[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Marijuana is illegal! This woman still smoked it. So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of it. So much for "the law is a deterrent".

The law is a deterrent for most people Ralphie. Libertarians like you won't acknowledge that, but it's true. It's also true that once something is legalized, because of it's availibility and it's general acceptance throughout society, consumption will increase.

We've had this discussion many times before regarding abortion. One only look at a chart to see the gradual increase of abortions since Roe v Wade.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Look at the increase in pornography use since it was basically decriminalized. The same goes with homosexuality.

The law either says "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not", and the vast majority of people listen to and abide by the law (as long as it's a just law).

Speaking of abortion, I have to go over to another thread and expose a supposed proponent of the pro life movement for the fraud that he is; someone like you that is basically a drug pusher (sorry Ralphie, but someone that wants recreational drugs legalized is a drug pusher).

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

You didn't read the thread:

I'll mention drunk dad, the Fort Wayne father who drove drunk with his kids strapped to the hood of his car.

If only alcohol were illegal, then drunk dads wouldn't drive with their children on the hood of their car.

Right?

He did that because he was abusive, not because he forgot they were there. He even strapped them in. The woman high on pot forgot the kid was there.

The alcohol was not a contributing factor, except in possibly exacerbating the abusive mentality. The pot contributed to the absent-mindedness of the mother.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

A drunk person isn't going to forget their kid on top of the car. They are also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all.

Demonstrably false.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

The law is a deterrent for most people Ralphie.

Why are more kids smoking pot than cigarettes?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Libertarians like you won't acknowledge that, but it's true. It's also true that once something is legalized, because of it's availibility and it's general acceptance throughout society, consumption will increase.

Assertion. Here's some evidence to the contrary.

in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana. The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...#ixzz1xOc9EnVQ

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

We've had this discussion many times before regarding abortion.

Try to stay on topic. Don't go all alaCarte on me.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

The law either says "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not", and the vast majority of people listen to and abide by the law (as long as it's a just law).

Way to sneak in the qualifier. How alacarte of you. What are the unjust laws you'll be breaking today?

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Speaking of abortion

We weren't.

More on Portugal and how they handle drug abuse:

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...#ixzz1xOcvgnKl

Treatment FTW.

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The law is a deterrent for most people Ralphie.

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Why are more kids smoking pot than cigarettes?

As I will show in the upcoming TOL epic "Why homosexuailty MUST be recriminalized", the law is not a "fix all" for society's illnesses.

We've turned into a society where many people have the Libertarian mentality of "It's MY body and I can damn well do with it as I please!"

With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Libertarians like you won't acknowledge that, but it's true. It's also true that once something is legalized, because of it's availibility and it's general acceptance throughout society, consumption will increase.

Assertion. Here's some evidence to the contrary.

in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled...

Ah yes, yet another Dopertarian that turns to secular humanist Europe as proof that decriminalizing something only improves society.

And now for the facts:

"Portugal is a nation plagued by many of the drug problems that persist in Europe. Unlike many of its neighbors who have witnessed a reduction or stabilization in the opiate addict population, Portugal's addict population and the problems that go along with addiction continue to increase. In an effort to reduce the number of addicts in the prison system, the Portuguese government has an enacted some radical policies in the last few years with the eventual decriminalization of all illicit drugs in July of 2001...

While drug use, possession, and acquisition are still illicit activities in Portugal, these acts have been decriminalized. Acts that could once bring a prison sentence of three months to a year will now result in the confiscation of the illicit substance and a referral, not to a trial, but to a three-person commission to evaluate the offender. Under this new law, non-addicts may receive monetary fines or other penalties, while addicts will only receive non-monetary penalties."
http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/portugal.html

"This country’s move to decriminalize illicit substances-Europe’s most liberal drug legislation-turns 10 years old this month amid new scrutiny and plaudits.
Portugal’s decriminalization regime has caught the eye of regulators in Europe and beyond since it was implemented in 2001. Proponents credit the program for stanching one of Europe’s worst drug epidemics. Critics associate it with higher crime and murder rates...

At the same time, Portugal’s drug-mortality rate, among Europe’s lowest, has risen...

Violent crime, too, has risen since the law’s passage. According to a 2009 report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, Portugal’s drug-use and murder rates rose in the years after decriminalization. The general rise in drug use was in keeping with European trends, but the U.N. noted with some alarm that cocaine use doubled and cocaine seizures jumped sevenfold from 2001 to 2006.
Murders rose 40% in the period."
http://www.encod.org/info/PORTUGAL-S...-DRAW-NEW.html

Any Libertarian worth his weight in dope will tell you:

"There will be victims along the way to true liberty."

