"I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."

The entitlement argument again

Your idee fixe again. Get the help you so clearly need.

"I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."

Every alcohol user I know won't even switch brands, much less switch to a formerly illegal drug.

"You raised the alcohol argument, now you want to walk away from it."

He wants to walk away from it because you refuse to accept the premise that alcohol should be the new legal standard -- ie., any recreational drug less lethal should be allowed.

Which, of course, fixes nothing. It would be like legalizing only white wine during Prohibition.

You raised the alcohol argument

I raised AN alcohol argument - but not the one you're rebutting.

switch to a formerly illegal drug.

"Switching" is not at issue here - the article is about people with both drugs in their systems.

any recreational drug less lethal should be allowed.

Which, of course, fixes nothing. It would be like legalizing only white wine during Prohibition.

False analogy, as all forms of alcohol have the same inebriating effect whereas not all illegal drugs have the same inebriating effect.

"the article is about people with both drugs in their systems."

Even a better reason to legalize marijuana, huh?

"all forms of alcohol have the same inebriating effect whereas not all illegal drugs have the same inebriating effect."

The "effect" was not my point.

If you want to end the War on Drugs you have to legalize ALL drugs, not just marijuana. When ending Prohibition, ALL forms of alcohol became legal.

Even a better reason to legalize marijuana, huh?

There's no evidence that it's a reason to not legalize marijuana.

The "effect" was not my point.

If you want to end the War on Drugs you have to legalize ALL drugs, not just marijuana.

You proposed your analogy right after your claim that legalizing any recreational drug less lethal than alcohol "fixes nothing"; I pointed out that your analogy didn't support your claim. Have you dropped that claim in favor of your current near-tautology?

I think fixing the problems caused or aggravated by marijuana criminalization, by ending that criminalization, is more prudent than legalizing all drugs in one swoop (not that the latter is a political possibility anyway).

"And one wonders: did youth use rise again after the 1990 measure was struck down in 2003 by the Alaska Court of Appeals ... and if so, why did Alaskans vote to legalize in 2014?"

Yes, one does wonder.

One need wonder no longer: SAMHSA finds that between 2002-2003 and 2013-2014, past-month marijuana use in Alaska dropped among 12-17-year-olds and 18-25 (while rising among 26 and up).

I raised AN alcohol argument - but not the one you're rebutting.

Don't lie.

you're no longer amusing.

You're funnier than hell. Inadvertently, of course.

"I think fixing the problems caused or aggravated by marijuana criminalization, by ending that criminalization, is more prudent than legalizing all drugs in one swoop (not that the latter is a political possibility anyway)."

Are you calling for decriminalization or legalization?

"I pointed out that your analogy didn't support your claim."

My analogy is valid. The problems caused by alcohol being illegal was solved by ending Prohibition, not legalizing one form of alcohol. Similarly, the problems caused by recreational drugs being illegal is only solved by ending the War on Drugs, not legalizing just those drugs less lethal than alcohol.

And nationwide?

Nationwide there was a smaller drop than Alaska's for 12-17, and a rise for 18-25. Alaska's re-relegalization of personal-use possession did no harm in the area of youth use.

Are you calling for decriminalization or legalization?

Legalization.

the problems caused by recreational drugs being illegal is only solved by ending the War on Drugs, not legalizing just those drugs less lethal than alcohol.

The problems caused by recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol being illegal are solved by ending the illegality of recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol; doing so does not "fix nothing" as you claimed.

"The problems caused by recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol being illegal are solved by ending the illegality of recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol"

I'll say it again. Ending the illegality of only recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol solves nothing. No courtrooms, prisons or jails are closed. No judges lose their jobs. Neither do guards, prosecutors or cops.

The War on Drugs costs the same. No-knock warrants are still issued. Civil asset forfeiture continues. People still go to jail.

And now, due to legalization, we have twice as many people using recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol, many of them children.

I'll say it again.

And for the first time you'll attempt to support it.

Ending the illegality of only recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol solves nothing. No courtrooms, prisons or jails are closed. No judges lose their jobs. Neither do guards, prosecutors or cops.

The War on Drugs costs the same. No-knock warrants are still issued. Civil asset forfeiture continues. People still go to jail.

Here's a big difference you overlooked: the $40 billion that Americans spend on marijuana (2010 ONDCP figure) would no longer be paid to cartels or other criminals.

And now, due to legalization, we have twice as many people using recreational drugs less lethal than alcohol

Only if you comically extrapolate fatal crashes to the entire population.

First, and of no small importance, cannabis isn’t even close to the leading cause of fatal crashes. In fact, when it comes to deadly accidents where the driver tested positive for cannabis, “most” had also consumed alcohol or other drugs.

I stated this a long time ago. People just have a distorted view of pot.

There really isn't a good reason to ban it and it only hurts the real drug war. Once you lose the people you lost the war and thats what has happen to the war on drugs. People have cried wolf too many ties with pot and it has caused a huge back lash.

"Here's a big difference you overlooked: the $40 billion that Americans spend on marijuana (2010 ONDCP figure) would no longer be paid to cartels or other criminals."

Meaning what? They're going to go out and find honest work? If this is a good idea, lets legalize all drugs and really hit them hard!

The bottom line is that the cartels will double down and continue to sell any drug that remains illegal and will sell them to anyone who is not old enough to buy them legally.

Meaning what? They're going to go out and find honest work?

Some may, while others turn to crimes that more readily result in arrest and conviction because not everyone involved is cooperating in the commission of the crime (as is the case with drug transactions).

If this is a good idea, lets legalize all drugs and really hit them hard!

That might turn out to be the best approach, but prudence dictates we start with the most renumerative and least harmful drug.

