No $1,000 for kemp? 

See, this is starting to show me a pattern: I need to suddenly transform my political ideology so I can get a $1,000 debate offer. 

I just read Einstein's claims about pot being a "gateway" drug, presuming causation, and almost left the forum. Then I read your awful comparison between alcohol and pot where you concluded that pot is more damaging to the body than alcohol and I'm going to leave the forum.

This is just ignorant garbage. In addition, I already layed out a position on drugs, which you'd asked for, and you didn't bother responding. It's insulting to have the same topic brought up again when you just ignored it when you got a response last time, let alone such ignorant garbage at this.

You ignore the fact that use/addiction rates remain relatively unchanged in societies where they're legalized. You ignore the fact that crimes occur because drugs are illegal--this skyrockets their prices. Nobody is committing crimes for cigarettes. They're cheap, and that's with a mountain of taxes on them.

I support freedom on the issue, you support a nanny state regulating what people do with their own bodies. I'm not going to re-argue my position, seeing as you ignored it last time and made such a lazy and fallacious case here.

Regarding regulations, I hardly think dismissing employees after each administration would have any impact on their corruption. They're still motivated by the same garbage progressive ideology. They're still motivated by the selfish desire to increase their budgets and power. Most importantly, bribery is legal in this country and they're still motivated to do what gets them bribe cash.

Regarding Ron Paul, I've stated that he's by far the least bad of "prominent" politicians in DC. Why you would describe him as my "favorite boy" (no homo) is beyond me, seeing as I rarely make any reference to him and have outlined that I think he's nuts. It sounds like you're looking for a straw man.

Your complaints about him are weak. Your analogy was awful. It sounds like you're jealous that he votes against pork that your beloved conservatives (ie progressives, just like liberals) frequently vote for.

I've explained why he doesn't deprive his own district of federal funds. Agree or disagree, you never respond to my explanations but ignore them, ignore the thread, and just re-state your case later. I can respect that you think he shouldn't include funding, but you repeatedly ignore my explanations. You repeatedly ignore that the difference between him and others is that he votes against these bills. Apparently you think this is bad? You pretend his votes are meaningless, whereas they're the most important thing he does. Again, I'm not going to re-explain beyond this, seeing as I did before and, like the drugs topic, you never responded.

Since these bills will pass "no matter what," why do their authors include money for his district? Especially considering he votes against them. They're all so stupid. It's like the Twilight Zone.

"in truth if he opposed it he would never have attached the pork at all."

That's your opinion. I don't disagree that he could, perhaps, make a stronger case if he refused federal funds. Of course, his district pays federal taxes. Of course, nobody else is refusing federal funds. So, if he refused federal funds, he'd be harming his district w/o significant savings. The only way significant savings would be achieved is if congressmen voted against these bills. Oh, look, he's one of the few doing that. But you're jealous he's more financially responsible than conservatives, so ignore this and pretend I'm a liar to explain this--and you're honest to ignore it and then start a new thread about it in a few weeks.

Flint,

Here is the tinypic URL where I uploaded a proof for you on why criminalizing drugs is foolish.

http://oi40.tinypic.com/6g8rk6.jpg

Justinian

Your penmanship looks like you're still learning how to hold pencils. 

You mean repost everything I said before? Why don't you start by responding to what you asked for before purely for educational purposes.

Try again? You asked for my views in a previous thread. You got them. You responded to none of them.

Yes, I dismissed your arguments. They're ignorant and unbacked. I already responded to many of them in the other thread. The claim that pot is inherently a "gateway" drug is stupid. Other circumstances easily explain why users of others drugs use/used pot. That pot magically makes people do other drugs is a silly myth. The claim pot is more harmful than alcohol is downright laughable.

If that's your case--laughable--then yeah, I dismiss it. I'm not going to "argue" with claims that masturbation causes blindness either. Or "argue" over whether the rich have alien technology for self-replicating robots. You haven't inherently won an argument by posting arguments so ignorant and downright silly that I'm not dignifying them with much of a response.

And Flint ignores the allmighty supply/demand graph.

Gotta love social conservatives .

Has anybody mentioned Portugal's drug policy yet?

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Justinian:

What is the goal of drug policy?  Well, let's put it this way: Would you rather have less drug users but a stronger drug cartel, or a weak drug cartel but more users?>

The problem is that demand is inelastic. My graph illustrates how an inelastic demand curve has a minimal effect on quantity demanded due to a price increase, yet profits skyrocket when the supply curve shifts upward, due to arrests and pressures from suppliers to be compensated for higher risk. Also, because quantity demanded is not affected much by an increase in price, thanks to addiction, there is pressure among addicts to commit crimes to pay for the higher drug prices.

The best strategy for dealing with drug addiction is to target the demand side, not supply. The money we spend on drug enforcement would thus be better spent on drug treatment and prevention.

Flint,

The point is that demand, overall, responds very little due to an increase in price. Some will be compelled to seek treatment, yes, but that's one reason why the demand curve is not perfectly inelastic.

And, are our treatment and prevention efforts really outpacing new arrivals in the market? If we are then kudos. But regardless, price increases on drugs generally cause increases in drug crime.