Right Ralphie?

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

As I will show in the upcoming TOL epic "Why homosexuailty MUST be recriminalized", the law is not a "fix all" for society's illnesses.

Epic? You sound like my ten-year-old. Get on with it already.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

More conjecture / baseless assertion. You're the champ.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Ah yes, yet another Dopertarian that turns to secular humanist Europe as proof that decriminalizing something only improves society.

And now for the facts:

Here are the facts on Portugal:

The issue of decriminalizing illicit drugs is hotly debated, but is rarely subject to evidence-based analysis. This paper examines the case of Portugal, a nation that decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs on 1 July 2001. Drawing upon independent evaluations and interviews conducted with 13 key stakeholders in 2007 and 2009, it critically analyses the criminal justice and health impacts against trends from neighbouring Spain and Italy. It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use. Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding. The article discusses these developments in the context of drug law debates and criminological discussions on late modern governance. http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/6/999.abstract

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results

Street drug–related deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca. "Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination." Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization."

Etc etc

From your own links:

Before decriminalization, Portugal was home to an estimated 100,000 problem heroin users, or 1% of the country’s population, says Joao Goulao, director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction. By 2008, chronic users for all substances had dropped to about 55,000, he says. The rate of HIV and hepatitis infection among drug users-common health issues associated with needle-sharing-has also fallen since the law’s 2001 rollout. The report tentatively links that with drug trafficking, but points out overall murder rates in Portugal remain low. Pedro do Carmo, deputy national director of Portugal’s judiciary police, says he doesn’t see link the rise in violent crime with decriminalization. Instead, he praises the program for reducing the fear and stigma attached with drug use.

Thanks for the ammo. More evidence of Portugal's decriminalization resulting in resounding success.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

As I will show in the upcoming TOL epic "Why homosexuailty MUST be recriminalized", the law is not a "fix all" for society's illnesses.

Epic "fail" more like...

You've been banging on about this supposedly "tumultuous occasion" for ages so get on and post the thing before we all die of boredom...

What am I saying? That's more likely to happen from reading it....

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Then demonstrate it.

Done. You said

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

A drunk person isn't going to forget their kid on top of the car. They are also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all.

I showed a drunk dad who strapped his kids on the hood of a car for a fun ride to the liquor store!

Need more?

A 2004 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver. The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) detailed in 2003 how motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children between the ages of two and 14. With that said, the NHTSA found in 2004 that 21 percent of the children who were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2003 were involved in drunk driving accidents. Approximately, 47 percent (209) of those kids were passengers in vehicles in which the driver was DUI. source

That pot is worse than alcohol is not a good argument. DUI is DUI.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Done. You said

I showed a drunk dad who strapped his kids on the hood of a car for a fun ride to the liquor store!

At that point you provided a single anecdote, thus not demonstrating my posit to be false, as I did not say it never happens.

Need more?

This is much better, as it shows a large percentage of it happening. However, you have not shown that it is more likely to happen than those high on pot doing it. Where are the stats to compare?

That pot is worse than alcohol is not a good argument. DUI is DUI.

Not the argument. Not with me anyway.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

This is much better, as it shows a large percentage of it happening. However, you have not shown that it is more likely to happen than those high on pot doing it. Where are the stats to compare?

Again, I am not comparing pot to alcohol. Your claim only had to do with alcohol. When you claim that a drunk person is "also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all" and I offer statistics showing that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver, it shows that drunks are likely to drive with their children in the car. Otherwise, more kids would be killed by drunk drivers from vehicles they are not a passenger of.

Last word is yours.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Again, I am not comparing pot to alcohol. Your claim only had to do with alcohol. When you claim that a drunk person is "also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all" and I offer statistics showing that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver, it shows that drunks are likely to drive with their children in the car. Otherwise, more kids would be killed by drunk drivers from vehicles they are not a passenger of.

Last word is yours.

I now realize I mistakenly thought I had said, "...not as likely..."

We are still stuck with the forgetting the children are even there.

[Letsargue]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

Again, I am not comparing pot to alcohol. Your claim only had to do with alcohol. When you claim that a drunk person is "also not likely to drive under the influence with their children in tow, at all" and I offer statistics showing that 2,335 children were killed in drunk driving accidents between 1997 and 2002. Of those children who were killed, 68 percent of them were in a vehicle driven by an impaired driver, it shows that drunks are likely to drive with their children in the car. Otherwise, more kids would be killed by drunk drivers from vehicles they are not a passenger of.