The bottom line is that the cartels will double down and continue to sell any drug that remains illegal and will sell them to anyone who is not old enough to buy them legally.

That's being done already - and cartels are no more able than any other seller to create new demand through force of will.

"Only if you comically extrapolate fatal crashes to the entire population."

Perfectly logical when you consider that the only other conclusion is that only people who smoke dope are those involved in fatal car crashes.

"That's being done already ..."

... and will continue. You've solved nothing.

the only other conclusion is that only people who smoke dope are those involved in fatal car crashes.

Laughably false - another conclusion, as I've said, could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant.

... and will continue. You've solved nothing.

Continue but unlikely to increase, so I have solved the problem of criminals previously profiting from the now-legal drug. Cartels are no more able than any other seller to create new demand through force of will.

"could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant."

Or, people likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant could be the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes.

Not that there's a cause and effect at work. Merely a coincidence.

Or, people likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant could be the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes.

Could be.

Not that there's a cause and effect at work.

Not sure what you're hinting at here - did the word "otherwise" go right over your head?

"did the word "otherwise" go right over your head?"

I ignore all weasel words.

"The only evidence here is that pot use very possibly doubled among the sort of people likeliest to have fatal crashes"

"That's okay then."

How about that. You legalize marijuana and the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes.

I'm thinking that this just might be a good reason not to legalize it.

I ignore all weasel words.

You claim qualifiers are weasel words - you're an unqualified moron.

the only people affected

Nobody said that - that's just the latest of the many straw men you prop up to beat because you can't rebut what's actually been said.

"Nobody said that ..."

You did. You said the data supported ONLY that conclusion.

Are you now changing your statement?

"Learn to read."

Let's see. You posted, "The only evidence here is that pot use very possibly doubled among the sort of people likeliest to have fatal crashes ..."

How did I read that wrong? Time to spread the sand and start tap-dancing.

"The only evidence here is that pot use very possibly doubled among the sort of people likeliest to have fatal crashes ..."

How did I read that wrong?

I'm glad you asked. The quoted statement is completely neutral as to whether OTHER evidence may support a conclusion that pot use increased among OTHER people - so your distortion, "the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes" was not stated nor implied.

Further, I've already explicitly said otherwise:

Post #27: "I consider it quite plausible that alcohol abusers are readier than others to jump on the newest legal intoxicant." Note that's "readier than others" NOT "the only ones at all ready".
#60: "another conclusion, as I've said, could be that the sort of people otherwise disposed to have fatal crashes are disproportionately likely to jump on the newest legal intoxicant." Note that's "disproportionately" NOT "the only ones".

"the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes" was not stated nor implied.

Sure it was. Why else make the statement, "That twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix appears to be a piss-poor reason for banning it for all adults."

You're NOT saying the ONLY people affected are those prone to fatal crashes? And since the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes, we shouldn't ban it for all adults?

You're now trying to have it both ways. I ain't gonna let you ... you qualified moron.

Why else make the statement, "That twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix appears to be a piss-poor reason for banning it for all adults."

You're NOT saying the ONLY people affected are those prone to fatal crashes? And since the only people affected are those prone to fatal crashes, we shouldn't ban it for all adults?

No, I'm not. This is a thread starting with an article about a certain body of evidence; that evidence proves no more than that twice as many abusers of alcohol and other substances may possibly have marginally increased their likelihood of crashing by adding pot to the mix; so I said that the most that can be concluded from the evidence under discussion adds up to a piss-poor reason for banning marijuana for all adults ... without implying anything about other arguments and evidence that might be presented for that ban.

"... so I said that the most that can be concluded from the evidence under discussion adds up to a piss-poor reason for banning marijuana for all adults."

Because you believe that pot legalization results in the doubling of people only prone to fatal crashes.

According to the evidence presented.

Because you believe that pot legalization results in the doubling of people only prone to fatal crashes.

According to the evidence presented.

I believe the evidence presented supports no more than that pot legalization resulted in the doubling of pot use among people prone to fatal crashes. I further believe that the evidence presented here is not the totality of evidence regarding the results of pot legalization.

A 1988 snapshot showed Alaskan teen use at double the U.S. average

Segal himself wrote: "because of differences in sampling procedures and time of sampling, these differences should be interpreted as a relative comparison rather than exact differences. Nevertheless, the question that arises is: Why are the differences so extensive? One answer may lie in the sampling procedure; youth may be less reluctant to report drug use in a questionnaire than in a personal interview."

"Segal himself wrote: "because of differences in sampling procedures and time of sampling, these differences should be interpreted as a relative comparison rather than exact differences."

Of course. But 10 years after pot became illegal in Alaska, teen use dropped to close to the national average.

10 years after pot became illegal in Alaska, teen use dropped

Perhaps - or perhaps, as Segal said, the apparent disparity was caused by youth being less reluctant to report drug use in a questionnaire (Alaska) than in a personal interview (lower 48).

"Perhaps - or perhaps, as Segal said, the apparent disparity was caused by youth being less reluctant to report drug use in a questionnaire (Alaska) than in a personal interview (lower 48)."

I said I agreed. That could explain the difference in the 1988 snapshot. Or, everyone was telling the truth and Alaskan teen use was indeed double.

But Segal does a support a relative comparison -- ie., 1988 usage vs. 1998 usage. If illegality in Alaska had no effect we should see the same disparity in 1998. We don't.

But Segal does a support a relative comparison -- ie., 1988 usage vs. 1998 usage.

Sorry, Segal's 1988 paper said nothing about 1998 - and there's no evidence on the table that Segal's 1988 methodology was repeated in 1998.