Data on legalization vs. data on the effects of cannabis consumption? Or the data on the effect of criminalizing cannabis consumption?
Because you don't need to be a scientist to know that the current laws are flawed through and through and that the only good thing about them is that if you own a private prison you're going to make a lot of money.
I don't understand this comment at all. The grandparent comment didn't take a position on any of the issues you mention, and the only hypothetical position it mentioned that's germane to your comment agrees with your comment.
First you have to prove that prohibition is increasing consumption by high schoolers, then you have to prove that any change in graduation rates are tied to that consumption.
And for all the worrying over the so-called damage due by ending this prohibition, there should be an assessment of damaged caused by the prohibition. Then compare the two.
No. What you've done here is attribute to someone else the argument you wanted to get indignant about, despite the fact that they made no such argument. That behavior makes it impossible to discuss anything.
> We might think that smoking can be bad for individuals, and decriminalization is good for society at the same time. However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.)
From the article:
The ominously predicted harms from> legalization — like blight, violence, soaring addiction rates and other ills — remain imaginary worries.
"drop outs" wasn't mentioned in the article. And what, pray tell, is the methodology for doing such an analysis other than "drugs are bad, m'kay?"
And again, the whole point of the comment was a concern for assessing societal harm. To take such a view and not acknowledge the damage that prohibition causes is intellectually dishonest.
"Drugs are bad, m'kay". Not only did you make up an argument for your imaginary opponent, but you caricatured the argument. The irony of ending your comment with the words "intellectually dishonest" is nosebleed-pungent.
So let's pretend the effects can be measured accurately. If they are positive (and they will be), then it's simply an I told you so situation.
If the results are negative (zomg, more kids are smoking pot and failing to graduate), then to take that data and say that ending prohibition was a mistake without taking the data about the damage caused by prohibition (funding drug cartels, taxpayer funded SWAT teams that assault citizens/property and not always the "legal" target, arresting citizens for the crime of using an intoxicant that is not on the approved list, etc), then that shows that the person asking the question isn't interested in the real question: is it worth it?
There's too much evidence on the origins of this prohibition (racism and a tool of oppression of "dirty hippy anti-war protesters") and evidence supporting repealing of this (Nixon's drug commission report which was ignored, as well as Portugal's decriminalization of drugs, etc) to support any drug prohibition. It's an abysmal failure and goes far beyond depriving some stoner of getting high -- it's killing people.
Sorry to be so strident, but this discussion is like arguing with Jenny McCarthy and giving her equal time about how vaccines cause autism. Maybe we should just stop doing them and wait and see how that turns out too?
This is an opinion: "However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.)"
For one, it's wrong. Ever been to Amsterdam? It doesn't sound like it!
When someone shoves "False Facts" like "Seven months is not enought time for X", that is an opinion. Who gives anyone the right to say "X Number of Months" is required for something non-specific? What a bunch of malarkey!
Nice job trying to elevate his opinion to a fact... you must agree with his biased opinion. As do everyone who has down-voted me.
Troubadr, I have not downvoted you, but this being HN, I can tell you from experience that the tone of writing here is as important as your logic/idea. Your comments in this thread, although not fundamentally wrong or incongruous, appear to the readers as off-hand, drive-by commenting that one could get away with on Reddit or some random blog's comment thread. I would be very surprised if you put forth your ideas and arguments in a more lucid, fleshed-out manner and still face the same unpleasant downvoting.
However, based on years of legal alcohol use by the public, I'd disagree.
Besides the health and freedom issues, your opinion sounds like it's biased.