You know, you like to sound all scientific and s**t, but when it comes down to it, you are a petulant child. I would have taken a different approach. I would have defended my position, then I would have said, "Your turn."
It's not my forte to compile and/or dive into stats, but I will get around to it tomorrow, provided I have time. Not important enough for me to bother with tonight.
Drug War mythology.
Prove your claim.
Your claim came first - your proof can come first.
You know, you like to sound all scientific and s**t, but when it comes down to it, you are a petulant child.
<snicker>
I would have taken a different approach. I would have defended my position, then I would have said, "Your turn."
And yet after making the first claim, you didn't.
It's not my forte to compile and/or dive into stats, but I will get around to it tomorrow, provided I have time. Not important enough for me to bother with tonight.
That you consider supporting your claims "not important" is duly noted.
Here's something to consider (a tip of the hat to FReeper Ken H):
"So we had 400,000 opium addicts in 1880, many of whom were addicted Civil War veterans. The population of the US in 1880 was around 50M. That works out to an addiction rate of 0.8% in 1880. Now, in 1900 the addiction rate to either opium or cocaine was 0.5%.
"So in 1880 there were 0.8% addicted to opium vs 0.5% to either opium or cocaine in 1900. The DEA is telling us that addiction declined substantially between 1880 and 1900, despite these drugs being legal."