Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs Eleven Years Ago And The Results Are Staggering

[zero11]

From a pure economic point of view, decriminalizing drugs + a good and strog education campaign can hurt drugs (and those who profit from it) way more than any police / military action.

Having grown up in the 80's in a communist country (northern Bosnia) I would have to disagree, for example there was a period around 87/88 when the whole town started buzzing about a dealers turning up in a cafe that was a gathering spot for the "alternative types", so prominent members of the community decided to delete the problem. Police turned up and cordoned off the area and the prominent members of the community proceeded in to beat to the pulp all inside and dealer that was caught was beaten so severly he ended up in a coma. Drugs were not heard of until the late 90's, today there are dozens of junkies on the streets, police are to scared to act because "human rights" fvckwits are watching them like hawks and losing a source of income in todays circumstances would be catastrophic. Touch a criminal/junkie and chances are the cop will be branded nationalistic/genocidal/ethnic cleansing rapist, need I mention that crime rates have gone through the roof........

[muck]

Actually the connection is simply not there. The majority of infractions are simply not even adressed. Those who get caught are a fraction and more linked to a result oriented approach, rather than a morality oriented approach. Let´s take the broken window theory. It single handedly has driven the ideological thinking of most conservatives. While being a wholly teleological animal. Most penal codes do not express morality directly. Hence various social misconducts are not really regarded by a penal code (notably cheating on your spouse). The issue however is that you simply do not push your own idea further. If there is a moral line, why does the state entertain a harmful trade like, alcohol and tobacco, but not drugs?

We seem to cross-talk.
The punishability of "legal offences" accrues from morale and ethics and from nothing else, this is the suggestion I've floated, and even offences seemingly detached from morale ultimately refer to the violation of a valuable moral interest.
If this wasn't true you couldn't even explain the differences between codes from different cultural spheres, whereas their commonalities - invariably - are either the product of recent external influences or date back to the oldest days of our kind (common taboos such as that on incest for example). Furthermore you could not explain the fact that societies (or at least parts thereof) often object legislation that's not arisen from their own moral concepts, sometimes to the point where they decide to defy the threat of punishment and impose their own law.
This is why I've stated the only purpose of a penal code is to protect a morale concept and where you speak of "the purpose to determine what's permitted and what's not" I just see the underlying influence: "What's permitted and what's not" is, when all is said and done, a product of moral considerations no matter how abstract this thought may seem to begin with.

This concept suffers restrictions from the politicisation of the law enforcement and - execution, and sometimes internal resistance in terms of feasibility but I do hold it as ultimately true and I am highly critical of attempts to erode it, such as what I think the decriminalization of drugs is.

That's all I have to say for now.

Your example with regard to alcohol and tobacco is misleading and misplaced. Their consumption is not morally accepted without exception but a ban is hardly feasible due to widespread presence and cultural roots. My theory still stands, though, since where moral objection begins to prevail societies also begin to exert an influence on a level of escalation lower than punishment (but still with the character of a punishment) - in form of cigarette tax for example. Where I live it's not just a tool for the state to make money but it's declared intention is to make smokers quit, in lieu of an outright ban that couldn't be enacted.

DSM, is a manual of Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the Board of American Psychologist, or something like that. In the US a axis one diagnosis has certain legal protections. Under US law, there are certain classes of people who can not commit a crime.

I know, though how is this a hurdle in constitutional considerations? You could argue that continued drug use may not be a "commitable" crime because of the disease-like character of a drug addiction but the exclusion criterion in this case is self-induced.
This "self-induction" can be regarded as a punishable offence. For example, some societies do also punish crimes committed in a drunken stupor and if they don't, they'll punish the perp instead for deliberately allowing themselves to get in a situation where they could not fully control themselves, committing a crime in the process.

[muck]

If you want to discuss huge follow on costs, look at how much it costs to house even casual, occasional drug users in prisons. And according the article, there is less recidivism, which means less using, less demand, less violent crime in using and supplying countries. We can argue the morality of it, but if you want to find a way to reduce drug related costs, drug usage, associated violence, Portugal seems to have found a way.

I don't set off the (material) follow-up costs of drug use against the ("transcendent") costs of law enforcement and - execution. Just as I think money is, for example, no argument for or against capital punishment either.

I know this sounds illogical at first, but it isn't from where I'm standing.

[KoTeMoRe]

We seem to cross-talk.
The punishability of "legal offences" accrues from morale and ethics and from nothing else, this is the suggestion I've floated, and even offences seemingly detached from morale ultimately refer to the violation of a valuable moral interest.
If this wasn't true you couldn't even explain the differences between codes from different cultural spheres, whereas their commonalities - invariably - are either the product of recent external influences or date back to the oldest days of our kind (common taboos such as that on incest for example). Furthermore you could not explain the fact that societies (or at least parts thereof) often object legislation that's not arisen from their own moral concepts, sometimes to the point where they decide to defy the threat of punishment and impose their own law.
This is why I've stated the only purpose of a penal code is to protect a morale concept and where you speak of "the purpose to determine what's permitted and what's not" I just see the underlying influence: "What's permitted and what's not" is, when all is said and done, a product of moral considerations no matter how abstract this thought may seem to begin with.