Last word is yours.

What is BEING DRUNK??? - Influenced by WHAT??? -- Is a lost person under the influence of a toxic, mind altering substance? -- If Faith is the Substance of Good things, then Lies are the Substance of bad influences!!! --- NOOOO! --- Not to the Lost, we're smart!!

Paul -- 061112

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

More conjecture / baseless assertion. You're the champ.

I forgot, Libertarians are clueless when it comes to the world around them.

"The Director of National Drug Policy today criticized Hollywood for glorifying drug use in television shows, movies and music marketed to young people, and he urged executives of the entertainment industry to change things.

"We all know the dangers of some of these messages, and I believe that we can all agree that some changes need to be made," said Lee P. Brown, President Clinton's drug adviser.

Mr. Brown made his comments to about 150 Hollywood executives at a symposium sponsored by the Screen Actors Guild, the National Association of Television Programming Executives and other groups."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/20/us...ing-drugs.html

That's a 17 year old article from the New York Times Ralphie. It's only gotten worse.

Even ABC News admits it:

"Rap music is glamorizing drug use, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, who found a sixfold increase in drug references in songs over the past two decades.

"Positive portrayals of drug use have increased over time, and drug references increased overall," study author Denise Herd, associate dean of students at the School of Public Health, said in a prepared statement."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthd...4569665&page=1

Back to movies:

"While illicit drugs were shown in fewer movies then that had depicted unprotected/casual sex, Institute researchers discovered drugs were most often often shown in a positive way.

A clear example was found in movies that featured the use of marijuana. In these, 52% portrayed marijuana use in a positive light, while 48% showed in a neutral light. interesting to note that none of them showed any negative aspects of using drugs."
http://www.pctattletale.com/blog/198...gs-casual-sex/

Here are the facts on Portugal:

Actually Ralphie, there's more to the Portuguese story:

"A 2010 study in the British Journal of Criminology on the “”Portugal Model”" is being cited in support of decriminalizing illicit drugs in the United States.

But John Carnevale, Ph.D., a veteran of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) through four drug czars, issued a March 22 policy brief arguing that the authors’ conclusions are weak and contradictory, and that drug policy in general is difficult to translate from one country to another.

The research article focused on the impact of two policies Portugal implemented between 1999 and 2001 — one decriminalized possession of illicit drugs, and the other significantly increased access to substance abuse treatment by diverting “”minor drug offenders”" to treatment. This is the Portugal Model.

The authors argued that the Portugal Model shows that decriminalization does not necessarily lead to significant “”increases in the most harmful forms of drug use,”" but Carnevale cited numerous problems with the research. Among them:
•As the authors themselves observed, “”numerous challenges ‘make it impossible to attribute any changes in drug use or related harm directly to the fact or form of the Portuguese decriminalization.’”" They noted, for instance, that it was not possible to determine whether effects observed during the study period were causally linked to decriminalization or to the increased availability of treatment, in part because they were introduced around the same time.
•Were the policies altogether positive? Carnevale argued that they were not. Although the study’s authors documented that “”problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use”" dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.
•Portugal saw enrollments in drug treatment jump 63 percent during the study period – but, Carnevale said, there’s no correlation between increased treatment enrollment and decriminalization. Instead, Portugal’s implementation of diversion programs for drug offenders was the likely reason for the increase.

Carnevale concluded, “”This study’s findings fail to offer insight into the effects of Portugal’s decriminalization policies within its own borders. Therefore, it is impossible for us to recommend it be used as a basis for any policymakers, in any country, to justify moving toward decriminalization.”"
http://www.drugfree.org/join-togethe...-s-expert-says

Now that we've confirmed that American modern culture is glorifying drugs (out of wedlock sex, homosexuality and various other Libertarian "values") and that there is more to the Portuguese drug decriminaliztion story than drug pushers will admit, let's see what else that "progressive" country of Portugal is doing besides pushing dope.

April 2007

"Portugal's president has endorsed his country's new abortion law which would lift the ban on procedures during the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

President Anibal Cavaco Silva said he could not 'remain indifferent to the fact that there were 59.25 percent of votes to lift the ban', a reference to a national referendum on the issue in February."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0410/abortion.html


10 week old human being.

But wait Ralphie, there's more!

When good ole progressive Portugual isn't pushing drugs or murdering babies in the womb, they're "marrying" moral degenerates.

