|
|
Post by Ubereil on Sept 30, 2009 19:18:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 30, 2009 19:31:27 GMT
Some of the statistics are great, but others are completely worthless. Of course illegal drug use will drop if you decriminalize drug use! The fact that they even include such obvious rubbish as a 'good thing' causes me to seriously doubt the worth of the rest.
'Interesting, but flawed', to me. I'd like to see a more credible analysis though, I must admit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Sept 30, 2009 20:44:07 GMT
Some of the statistics are great, but others are completely worthless. Of course illegal drug use will drop if you decriminalize drug use! The fact that they even include such obvious rubbish as a 'good thing' causes me to seriously doubt the worth of the rest. That's so obvious that only politicians would point it out (because saying that "our policy worked" looks so very good). They mostly talk about illegal drug use among teens, where I suspect there aren't any legal drugs. That's the only reasonable explanation to their use of the term "illegal drugs". After all, how can there be illegal drug use if all drugs are legal? Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 30, 2009 21:07:08 GMT
What it actually says is that 'possessing small amounts' is no longer considered a criminal offence, so therefore it's only those who possess large amounts that are considered criminals.
So there is still criminal possession and thus illegal drugs.
As there's no mention of small amounts being illegal for teenagers anymore than for anyone else, though, I don't think we can really assume anything there, Ube.
Would be interesting to know the position of the Cato Institute on decriminalization and thus how likely they are to bias the statistics in favour of 'proving' their own opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 1, 2009 8:18:42 GMT
I figure that their conclusions are quite valid, as they also quote "lifetime drug use" percentages, which appear to have gone down across the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 1, 2009 10:09:57 GMT
The Cato institute is a libertarian think tank so I'd assume they're quite heavily in favour of decriminalisation.
With that said, consider the numbers. Illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%. If your interpetration is correct that means that before they legalised possession of small ammounts more than two thirds of all users amongst ninth graders were heavy users. Seems reasonable? Right after that sentence they continue with "drug use in older teens also declined". Not illegal drug use. And to that, when they compare drug use they're not talking illegal drug use, they're talking plain use. "Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%."
To that we can ponder over the phrase "use of any illegal drug". Not illegal drug use, use of any illegal drug. They hadn't said the drugs themselves were made legal, just that use and possession of small ammounts was. Another quote: "Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent...". They're found guilty of possessing small amounts. Doesn't sound like it's acually legally legal to me, just that you don't get punished if you get caught doing it.
Übereil
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 1, 2009 10:13:28 GMT
DPR...
And that doesn't strike you as a little unlikely?
I'm assuming they mean 'has tried drug X at least once in their life' rather than 'has spent a lifetime hooked on drugs' as the percentages are far too high for the latter (Not to mention it would be a nonsense figure).
Therefore, an across the board fall is clearly not going to happen, because legalisation in no way cancels out past drug use. So the stats amongst older users should stay the same, not fall.
While I completely believe that legalisation would not necessarily increase overall drug use, there's also no real reason to think it would reduce it. For every person getting a kick out of breaking the law, there's always another who would try something if it were NOT illegal - that's the way people are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 1, 2009 10:20:26 GMT
I would normally consider that lifetime drug use would be for those that use it regularly rather than socially, or casually, or occasionally - same as you have lifetime smokers, or social smokers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 1, 2009 10:23:52 GMT
Ube...
I think we're all about to run into the wall of 'too many maybes' here, honestly. I could answer all your suppositions with more suppositions, but that leaves the whole edifice kinda unsafe.
'Libertarian' covers a pretty wide gamut of opinion, so we can't be all THAT sure of their biases, nor how far those biases reach.
The most important figure is that drug use does not seem to have risen by much if at all due to semi-decriminalisation. A fact worthy of note, wherever one stands on the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 1, 2009 10:26:20 GMT
I would normally consider that lifetime drug use would be for those that use it regularly rather than socially, or casually, or occasionally - same as you have lifetime smokers, or social smokers. I find it extremely unlikely that 39.8% of Americans are regular Marijuana users... |
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 1, 2009 16:41:46 GMT
Ube... I think we're all about to run into the wall of 'too many maybes' here, honestly. I could answer all your suppositions with more suppositions, but that leaves the whole edifice kinda unsafe. Ok, so the easiest way to clear out what the report says is to go to the actual source and see what is says. Page 14, the graph is on page 15. "Since Portugal enacted its decriminalization scheme in 2001, drug usage in many categories has actually decreased when measured in absolute terms, whereas usage in other categories has increased only slightly or mildly." They're not talking about illegal drug use, they're talking about plain drug use. Worthy of note, in light of your reply to DPR, they're not talking about old pepole either, they're talking about new, young pepole who weren't really around back when drugs were fully illegal. With that said: The most important figure is that drug use does not seem to have risen by much if at all due to semi-decriminalisation. A fact worthy of note, wherever one stands on the issue. Which I acually agree with. Somewhat. I'd like to add another important effect: "New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well." So, basically, while getting no increase in use we suddenly have far less drug related accidents and far more pepole entering rehab. What I think is the most important argument against this analysis is that it hasn't been that long yet. We don't know what effect this will have in 20 years time, how it will affect drug use in the long term. Übereil |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 1, 2009 18:49:35 GMT
All true. I think we actually agree, Ube. How scary is that? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 4, 2009 10:42:18 GMT
I would normally consider that lifetime drug use would be for those that use it regularly rather than socially, or casually, or occasionally - same as you have lifetime smokers, or social smokers. I find it extremely unlikely that 39.8% of Americans are regular Marijuana users... Half of the people I know smoke marijuana. |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 4, 2009 10:45:19 GMT
Which proves what?
That'll be a minimal percentage of the entire population, and probably not a representative average.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 4, 2009 10:59:40 GMT
Marijuana is quite common in the US though. According to wikipedia the annual cannabis use in the US was 12.6 in 2004. Exactly how common is hard to tell though.
Übereil
|
|
.com