Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels   from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions!    After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself , or visit the forum index . If you need any help  registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
I have already said that this is only relevant if you assume that legalization will increase consumption. But there is nothing to support that, so all your links are irrelevant.
If consumption does not go up, there are no unhealthy side effects to legalization.
If you have a closer look you might notice I was responding to the statement that marijuana is the "safest antidepressant in the world" which it quite clearly is not, as shown by the research I cited. You also might notice I actually agreed with your points regarding the criminality of drugs
...And since the harm done is proportional to the consumption, which shows no correlation to the legal status, the harm done is irrelevant.
The damage is not irrelevant, I think that legalizing it reduces damage as countries that legalized it (such as the Nederlands ) have lower rates os heavy drugs consuption.(Image 1 and 2) Also, making it legal prevents indirect damage, the damage related to traffic king. In sum, I think that legalizing Cannabis reduces damage and related expenditures.
Attached thumbnail(s)
If you have a closer look you might notice I was responding to the statement that marijuana is the "safest antidepressant in the world" which it quite clearly is not, as shown by the research I cited.
I read a few of your links, and I have to say: The suggested correlation to schizophrenia is bogus. Those were all studies about how pot aggravates schizophrenia symptoms. All I learned is not to pass to the schizo. You pointed to confirmed long-term mental deficiencies caused by marijuana use with your next 3 links. Those studies, however, were short studies done on heavy users who had abstained from use (supposedly) for less than a month, and the 3rd was only a study comparing the effects of 13mg vs. 17mg usage on the day of use. Badly mislabeling your studies here, guy. After reading your first six links, I skipped the ones about nut cancer, as I figured they'd hold about as much water.
I have heard of studies that show a correlation (not a causation, if you didn't know) between long-term marijuana use and depression. Here, I can only quote the nurses and a doctor in a psych ward where I was vacationing, but even nut-jobs like myself know that correlation doesn't necessitate cause. People in deserts love water, don't they? I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant, except in the short term (confirm!!!), but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor, the two with which I've been unsuccessfully treated. Side effects of legal drugs are so often worse than that which they treat... Sure, marijuana does leave you functioning at slightly diminished capacity for a period relative to the regularity with which you use it (ranging from the next few hours for 1-time use to 1 or 2 months for daily use), but the difference is so minor it takes biased observers to point it out.
I read a few of your links, and I have to say: The suggested correlation to schizophrenia is bogus. Those were all studies about how pot aggravates schizophrenia symptoms. All I learned is not to pass to the schizo.
Wait, so the correlation is bogus because you learned to stop before the onset of symptoms?
Go to Google scholar. Type "marijuana schizophrenia" into the search bar. 19,500 matches. I guess every single one is bogus right?
Marqq, on 20 February 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:
You pointed to confirmed long-term mental deficiencies caused by marijuana use with your next 3 links. Those studies, however, were short studies done on heavy users who had abstained from use (supposedly) for less than a month, and the 3rd was only a study comparing the effects of 13mg vs. 17mg usage on the day of use. Badly mislabeling your studies here, guy.
And the correlation between long term mental deficiency is bogus because it only happens in heavy users who you're inferring "probably didn't stop smoking anyway"?
Marqq, on 20 February 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:
After reading your first six links, I skipped the ones about nut cancer, as I figured they'd hold about as much water.
Did you even read beyond the abstract of the other studies anyway?
Marqq, on 20 February 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:
I have heard of studies that show a correlation (not a causation, if you didn't know) between long-term marijuana use and depression. Here, I can only quote the nurses and a doctor in a psych ward where I was vacationing, but even nut-jobs like myself know that correlation doesn't necessitate cause. People in deserts love water, don't they? I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant, except in the short term (confirm!!!), but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor, the two with which I've been unsuccessfully treated. Side effects of legal drugs are so often worse than that which they treat... Sure, marijuana does leave you functioning at slightly diminished capacity for a period relative to the regularity with which you use it (ranging from the next few hours for 1-time use to 1 or 2 months for daily use), but the difference is so minor it takes biased observers to point it out.
And after all that refutation of scientific articles as bollocks we get a personal anecdote as proof of your position? You do understand how uncompelling that is right?
How can you make such a comparison when there were hardly any cars during the prohibition, which also greatly affects the road trauma. You might as well blame cars, or oil companies for road trauma. There is a far stronger correlation over such a time period.
