* like it's harder to quit, but physically, it's not. Quitting heroin is a totally different animal.

I don't see how it's troll-y to set aside data if you can explain, as I just have, why you think it's invalid.

If I asked you to describe a duck, and you listed all the characteristics of a duck that you could think of. It might be a long list, but if any animal met three criteria from the list, it would be classified as a "duck". What if I then painted a dog's fur white, it's feet orange, and taught it to quack? I could present that animal as a duck because it meets multiple criteria on your list of duck characteristics. It still doesn't have webbed feet, it still doesn't lay eggs, it definitely doesn't have duck DNA. It still barks, lifts it's leg to pee, and chases the mailman, but because of the pliability of the definition....this animal is a duck

That's all that's being done in this thread when people try to use these statistics to illustrate how illegal drugs really aren't that bad compared to booze or cigarettes. All you're doing is showing me a painted dog, and telling me it's a duck.

You attribute ideas and positions to me which I do not espouse.

Jesus man, whine some more, see if it helps.

You ask questions which are non-sequitur requests for me to guess what people I've never met will do as though that can possibly be relevant.

Your whole position revolves around doctors prescribing heroin. Is it non-sequitur to then follow up with questions about why you think the medical community might possibly entertain that idea?