Zarf,
The problem is that those two variables aren't necessarily related. The cartels are hurting right now, however the prices have skyrocketed. What's replacing the cartels are highly mobile, small gang-like cells.

As for what I would prefer. I prefer more druggies and less crime than less druggies and more crime.

Einstein, you ignored every point I made in another thread in which you asked for my positions. You have responded to 0 of them. Yet you're awfully quick to claim I've conceded anything. If you aren't comfortable talking about the subject, you don't need to start multiple threads asking to.

Your only "arguments" here are laughably silly myths.

"If you significantly increase the price via a good crackdown then fewer start, or return, to drugs."

Pure fantasy, like your other claims. You're just posting what you want to believe--what you imagine--happens. Real evidence in the real world, however, all begs to differ. A few minutes googling drug decriminalization will show reduced or unchanged--not increased--usage rates. I don't care to argue with your fantasies. You clearly want to believe what you do, and you clearly don't want to examine evidence which may cause you to question your position. Calling pot a "gateway drug" is not a serious argument, it's a talking-point fed to people who want to believe anything that suggests pot is evil. It's not a serious argument: Academic research tears up the claim; it doesn't support it. If you don't care enough to pose honest arguments, don't expect me to respond to them. Especially when you completely ignore all of mine.

You completely ignore my positions and post silly myths (long disproven) and presumptions. You then claim I've conceded anything. And that you're a bit of an expert. Give me a break.

Believing drugs should be policed can surely be a legitimate position that I can respect. I made arguments regarding freedom, economics, and people getting killed because of such policy. You responded to none of my points or my position, so I presume you accept my arguments, but just figure that yours are stronger. But your arguments are that you feel pot is more harmful than it is. You attribute all of the psychological disorders of the dysfunctional people you've lived with who smoked pot to pot. That unhealthy people use pot at a disproportionately high rate is not evidence of causality. And a few people you've lived with aren't a very strong basis for any position.

You aren't any sort of expert on the topic, and your posts make that very clear. That you judge marijuana to be more harmful than alcohol shows that you've barely studied the topic at all, if at all. That you referenced people with psychological disorders using pot and just presumed causality shows no level of academic study, or any level of study or thought at all.

Again, in responding to Justinian, you presume that the world functions as you want it to, not as evidence suggests that it does. Drug users are not rational actors. Not all general economic rules apply so well. You're arguing that people MUST use less drugs when prices go up, because a general economic rule suggests this. But does a study of reality confirm this theory? Do people necessarily eat less when prices go up? No. Do drug users often continue use of drugs, just as they continue eating, when prices go up? Yes. Often harming themselves and resorting to crime to support the habit because of current drug prohibition [increasing prices].

? You've made no case but to call me names. Presumably you're upset because you have no case. I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, but you're wrong on all of the facts. I've pointed out which ones. You've made some ridiculous claims. I've pointed out which ones.

You haven't called me on a single thing. You have that mixed up with calling me things.

Gateway drug theory is a theory. And a crappy one. If you give a damn about being right, look for academic studies and articles which tear it a new one. They aren't hard to find. It's a really shitty theory. If that's the best you have, I hardly have to refute it. It's been refuted countless times already. A general summation from Wikipedia, if you're really too lazy:
- - -
The gateway theory has been the subject of much criticism. Perhaps most common is the claim that gateway theory proponents commit either the post hoc ergo propter hoc or the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies. In the latter case, it is argued, proponents of the gateway theory invalidly infer a causal relationship between two variables (in this case, the relationship between the use of less harmful soft drugs and the use of more dangerous hard drugs) from a relationship between the two variables that is strictly correlational. [20][23][45][46]

Alternative explanations for the correlation between the use of soft drugs (e.g., marijuana) and the use of hard drugs (e.g, cocaine, heroin) include, but are not limited to:
*Some individuals are, for whatever reason, willing to try any substance, and the "gateway" drugs are merely the ones that are (usually) available at an earlier age than the harder drugs.[20]
*Particularly for cannabis, which is illegal, exposure to the black market (where harder drugs are available) is suggested to be the real cause.[23][46]
*For teenagers, credibility of adults is eroded when the dangers of the "gateway" drugs are exaggerated or made up, leading them to think all anti-drug messages are nonsense.[47]
*The peer environments in which "gateway" drugs are used can sometimes overlap with the ones in which harder drugs are used, especially in societies that prohibit the substances or impose very high age limits.[47]
*Due to the nature of their merchandise, dealers of the harder illicit drugs may be unwilling to reveal themselves to those unfamiliar with the "gateway" drugs.
- - -
More:
http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20015429-10391704.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060657
http://scienceblog.com/12116/study-says-marijuana-no-gateway-drug/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/uonh-rom083110.php

And on and on and on. It's a really silly theory--It's not rational to presume so much. Scientific research regularly rips it a new one. Common sense and an education rip it a new one.

Your own experiences with a few idiots are no case against pot. Most functional people you've met have smoked pot too. Hell, some of them still do. But you can't tell, because it doesn't effect their lives.

I have responded to your so-called "arguments." You've ignored all of mine. Win!

Thanks for the real reply.

I will look at it later and formulate my reply.

Been a long couple nights, my apologies for delaying.