Well cars and legal alcohol have combined, in modern times, to create a rather large problem. Perhaps the benefits of prohibition in modern times would greater than they were in the 20s given the number of cars on the road these days.
CaptainPanic, on 16 February 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:
I strongly doubt that consumption and price are strongly correlated.
Look at beer (alcohol) prices: countries with the most expensive alcohol are often the largest consumers per capita. And cheap beers in supermarkets do not sell better than more expensive brands.
I will give you one recent example that contradicts your assertion. In Australia the federal government whacked a large tax on alcopops (alcoholic soft drinks) and their consumption by teenagers dropped signficantly. So it is quite likely that increased cost, combined with restriction of supply, will have some impact the consumption of a variety of drugs.
Well cars and legal alcohol have combined, in modern times, to create a rather large problem. Perhaps the benefits of prohibition in modern times would greater than they were in the 20s given the number of cars on the road these days.
Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much?
I will give you one recent example that contradicts your assertion. In Australia the federal government whacked a large tax on alcopops (alcoholic soft drinks) and their consumption by teenagers dropped signficantly. So it is quite likely that increased cost, combined with restriction of supply, will have some impact the consumption of a variety of drugs.
Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?
When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society. -- zapatos
Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much?
Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?
Clearly there is no point in outright prohibition has been tried with alcohol and was not particuarly succesful. It may have limited alcohol consumption to some extent as clearly not all partakers were prepared to defy the law, but in the end it collapsed.
I reckon my idea of a government monoply with the sale of drugs so that they can control the prices, run illegal dealers out of business, restrict supply and maintain high prices could be worth a try. They could also bring pressure to bare on consumers to undertake rehabilitation etc.
I will give you one recent example that contradicts your assertion. In Australia the federal government whacked a large tax on alcopops (alcoholic soft drinks) and their consumption by teenagers dropped signficantly. So it is quite likely that increased cost, combined with restriction of supply, will have some impact the consumption of a variety of drugs.
Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense.
But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff.
Because the discussion about weed is out in the open in the Netherlands, I know (hearsay and media) that an evening smoking weed is a lot cheaper than an evening drinking alcohol (comparing an evening at home, the difference is even larger if you go out). So, small increases in the price are not likely to have a large impact, because the price of the weed is not really relevant compared to for example the snacks or the (soft)drinks you consume. And large increases in the price only drive people back to the criminals, who aren't exactly stupid and will try to be competitive with the legalized prices.
Of course, you can then crack down on the criminals even harder - but then you effectively solved nothing.
Wait, so the correlation is bogus because you learned to stop before the onset of symptoms? And the correlation between long term mental deficiency is bogus because it only happens in heavy users who you're inferring "probably didn't stop smoking anyway"? Did you even read beyond the abstract of the other studies anyway? And after all that refutation of scientific articles as bollocks we get a personal anecdote as proof of your position? You do understand how uncompelling that is right?
I never once refuted the articles, only that they said what you took from them. The correlation/causation with schizophrenia is bogus because all the test subjects were previously schizophrenic . This is not a 'link to schizophrenia/psychosis', but a study of the effects of THC (etc.) on people with schizophrenia. Is that clearer for you?
That's quite a strong word, 'permanently'. Even more so when the three cited studies admit (in the abstracts ) that testing was done on 'early abstinent' users of the drug. Are you a journalist? I ask because they, too, are able to read between the lines on the other side of the page from a from a work of fiction that just happens to be saying something that you want to say. Once again, not refuting the studies in the slightest; I'm not qualified to judge any more than the abstract (summary), but I won't add anything that's not being said. Instead, my bias has kept me from investigating and questioning the other half of the health argument in the disputed post.
I do certainly appreciate that you tried to offer both pros and cons of the health effects of marijuana usage. I apologize that I could offer no 'proof of my position' beyond the anecdotal; My position, "I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant..., but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor...", doesn't call for much support, though. You also said in your original post that proponents of legalization 'gloss over' those negative health effects, but I say investigate them. Read what the officials say instead of the supposed meaning reported by someone with an agenda. The health effect argument is moot, because the OP asks whether it should be legalized, not whether it's a silent killer or healthier than vitamin C. It's not extremely dangerous, and worse things are legal (tobacco and alcohol, along with prescription drugs, K2, and salvia). The real question is this: Does a government have the right to criminalize pot? Considering that most laws must prevent one citizen from causing harm/loss to another citizen, or prevent that citizen causing death to itself (argument for another thread!), I do not believe control of trivial drugs to be the responsibility of any government.
Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense.
But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff.
Because the discussion about weed is out in the open in the Netherlands, I know (hearsay and media) that an evening smoking weed is a lot cheaper than an evening drinking alcohol (comparing an evening at home, the difference is even larger if you go out). So, small increases in the price are not likely to have a large impact, because the price of the weed is not really relevant compared to for example the snacks or the (soft)drinks you consume. And large increases in the price only drive people back to the criminals, who aren't exactly stupid and will try to be competitive with the legalized prices.
Of course, you can then crack down on the criminals even harder - but then you effectively solved nothing.
I sometimes wonder if the mafia has a lobby to keep weed illegal.
I would be amazed if they did not...
Life is the poetry of the Universe Love is the poetry of life
You do not possess belief, belief possesses you...
"Nothing unreal exists" "Nothing can not exist"  The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.    Stephen Hawking
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson
I reckon my idea of a government monoply with the sale of drugs so that they can control the prices, run illegal dealers out of business, restrict supply and maintain high prices could be worth a try.
The government doesn't need to monopolize anything. They can award charters to safely manufacture and distribute, and simply tax and regulate accordingly. I'm not sure I'd approve of this without some severe restrictions on normal market processes, like a curb or ban on advertising.
They could also bring pressure to bare on consumers to undertake rehabilitation etc.
A large portion of the taxes should be set aside for education, obviating much of the need for more expensive treatment. Avenues for rehabilitation are actually already in place, with courts requiring it for public intoxication offenses.
CaptainPanic, on 21 February 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:
I sometimes wonder if the mafia has a lobby to keep weed illegal.
If they're smart they do. I just read where General Electric paid lobbyists $84M to get Congress to approve $8.4 B in tax breaks for them. Lobbying can bring a greater return on investment than selling your actual products.
When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society. -- zapatos
I never once refuted the articles, only that they said what you took from them. The correlation/causation with schizophrenia is bogus because all the test subjects were previously schizophrenic . This is not a 'link to schizophrenia/psychosis', but a study of the effects of THC (etc.) on people with schizophrenia. Is that clearer for you?
I, nor the studies cited, nor any of the multitude of studies easily available have outwardly stated - "marijuana will make you a schizophrenic." However, there is substantial evidence that THC and cannabonoids can aggravate psychotic/schizophrenic symptoms and/or trigger their onset in susceptible individuals. That's rather unequivocally describable as a 'link' between the drug and the disease.
Marqq, on 21 February 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:
That's quite a strong word, 'permanently'. Even more so when the three cited studies admit (in the abstracts ) that testing was done on 'early abstinent' users of the drug. Are you a journalist?
Granted, the use of "permanent" is strong - how about "Heavy use of cannabis impairs cognitive function for a considerable period after ingestion"? No I am not a journalist.
Marqq, on 21 February 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:
My position, "I can't confirm or deny the usefulness of marijuana as an antidepressant..., but I can VERY definitely say it's safer than celexa and effexor...", doesn't call for much support, though.
On the contrary. While I intend in absolutely no way to try and belittle or trivialize your personal experiences - personal anecdotes are used heavily as "proof" of both the efficacy of alternative therapies like homeopathy and healing magnets - which I'm sure we will all agree are bollocks, and the associated evils of the "big pharma" drugs which they replace. When it comes to the efficacy and side effects of pharmaceuticals the invocation of personal experience is uncompelling and definitely calls for objective support.
Marqq, on 21 February 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:
You also said in your original post that proponents of legalization 'gloss over' those negative health effects, but I say investigate them. Read what the officials say instead of the supposed meaning reported by someone with an agenda.
I guess the proponents I was mainly considering are the politically active, organized bodies such as Norml. I may have been exposed to one too many housemates who spent a bit too much time on the bong touting cannabis as a side effect free perfectly natural wonder product. Which is infuriatingly false - it's a cocktail of psychoactive chemicals which the preferred and most widespread method of ingestion is to burn and inhale the smoke of. Of course the smoke (like the combustible byproducts of most organic matter) is going to contain carcinogens and toxins and the psychoactive components will have side effects in some individuals - that's a reality of almost every drug known to man.