"On May 17, 2010 Portugal became the 8th nation to legalize gay marriage."
http://suite101.com/article/another-...rriage-a238504

Boy, Portugal is becoming a Libertarian paradise Ralphie. You can do drugs without going to jail, murder your baby in the womb (of course only up until he or she is 10 weeks old, I'm sure they're real sticklers on checking to see if baby butchers are murdering 11, 12 and 20 week old babies in the womb) and "marry" some guy you met in a public restroom toilet stall.

Decriminalizing sin is the thing of the future (more like present).

Right Ralphie?

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
With the so-called entertainment industry glorifying the use of marijuana, it's of no surprise that the younger generation are experimenting with pot at a higher level than that of cigarettes.

I forgot, Libertarians are clueless when it comes to the world around them.

You have no idea what assertions are, do you?

More kids smoke pot than cigarettes. I ask why that is (because obviously the law is not deterring them like you claim it should).

You offer assertions as evidence
When you run out of support for your argument, you move the goal posts, reiterate your baseless assertions, and offer crude innuendo.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

"The Director of National Drug Policy today criticized Hollywood for glorifying drug use in television shows, movies and music marketed to young people, and he urged executives of the entertainment industry to change things.

"We all know the dangers of some of these messages, and I believe that we can all agree that some changes need to be made," said Lee P. Brown, President Clinton's drug adviser.

Mr. Brown made his comments to about 150 Hollywood executives at a symposium sponsored by the Screen Actors Guild, the National Association of Television Programming Executives and other groups."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/20/us...ing-drugs.html

That's a 17 year old article from the New York Times Ralphie. It's only gotten worse.

Even ABC News admits it:

"Rap music is glamorizing drug use, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, who found a sixfold increase in drug references in songs over the past two decades.

"Positive portrayals of drug use have increased over time, and drug references increased overall," study author Denise Herd, associate dean of students at the School of Public Health, said in a prepared statement."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthd...4569665&page=1

Back to movies:

"While illicit drugs were shown in fewer movies then that had depicted unprotected/casual sex, Institute researchers discovered drugs were most often often shown in a positive way.

A clear example was found in movies that featured the use of marijuana. In these, 52% portrayed marijuana use in a positive light, while 48% showed in a neutral light. interesting to note that none of them showed any negative aspects of using drugs."
http://www.pctattletale.com/blog/198...gs-casual-sex/

Claiming that movies and music are the reason behind more kids smoking pot than cigarettes is pure assertion on your part. Your "evidence" says nothing about cigarettes. Why the drop in cigarette use?

Either way, your original argument that the law is a deterrent in regard to marijuana use fell flat on its face.

You may need to move the goals posts a bit further or offer more assertions.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Actually Ralphie, there's more to the Portuguese story:

"A 2010 study in the British Journal of Criminology on the “”Portugal Model”" is being cited in support of decriminalizing illicit drugs in the United States.

But John Carnevale, Ph.D., a veteran of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) through four drug czars, issued a March 22 policy brief arguing that the authors’ conclusions are weak and contradictory, and that drug policy in general is difficult to translate from one country to another.

Assertions and offering a cop-out. Even if Portugal's decriminalization is a success, the success may not translate to other countries.

So he asserts....no wonder you like him.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

The authors argued that the Portugal Model shows that decriminalization does not necessarily lead to significant “”increases in the most harmful forms of drug use,”"

Notice how he just debunked your claim there? I did.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

but Carnevale cited numerous problems with the research. Among them:
•As the authors themselves observed, “”numerous challenges ‘make it impossible to attribute any changes in drug use or related harm directly to the fact or form of the Portuguese decriminalization.’”" They noted, for instance, that it was not possible to determine whether effects observed during the study period were causally linked to decriminalization or to the increased availability of treatment, in part because they were introduced around the same time.

An argument from incredulity with no actual counter-argument.

Compelling

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

•Were the policies altogether positive? Carnevale argued that they were not. Although the study’s authors documented that “”problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use”" dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.[/quote

A unnamed drop is not "statistically significant" but a rise from 7.8 to 12% is?

You might buy what you're shoveling but I doubt anyone else does.

Where does he debunk these statistics? I must have missed that part.

- the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually - the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006 - Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana. - between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. - Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). - New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. - the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...#ixzz1xbkkpqNT

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Carnevale concluded, “”This study’s findings fail to offer insight into the effects of Portugal’s decriminalization policies within its own borders. Therefore, it is impossible for us to recommend it be used as a basis for any policymakers, in any country, to justify moving toward decriminalization.”"
http://www.drugfree.org/join-togethe...-s-expert-says

He's incredulous, just like you, isn't he? Like you, he doesn't even make an actual counter-argument.