Posted on 07/11/2014 7:29:08 AM PDT by Kazan
Two new University of Colorado studies paint an ominous picture of the direction of the state since marijuana commercialization, but neither provides conclusive evidence that legal pot is causing harm.
One study shows more drivers involved in fatal car accidents in Colorado are testing positive for marijuana — and that Colorado has a higher percentage of such drivers testing positive for pot than other states even when controlled for several variables. But the data the researchers use does not reveal whether those drivers were impaired at the time of the crash or whether they were at fault.
"The primary result of this study may simply reflect a general increase in marijuana use during this ... time period in Colorado," the study's authors write.
The other study shows that perceptions of marijuana's risk have decreased across all age groups with the boom in marijuana businesses in the state. The study also finds that near-daily marijuana use among adults increased significantly starting in 2009, relative to states without medical marijuana laws. But the study's authors acknowledge that they cannot show Colorado's marijuana laws are the reason for the shifts in attitudes and use.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
This is a misstatement of my position, but I expect no less of you. You can't win an argument without arguing against a false position.
What I said was that we have 85,000 people per year killed by Alcohol. You pro-drug types are always arguing that getting rid of prohibition was absolutely fantastically great, but I merely pointed out to you that the dead body pile is far higher than it would have otherwise been.
Somehow you morphed that into a claim that I am in favor of prohibition.
and when presented with evidence that it was, retreats to his self-contained reality where all evidence presented against substance bans is deemed unreliable because it's been presented as evidence against substance bans.
"Evidence" from the PRO-DRUG crowd is just as credible as "evidence" from the Global warming crowd, or the "Gays are born that way" crowd.
They aren't doing real research, they are starting out with the intent to justify drugs, (or Global Warming, Or Gays are born that way) and they then work backwards to their "evidence."
If there are any legitimate researchers in the pile, their work is lost in the heaping mass of all the propaganda driven "research."
bump
I'm really at a point where I don't consider you worth an answer. I personally don't consider you knowledgeable enough or intelligent enough to comprehend the answers you've already been given. Your responses indicate that you have a complete lack of understanding on the topic.
You are just a guy with an agenda, and you don't want to see anything which demonstrates your idea to be wrong. Your mind isn't open enough to even consider the possibility. If this is in fact true, why would I possibly want to argue with you?
How can you justify the converse? Something already kills 65,000 people per year, and we need another one? Why would we want another one?
Why should alcohol users have more right to use their harmful substance than drug users? You'd have to prove that recreational drug use causes substantially more harm to society than alcohol use. And that remains to be seen.
This is a misstatement of my position
Oh, so you DO agree that alcohol Prohibition was a failure?
What I said was that we have 85,000 people per year killed by Alcohol.
You also said this:
'For my entire life, I have been inundated with the declaration that "Prohibition was a failure", and this bit of conventional wisdom is so ubiquitous that you are hard pressed to find any contrary opinion.'
'Yes, the people who like drugs and alcohol have written for years that prohibiting it was a great mistake. As you pointed out regarding "statements against interest" I will point out that most of these "research" essays are "statements for interest" and therefore cannot be accepted on the face of them as being objectively correct. They are merely supporting the same old agenda these people have always pushed.'
Somehow you morphed that into a claim that I am in favor of prohibition.
Re-read for comprehension - that's not what I said. I didn't say you made any positive claim, I said you don't agree that alcohol Prohibition was a failure - which is well supported by your disputing my argument that alcohol Prohibition was a failure.
and when presented with evidence that it was, retreats to his self-contained reality where all evidence presented against substance bans is deemed unreliable because it's been presented as evidence against substance bans.
They aren't doing real research, they are starting out with the intent to justify drugs
And your only evidence that "they are starting out with the intent to justify drugs" is that they reach conclusions that support legalization ... as I said, a self-contained reality where all evidence presented against substance bans is deemed unreliable because it's been presented as evidence against substance bans.
And often not. Do you favor legality for domestically produced drugs?
No answer?
you don't want to see anything which demonstrates your idea to be wrong.
How would you saying what YOU FAVOR demonstrates any idea to be wrong or right? You're squirming to avoid acknowledging that your arguments are half-baked rationalizations for your predetermined position.
My point was that those of you who advocate for drugs are never objective about the topic of prohibition and you refuse to acknowledge the very real and detrimental consequences of legal alcohol.
Consistency is not the most important thing at stake here.
'For my entire life, I have been inundated with the declaration that "Prohibition was a failure", and this bit of conventional wisdom is so ubiquitous that you are hard pressed to find any contrary opinion.'
'Yes, the people who like drugs and alcohol have written for years that prohibiting it was a great mistake. As you pointed out regarding "statements against interest" I will point out that most of these "research" essays are "statements for interest" and therefore cannot be accepted on the face of them as being objectively correct. They are merely supporting the same old agenda these people have always pushed.'
My position is "I don't know."
So you don't know whether Prohibition was a failure - but you do know that almost everything written in support of "Prohibition was a failure" is propaganda? Um ... OK.
you refuse to acknowledge the very real and detrimental consequences of legal alcohol.
When have I refused to acknowledge the very real and detrimental consequences of alcohol? Tens of thousands of people die every year in drunk driving accidents. It's not clear that this is a consequence of LEGAL alcohol, since "Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased."
Actually, i'm no longer taking you seriously as a debating opponent.
<snicker>
And stuff like this is the reason why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.