Which brings us to this:
Marqq, on 21 February 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:
The health effect argument is moot, because the OP asks whether it should be legalized, not whether it's a silent killer or healthier than vitamin C. It's not extremely dangerous, and worse things are legal (tobacco and alcohol, along with prescription drugs, K2, and salvia). The real question is this: Does a government have the right to criminalize pot? Considering that most laws must prevent one citizen from causing harm/loss to another citizen, or prevent that citizen causing death to itself (argument for another thread!), I do not believe control of trivial drugs to be the responsibility of any government.
Which I completely agree with. All drugs have side effects and negatives. It doesn't take much of an overdose of paracetamol/acetaminophen to do irreversible liver damage - making in more than likely considerably more dangerous than pot - ban Tylenol? [/sarcasm]. However, cannabis is not side effect free. Claims of it being the "the safest [insert drug comparison here]" are misleading and for a certain subset of individuals it could present significant side effects. At least - in my mind is actually an argument for legalising it if control doesn't prevent people using it in the first place and will allow better study of those side effects.
Yes, so when something becomes unaffordable, people don't buy it. Makes sense.
Or buy it less often at least.
CaptainPanic, on 21 February 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:
But contrary to the alcopops, there is a thriving black market which can supply marihuana at competitive prices. And even though it is illegal, the laws of economics are still valid. A government can legalize weed, but if the taxes are too high, people will buy the illegal stuff.
Well that's the problem isn't it. Being illegal the crims can gouge consumers up to a point while providing an abundant supply.
I can't see there being any other viable solution other than governments taking control of the market and managing prices and supply with the aim of reducing consumption rather than maximising profit.
Phi for All, on 20 February 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:
Most of the experts do not share your assumption. You assume there would be no alcohol available to drivers during a prohibition. Historically, the alcohol continued to flow, without regulation for purity or safety. There are more cars nowadays, and also lots more bathtubs for gin. Blind much?
Your demographic is skewed. Teenagers have limited funds. And do you know for a fact that your Ozteens didn't switch to something harder when the price of alcopops made alternatives more attractive?
Well as it turned out many apparently purchased spirits and mixed it with soft drink themselves.
But the fact remains that increasing price and decreasing affordability can modify behaviour.
Just look at smoking - draconian taxation and laws against smoking in restuarants, shopping cnetres and government buildings etc have combined to dramatically reduce smoking.
Perhaps if the government had whacked a large tax on spirits as well as alcopops then they would have been a little more successful.
In many cases parents either give their teens money to purchase alcohol or purchase it for them. So your assertion that teens have limited funds is not entirely correct.
Phi for All, on 21 February 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:
The government doesn't need to monopolize anything. They can award charters to safely manufacture and distribute, and simply tax and regulate accordingly. I'm not sure I'd approve of this without some severe restrictions on normal market processes, like a curb or ban on advertising.
Very bad idea to put drugs in the hands of private enterprise if your aim is to reduce consumption and minimise harm to society.
Private enterprise ALWAYS aims to increase consumption and maximise profits regardless of the cost to society. Alcohol, gambing, smoking,.........
Well that's the problem isn't it. Being illegal the crims can gouge consumers up to a point while providing an abundant supply.
I can't see there being any other viable solution other than governments taking control of the market and managing prices and supply with the aim of reducing consumption rather than maximising profit.
If weed is legalized, the criminals will soon be out of business. Isn't that good enough for a start? The methods to realize both a minimized consumption and reduced criminal activity might be in conflict.
I would set only one of the two targets at first, and only aim for the second after a number of years.
Santalum, on 22 February 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:
Very bad idea to put drugs in the hands of private enterprise if your aim is to reduce consumption and minimise harm to society.
Private enterprise ALWAYS aims to increase consumption and maximise profits regardless of the cost to society. Alcohol, gambing, smoking,.........
That can be regulated with tax to some extent. I don't think there is any particular benefit of having either free market alcohol (with tax!) or state owned alcohol shops. Examples of both exist in the world, and in all cases people still get shitfaced quite drunk.
If weed is legalized, the criminals will soon be out of business. Isn't that good enough for a start? The methods to realize both a minimized consumption and reduced criminal activity might be in conflict.
I would set only one of the two targets at first, and only aim for the second after a number of years.
