what wrong with this? - Page 2

outlnder · 2003-08-03, 22:47

The National Association of Police Chiefs funded a study in 2001 which is similar to this question.

About 4500 prisoners convicted of drug use or sale were asked if they had used soft drugs(marijuana and cocaine) prior to using the drugs they were convicted of using or selling. The answer was 100% used "soft" drugs.

Now this doesn't really prove anything, but it may be used as ammunition against "soft" drugs.

trif · 2003-08-04, 02:44

I bet they'd get that same 100% for alcohol or tobacco.

The one thing that the use of "soft" illicit drugs does it is breaks whatever inhibition these criminals might have had to breaking the law. Once you cross that line, it becomes much easier to continue to do so, or to go even farther. Legalizing "soft" drugs would most likely drop the number of people willing to go on to do "hard" drugs, because now you move that line out to where only a few are going to cross it.

graeme · 2003-08-04, 09:06

[quote]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Association of Police Chiefs funded a study in 2001 which is similar to this question.

About 4500 prisoners convicted of drug use or sale were asked if they had used soft drugs(marijuana and cocaine) prior to using the drugs they were convicted of using or selling. The answer was 100% used "soft" drugs.

Bing - this is a clear example of this fallacious arguement. As I said before, this is a true but meaningless statistic. The meaningful statistic is how many on soft drugs go on to use hard drugs.

If this last figure is significant, you then have a valid case for treating soft drugs the same as hard drugs. Now of course, what you choose to do about it is a different matter, which I was originally trying to avoid in favour of presenting the logical fallacy as a puzzle.

However, now that it's been moved to the lounge, I'll happily debate the pro's and cons of the UK (and the presumably similar) USA's stance on drugs.

GRaeme

nitro · 2003-08-04, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by graeme

Hi everybody,

[snip a load of drivel here]

Graeme

Would you mind keeping this rubbish and drivel OUT of a forum that is set up to discuss number theory. There are any number of druggy self-help web sites out there. If you want another one then get your own server and start your own message board.

To answer your own question "what wrong with this?". quite simple

IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE.

NickGlover · 2003-08-04, 17:33

Um, this is the Lounge. Pretty much anything goes here. You are not required to read further posts on this thread if it bothers you.

Also, using the term "druggy" to describe people who advocate drug legalization is rather inaccurate.

kwstone · 2003-08-05, 01:04

I think the real question should be, "What proportion of people who started on SETI@home later progressed on to other, harder DC projects? and should SETI therefore be banned?"

QuintLeo · 2003-08-05, 02:47

Well, not me - I progressed straight to RC5-64, DES, CSC, OGR, UD, RC5-72, and GIMPS without ever running SETI.

8-)

outlnder · 2003-08-05, 04:38

I think Seti should be banned. Right now it is doing the same work units for the 8th or is it the 100th time. It is a waste of good CPU cycles and bandwidth. And I started on Seti. It should be shut down until Seti2 is up and running using BOINC. Period. Don't even think about arguing with me because you know I am right.

wfzelle · 2003-08-05, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by trif

I don't want to have my daughter end up like some children I've seen. I was at a dinner once where wine was being served, and one of the moms gave an amusing demonstration of how well her son had been indoctrinated against drugs and alcohol. She called him over and offered him some wine, and he made a face and said, "Mom, alcohol is bad!" and stalked off. I can only guess what effect her (and her husband, as well as many other adults he knows) drinking alcohol when he is being told in school that alcohol is bad is going to have on him in the long run.

Ironically, moderate alcohol consumption is good for you (especially red wine). It's much better to teach children to drink responsibly. Indoctrination with lies during childhood can really backfire. Besides, it's not even a good lie when she serves the devilish alcohol herself.

wfzelle · 2003-08-06, 00:57

Quote:

Bing - this is a clear example of this fallacious argument. As I said before, this is a true but meaningless statistic. The meaningful statistic is how many on soft drugs go on to use hard drugs.

It's not even that useful because it won't tell you whether legalization will lead to increased use of soft or hard drugs. Even if soft drugs lead to hard drugs (something which I don't believe is true), that doesn't matter if legalization doesn't increase the soft drug use. Well, not quite, it can be a reason to legalize if soft drugs usage (and thus hard drug usage) goes down because of it.

FYI, soft drug usage in the Netherlands is in the middle of the pack compared to other European countries. For hard drugs, we are in the lower ranges. We have the lowest number of drug deaths and a very low number of drug users with AIDS. The Netherlands has a partially legalized system. You can read more about it here (especially at the bottom).

