But they don't usually have to 'anything', because you can get a 5th of cheap booze for a few bucks.
Comparing Alcoholism to hard drug addiction is ridiculous.
How much is legal alcoholism costing the country? You want to legalize drugs too. Sure. Shoot yourself in one leg, you can still get around. What the hell, shoot the other one too.
I always drink when I do coke.
The underlining fact of the matter is that people want to do drugs and will do them whether they are legal or illegal. So are you going to let the criminals control the flow of money or the government? I don't know of too many cartels or crime organizations that reinvest in prevention and rehab programs, myself.
Should meth and such be freely available at your local 24/7? Absolutely not. But there are ways of controlling substances through proper healthcare channels that are proven effective in other countries around the world today.
But like always, America, and Americans will bury their head in the sand and throw insane amounts of money at problems in the most inefficient manner, behind the curve yet again.
In before the: "We dun give ar ***** how othur countries do it, We're AMerkica! ***** yeah!" It's ok guys. You keep on staying in the first half of the 20th century when your country was great. Don't forget to write us!
Last edited by DaveDash; 02-01-2012 at 06:21 PM.
When drugs are cheap and easily available, there is less reason to commit crimes. When holding down a minimum wage job is enough to provide a fix at the end of the day, that job will be an easier path than the stuff addicts have to do now. A heroin habit is just too expensive for most people to be able to afford with their wages, unless you're a celebrity.[*******#000000][FONT=Palatino Linotype]Cocaine was the driving force behind the majority of drug-related violence throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s. It was the main target of the federal War on Drugs and was the highest profit drug trade overall. In 1988, the American cocaine market was valued at almost $140 billion dollars, over 2 percent of U.S. GDP. The violence that surrounded its distribution and sale pushed the murder rate to its highest point in America's history (between 8-10 per 100,000 residents from 1981-1991), turned economically impoverished cities like Baltimore, Detroit, Trenton and Gary, Indiana, into international murder capitals, and made America the most violent industrialized nation in the world.
Then in 1994, the crime rate dropped off a cliff. The number of homicides would plummet drastically, dropping almost 50 percent in less than ten years. The same would go for every garden variety of violent crime on down to petty theft. The same year as the sharp decline in crime, cocaine prices hit an all-time low.[/FONT][/COLOR]
It's absolutely not ridiculous - alcoholics and other drug addicts in treatment don't really see much of a difference. The only real differences are the ones that come from the legal status of various substances. Alcoholics have to deal with special challenges because their choice of drug is available everywhere and is intertwined in our culture. Illegal drug addicts have to deal with challenges related to price and distribution system of their chosen drugs. In other respects, addicts are addicts.Comparing Alcoholism to hard drug addiction is ridiculous.
I suspect that legal alcoholism costs us a lot less than attempting to enforce our illegal drug statutes - as well as loss of tax income from the nation's biggest cash crop, for example. You're also assuming that legalization/decriminalization results in more users - which is not something that's been shown to be true.How much is legal alcoholism costing the country? You want to legalize drugs too. Sure. Shoot yourself in one leg, you can still get around. What the hell, shoot the other one too.
Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "Math is my friend. I will not fear math, for fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. Through Poisson distribution I will be free."
[/FONT][/COLOR][*******#000000][FONT=sans-serif]The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise unrepresentative of typical cases.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=sans-serif]It is considered evidence, although often dubious if accepted often because it is the only evidence we have. However it may itself be true and verifiable.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[*******#000000][FONT=sans-serif]The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.