It would certainly not be easy to strike the right balance and the government would have to be able to set prices very dynamically and be in constant contact with police as to where illegal supply is available.
CaptainPanic, on 22 February 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:
That can be regulated with tax to some extent. I don't think there is any particular benefit of having either free market alcohol (with tax!) or state owned alcohol shops. Examples of both exist in the world, and in all cases people still get shitfaced quite drunk.
With drugs you would have to register your name to get them legally and I guess you could apply a monthly or weekly quota to each person. Once you go over you quota, you cannot purchase any more of a given drug.
Well as it turned out many apparently purchased spirits and mixed it with soft drink themselves.
So increasing the price actually turned the teens towards harder liquor, and allowed them to control how much alcohol was mixed with their "soft" drink. The decreased affordability actually modified their behavior by giving them motivation to drink stronger liquor, without the restraint pre-mixed alcopops imposes.
But the fact remains that increasing price and decreasing affordability can modify behaviour.
Yes, and probably more often in a very detrimental way.
Just look at smoking - draconian taxation and laws against smoking in restuarants, shopping cnetres and government buildings etc have combined to dramatically reduce smoking.
Shame on you for forgetting all the education that was also made available. With the last big push against smoking, people became aware for the first time that manufacturers were actually adding addictive substances into the product. It suddenly became more than just "it's bad for you".
Perhaps if the government had whacked a large tax on spirits as well as alcopops then they would have been a little more successful.
Punish everyone for a problem with teens? That might not be a popular choice, nor one that upholds individual rights.
In many cases parents either give their teens money to purchase alcohol or purchase it for them. So your assertion that teens have limited funds is not entirely correct.
Again, you're skewing the demographics, this time to include illegal behavior on the part of parents. Look, the idea obviously failed in this instance. It's a bad argument by itself, you should drop it.
Very bad idea to put drugs in the hands of private enterprise if your aim is to reduce consumption and minimise harm to society.
Private enterprise ALWAYS aims to increase consumption and maximise profits regardless of the cost to society. Alcohol, gambing, smoking,.........
And that's why I said, very carefully, that I wouldn't sanction privatization without severe restrictions. But I agree that that's one slippery slope you can always count on to start sliding down. You'd have to constantly watchdog those corporations to make sure they didn't lobby to reduced those restrictions. And you'd have to start by killing the concept of corporate personhood, which I hope the American people will shortly realize is killing our country.
Actually, I'd rather see us take a lesson from Portugal. Take ALL the funds from the War on Drugs and use it for education and treatment. Don't legalize them, but stop jailing people whose only crime is having/using a personal stash of drugs. Education is the best solution for almost everything, and in this case it's the one that has the best chance of minimizing the dangers and the numbers of users as well as protecting individual rights.
When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society. -- zapatos
I see lots of assumptions about cannabis being made here. Some of you seem to think that legalizing it will allow it to be better controlled which is probably true to some extent but then some go on to say the harm can be minimized as though cannabis is killing people and destroying lives everywhere. You are mistaking cannabis with alcohol, just like crime is more connected with drugs being illegal than with their real effects the worst thing about cannabis is getting caught with it.
Smoking pot doesn't affect your life in the same ways that alcohol or even cigarettes do. Pot, for the vast majority of people anyway, is not addictive in the same way that things like alcohol, nicotine, crack, or meth is. I've known a great many pot smokers and the worst effect it can have is the government ruining your life if you get caught. You can lose your job, jail time, a criminal record, but smoking pot in of it's self is relatively harmless.
I don't want pot to be legalized so those poor unfortunate pot addicts can get help, that attitude is nothing but horse feathers. It's what the government has been telling us forever, pot, in the US, is listed the same as heroin, crack, or meth. Get caught and the government does everything in it's power to destroy you personally. Then they turn around and use that as examples of how pot ruins lives. It's propaganda at it's finest.
People should be able to grow their own, limits should be put on people who sell it but but for personal use I see no reason why you can't grow your own the same way you can make your own wine or beer.
Pot is not healthy, anyone who thinks it's completely harmless is deep in a river in Egypt but it is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol and not even close to being addictive like nicotine. Ruining peoples lives because they smoke is cruel and serves no purpose. And no smoking pot doesn't make you a loser, it doesn't keep you from working a job or anything else. it certainly doesn't make you a bad worker, alcohol and cigarettes take away far more in worker productivity than cannabis, the old adage that pot makes you stupid and unproductive is nothing but government propaganda...