This concept suffers restrictions from the politicisation of the law enforcement and - execution, and sometimes internal resistance in terms of feasibility but I do hold it as ultimately true and I am highly critical of attempts to erode it, such as what I think the decriminalization of drugs is.

That's all I have to say for now.

Your example with regard to alcohol and tobacco is misleading and misplaced. Their consumption is not morally accepted without exception but a ban is hardly feasible due to widespread presence and cultural roots. My theory still stands, though, since where moral objection begins to prevail societies also begin to exert an influence on a level of escalation lower than punishment (but still with the character of a punishment) - in form of cigarette tax for example. Where I live it's not just a tool for the state to make money but it's declared intention is to make smokers quit, in lieu of an outright ban that couldn't be enacted.I know, though how is this a hurdle in constitutional considerations? You could argue that continued drug use may not be a "commitable" crime because of the disease-like character of a drug addiction but the exclusion criterion in this case is self-induced.This "self-induction" can be regarded as a punishable offence. For example, some societies do also punish crimes committed in a drunken stupor and if they don't, they'll punish the perp instead for deliberately allowing themselves to get in a situation where they could not fully control themselves, committing a crime in the process.

Underlined: That is simply untrue. Spirits, beer, tobacco and prescripted medication are socially approved (dare I say socially promoted - look at your MP.net beer thread) harmful consumptions. Food abuse is lengths above in indirect costs when compared to drugs.

As said before, social policies today are based on a social managment principle, not a moral one. Taxation is no punishment. It is an attempt to limit consumption and disburse partly health care costs. Would you challenge that fiscality is a punishment?

[Rattfink]

I don't set off the (material) follow-up costs of drug use against the ("transcendent") costs of law enforcement and - execution. Just as I think money is, for example, no argument for or against capital punishment either.

I know this sounds illogical at first, but it isn't from where I'm standing.

I honestly don't know what the hell you mean by this. No offense meant.
Dealing with drug users: Conventional approach has extremely high cost. Portugal's has a high cost as well. Only one seems effective in lowering drug usage, and therefore cost of dealing with drug usage and harm caused by it. All assuming of course the article is accurate.

[armored_diplomacy]

Personally, I liked Mao's method of drug eradication.

I´d say me to; we all have seen what drugs are doing and would love to make them pay for it.

But: was it succesful? not to mention the Maoist context, which I´d hate to even being close.

Having grown up in the 80's in a communist country (northern Bosnia) I would have to disagree, for example there was a period around 87/88 when the whole town started buzzing about a dealers turning up in a cafe that was a gathering spot for the "alternative types", so prominent members of the community decided to delete the problem. Police turned up and cordoned off the area and the prominent members of the community proceeded in to beat to the pulp all inside and dealer that was caught was beaten so severly he ended up in a coma. Drugs were not heard of until the late 90's, today there are dozens of junkies on the streets, police are to scared to act because "human rights" fvckwits are watching them like hawks and losing a source of income in todays circumstances would be catastrophic. Touch a criminal/junkie and chances are the cop will be branded nationalistic/genocidal/ethnic cleansing rapist, need I mention that crime rates have gone through the roof........

I´m pretty sure something is missing there: proper education and a strong commitment from authorities.

It´s business. A very profitable business. Face it from that side (which is not the only one, though) and you´ll have a chance to do something. Start with either military-type actions or "let them do what they want" (pushed by the HHRR agenda) in a context of illegal drug dealing and ... we´ll be in the same place, with the scenario that you described.

Agay, it´s not easy to understand for me: I always supported the police-approach toward drug-dealing, but numbers don´t lie, and when it´s explained business-style, makes a lot of sense.

The will to do it, of course, is a scarce extra, not to mention the insane amount of pressure you´ll have from those who benefit from it, from both sides of the law.

[muck]

Underlined:

And the rest? I dare you to sidestep the more fundamental bits once again.

That is simply untrue. Spirits, beer, tobacco and prescripted medication are socially approved (dare I say socially promoted - look at your MP.net beer thread) harmful consumptions. Food abuse is lengths above in indirect costs when compared to drugs.

Oh? You take mp.net as a mirror of society? We don't seem to live in the same society then, mind you I also included cigarettes in that calculation... The society I live in goes to all lengths to reduce the consumption of alcohol and especially tobacco. And we're there again, still cross-talking: where you see "social management" and an attempt to allocate health care costs I counter with a question: wherefrom comes the motivation for that?
Isn't it because you can't explain a healthy person why they should pay for others who deliberately destroy their health and allow themselves to become a burden for the society?
Why can't you justifiy that?
Because egoism is immoral.