Compared to the US, hard and soft drug usage is much lower in the Netherlands. I think that it can safely be said that the War on Drugs has failed. Furthermore, the harsh penalties have filled your prisons. The US incarcerates an amazingly high percentage of its population (compared to other western countries). This effects black & poor people disproportionally (ruining their lives). Even if you don't feel like (partially) legalizing drugs, you should be opposed to the War on Drugs.

BTW, I have never used drugs (other than alcohol, caffeine and such).

nomadicus · 2003-08-06, 14:12

Thanks for the web page pointer wfzelle. I've wanted to get a better understanding of Dutch drug policy workings for a while.

After reading the Dutch information on drug policy, it may well be that what is true for Holland can not be applied to the US. This is because of, what I would call major, differences in culture and government structure between the two countries.

-=- john

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is Moore's Law wrong, or is it wrong-headed (6th time around)	jasong	jasong	12	2016-05-27 11:01
what I do wrong	pepi37	Linux	4	2015-07-12 09:13
Am I doing it wrong?	kracker	PrimeNet	3	2012-07-01 22:35
something wrong with my RAM?	ixfd64	Hardware	13	2010-07-17 20:49
something wrong here?	ixfd64	Lounge	2	2007-09-17 13:20

2003-08-03, 22:47	#12
outlnder Aug 2002 2·3·53 Posts	The National Association of Police Chiefs funded a study in 2001 which is similar to this question. About 4500 prisoners convicted of drug use or sale were asked if they had used soft drugs(marijuana and cocaine) prior to using the drugs they were convicted of using or selling. The answer was 100% used "soft" drugs. Now this doesn't really prove anything, but it may be used as ammunition against "soft" drugs.

2003-08-04, 02:44	#13
trif Aug 2002 312₈ Posts	I bet they'd get that same 100% for alcohol or tobacco. The one thing that the use of "soft" illicit drugs does it is breaks whatever inhibition these criminals might have had to breaking the law. Once you cross that line, it becomes much easier to continue to do so, or to go even farther. Legalizing "soft" drugs would most likely drop the number of people willing to go on to do "hard" drugs, because now you move that line out to where only a few are going to cross it.

2003-08-04, 09:06	#14
graeme Jul 2003 29₁₆ Posts	[quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The National Association of Police Chiefs funded a study in 2001 which is similar to this question. About 4500 prisoners convicted of drug use or sale were asked if they had used soft drugs(marijuana and cocaine) prior to using the drugs they were convicted of using or selling. The answer was 100% used "soft" drugs. Bing - this is a clear example of this fallacious arguement. As I said before, this is a true but meaningless statistic. The meaningful statistic is how many on soft drugs go on to use hard drugs. If this last figure is significant, you then have a valid case for treating soft drugs the same as hard drugs. Now of course, what you choose to do about it is a different matter, which I was originally trying to avoid in favour of presenting the logical fallacy as a puzzle. However, now that it's been moved to the lounge, I'll happily debate the pro's and cons of the UK (and the presumably similar) USA's stance on drugs. GRaeme

2003-08-04, 17:33	#16
NickGlover Aug 2002 Richland, WA 132₁₀ Posts	Um, this is the Lounge. Pretty much anything goes here. You are not required to read further posts on this thread if it bothers you. Also, using the term "druggy" to describe people who advocate drug legalization is rather inaccurate.

2003-08-05, 01:04	#17
kwstone Jun 2003 Shanghai, China 109 Posts	I think the real question should be, "What proportion of people who started on SETI@home later progressed on to other, harder DC projects? and should SETI therefore be banned?"

2003-08-05, 02:47	#18
QuintLeo Oct 2002 Lost in the hills of Iowa 2⁶×7 Posts	Well, not me - I progressed straight to RC5-64, DES, CSC, OGR, UD, RC5-72, and GIMPS without ever running SETI. 8-)

2003-08-05, 04:38	#19
outlnder Aug 2002 2×3×53 Posts	I think Seti should be banned. Right now it is doing the same work units for the 8th or is it the 100th time. It is a waste of good CPU cycles and bandwidth. And I started on Seti. It should be shut down until Seti2 is up and running using BOINC. Period. Don't even think about arguing with me because you know I am right.

2003-08-06, 14:12	#22
nomadicus Jan 2003 North Carolina 2×3×41 Posts	Thanks for the web page pointer wfzelle. I've wanted to get a better understanding of Dutch drug policy workings for a while. After reading the Dutch information on drug policy, it may well be that what is true for Holland can not be applied to the US. This is because of, what I would call major, differences in culture and government structure between the two countries. -=- john