I didn't say every single one, did I. But I certainly don't know of any who are productive citizens, and you don't know of any either. I wonder if anyone on the thread knows of a meth addict who is a productive citizen.
Wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it'd grow or shrink should the price change.
The question wasn't about the size of the group growing or shrinking.
Are you?
Yes, I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement. Apparently, you cannot or you would have done so by now.
Have a nice day.
Actually, yeah, you clearly implied it. I said there's a group of drug users who are able to afford their habit, and you doubted the existence of such a group. Now, using this little thing that we call "logic", it follows directly from this that you claim that the number of drug users who are able to afford their habit without resorting to crime is zero, and it follows from that that every single drug user resorts to crime to finance his habit.
But I certainly don't know of any who are productive citizens
How do you know?
and you don't know of any either. I wonder if anyone on the thread knows of a meth addict who is a productive citizen.
Given that using meth is illegal, and that the government has successfully implanted the meme that meth users are the scum of the earth, it's extremely unlikely that any productive citizens who use meth would advertise the fact. If you or I or anyone knows a productive meth user, it's probable that we don't know we know one.
"For years, the most successful entertainers in the world were the Grateful Dead, and they were advertising their drug use. I hated their music, but they weren't 'losers' in any capitalist sense." --Penn Jillette
The question wasn't about the size of the group growing or shrinking.
Uh, yeah, it was. You asked me to prove that legalizing drugs (and hence reducing their price) would lower the amount of property crimes committed to finance drug habits. If the group of drug users who steal to finance their habits shrinks, the rate of crime shrinks proportionally. Quod erat demonstrandum. But you apparently wouldn't recognize a proof if it came up and bit you on your drug-free ass.
Yes, I'm still waiting for you to prove your statement. Apparently, you cannot or you would have done so by now.
Third alternative: I've proven it several times over, but you either refuse to recognize it or refuse to admit it. I will give you credit for a novel tactic: demand proof, and then no matter what your opponent says or how many times he meets your demand, repeat over and over again, "I'm still waiting for proof!" I must say that I haven't encountered that particular fallacious behavior before. Good for you.