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
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.