Life is the poetry of the Universe Love is the poetry of life
You do not possess belief, belief possesses you...
"Nothing unreal exists" "Nothing can not exist"  The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but illusion of knowledge.    Stephen Hawking
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ~ thomas jefferson
So increasing the price actually turned the teens towards harder liquor, and allowed them to control how much alcohol was mixed with their "soft" drink. The decreased affordability actually modified their behavior by giving them motivation to drink stronger liquor, without the restraint pre-mixed alcopops imposes.
Clearly a more comprehensive strategy is required that just lifting the prices. But reducing affordability of alcohol is as important in reducing alcohol consumption as it has been in reducing smoking.
Phi for All, on 22 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:
Yes, and probably more often in a very detrimental way.
In this case and to some extent yes. I would have thought that even blind freddy could have predicted this.
Phi for All, on 22 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:
Punish everyone for a problem with teens? That might not be a popular choice, nor one that upholds individual rights.
Well tough bloody titties. Alcohol consumption is not an essential component of personal freedom! And if curtailing a less important personal freedom means reduction in harm to society overall then do it!
Phi for All, on 22 February 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:
Again, you're skewing the demographics, this time to include illegal behavior on the part of parents. Look, the idea obviously failed in this instance. It's a bad argument by itself, you should drop it.
No it is not. Apparently this is a signficant contribution to teen binge drinking......in Australia at least.
Clearly a more comprehensive strategy is required that just lifting the prices. But reducing affordability of alcohol is as important in reducing alcohol consumption as it has been in reducing smoking.
You reach a point of diminishing returns. Charge too much and the black market undercuts the price, smuggling to avoid the taxes. Prohibit the substance and the black market will charge what it can get. And we really should be talking about marijuana in this thread.
In this case and to some extent yes. I would have thought that even blind freddy could have predicted this.
Sorry if I misunderstood, Freddy. It just sounded like you were assuming the price increase behavior modification was only positive. Wizard's Second Rule: "The greatest harm can result from the best intentions." - Terry Goodkind
Well tough bloody titties. Alcohol consumption is not an essential component of personal freedom! And if curtailing a less important personal freedom means reduction in harm to society overall then do it!
I don't drink at all and I still consider that to be an affront to civil liberties. Can't we just tax it to cover the costs to the country? I'd like that better than trying to figure out which personal freedoms were "less important" than others. Or taxing everyone for problems caused by an identifiable segment of the population.
Do you think I should be taxed even though I don't drink? Is this an area where my money should be used because it means a "reduction in harm to society overall"?
No it is not. Apparently this is a signficant contribution to teen binge drinking......in Australia at least.
Really, Oz has no laws already in place for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?! For child abuse?! I'm sure you do. Wouldn't it be easier and more elegant to simply strengthen these existing laws?
When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society. -- zapatos
Forum Home News   |-- Forum Announcements   |-- Science News   |-- SFN Blogs Education   |-- Homework Help   |-- Science Education Sciences   |-- Physics   |---- Classical Physics   |---- Relativity   |---- Quantum Theory   |---- Modern and Theoretical Physics   |---- Astronomy and Cosmology   |-- Chemistry   |---- Inorganic Chemistry   |---- Organic Chemistry   |---- Applied Chemistry   |-- Biology   |---- Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology   |---- Genetics   |---- Ecology and the Environment   |---- Biochemistry and Molecular Biology   |-- Mathematics   |---- Analysis and Calculus   |---- Linear Algebra and Group Theory   |---- Applied Mathematics   |---- Mathematics Tutorials   |-- Medical Science   |---- Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience   |---- Microbiology and Immunology   |---- Psychiatry and Psychology   |-- Engineering   |-- Earth Science   |---- Climate Science   |-- Computer Science   |---- Computer Help   |-- Amateur Science   |---- Experiments   |---- Equipment   |---- Projects   |-- Other Sciences Philosophy   |-- General Philosophy   |-- Religion   |-- Ethics SmarterThanThat Forums   |-- SmarterThanThat Videos   |-- SmarterThanThat.com Other Topics   |-- The Lounge   |---- Book Talk   |-- Politics   |-- Suggestions, Comments and Support   |---- The Sandbox   |-- Brain Teasers and Puzzles   |-- Speculations   |---- Trash Can   |-- Rational Skepticism