As said before, social policies today are based on a social managment principle, not a moral one. Taxation is no punishment. It is an attempt to limit consumption and disburse partly health care costs. Would you challenge that fiscality is a punishment?

Don't twist my words, of course fiscality is not a punishment per se. It can have the character of a punishment though. I've explicitely named Germany's cigarette tax as an example to made my point. It's declared intention is to bring smokers to quit and it's designated raison d'être is that the originally intended ban on tobbaco cannot be enacted.

[Kilgor]

The "war on drugs" would have ended years ago if it wasn't for the political and economic interests of certain parties.

Drug control is more about political capital than any regard for the health of society.

[muck]

I honestly don't know what the hell you mean by this. No offense meant.

I mean the costs that arise from the enforcement of laws and the execution of sentences are (in my humble opinion) per se irrelevant, even if someone insists they could be reduced by adopting different procedures to the effect that less cases (such as drug addicts) would end up in the whole system as "cost drivers".

[KoTeMoRe]

And the rest? I dare you to sidestep the more fundamental bits once again.

Already answered you. Since about 40 years the leading cause to penal reform have been result driven schemes. I gave you the overall zero-tolerance tendency of the broken window theory.

Oh? You take mp.net as a mirror of society? We don't seem to live in the same society then, mind you I also included cigarettes in that calculation... The society I live in goes to all lengths to reduce the consumption of alcohol and especially tobacco. And we're there again, still cross-talking: where you see "social management" and an attempt to allocate health care costs I counter with a question: wherefrom comes the motivation for that?
Isn't it because you can't explain a healthy person why they should pay for others who deliberately destroy their health and allow themselves to become a burden for the society?

I can explain that to a healthy person, but it is not sure that the healthy person would listen. A healthy person would by the same token also decline social provisions such as mandatory healthcare plan...

Oh and as for your claim about spirits : https://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&s...EKqQ0AWs14GwCg

Because egoism is immoral. Don't twist my words, of course fiscality is not a punishment per se. It can have the character of a punishment though. I've explicitely named Germany's cigarette tax as an example to made my point. It's declared intention is to bring smokers to quit and it's designated raison d'être is that the originally intended ban on tobbaco cannot be enacted.

Egoism and individualism are the cores of the modern state approach. Claiming the contrary is absolutely disingenous. And Egoism is not immoral. Egoist is ammoral. You want your woman to be a stunner, you want the best car, the most gifted children, the better job. And you would do everything to have them.

Twisting your words? You want me to quote you? We have higher taxes (proportionally both in Belgium and Albania). I have never smoked one...because the cost was already prohibitive in Albania 30 so years ago. See nothing moral about that. The problem with tobbacco is one of public health, not of morality. But you can twist it as you want...

Now as for the more interesting bits, I told you, the morality you claim is simply not present any longer when it comes to Penal Law.

I honestly don't know what the hell you mean by this. No offense meant.
Dealing with drug users: Conventional approach has extremely high cost. Portugal's has a high cost as well. Only one seems effective in lowering drug usage, and therefore cost of dealing with drug usage and harm caused by it. All assuming of course the article is accurate.

The idea is that no matter what, some subjects are morally reprehensible and therefore approaching them with a cost effectiveness approach is bound to fail. Which off course is non-sense. As the depenalization and eventual legalization have nothing to do with drug-related or fueled offences. Hence the hint towards already such situations with Spirits and Tobacco (and medeication).

[muck]

Already answered you. Since about 40 years the leading cause to penal reform have been result driven schemes. I gave you the overall zero-tolerance tendency of the broken window theory.

No you didn't, and not only because I wrote the "not-underlined part" only after you brought that up.
And I still challenge the statement that "the leading cause to penal reform have been result driven schemes" - be it in the past 40 years or whenever before. The discrepancy I spot - note how I restrict myself to my viewpoint whereas you claim to personate the definition of trueness! - becomes even more apparent if the whole legal system is taken into consideration and not only a few laws detached from the greater whole. How was the legalisation of homosexuality or procuration* a result-driven scheme? How was the tightening of child protection laws (for example regarding child marriage, sexual intercourse but also corporal punishment) result-driven? The number of corresponding examples is staggering. But in fact we're just splitting hairs here - you see a "result"/ problem solved where I see an underlying moral conflict situation taken into consideration. Your approach is rather technocratic while mine is more philosophical.

*) Many societies, such as Germany until 1969, would punish any person who did abet fornication and not only in the sense of conventional prostitution, for example these laws were also applied to landlords who rented apartments to unmarried couples... all of this in lieu of a law against "immoral" fornication.

I'm going to maintain my view point that the leading impetus for legal reforms is in fact the transformation of moral concepts. Or in the most simple words: the leading cause is that some things gradually become agreeable and others become objectionable.

Now as for the more interesting bits, I told you, the morality you claim is simply not present any longer when it comes to Penal Law.

Can't we just agree to disagree or will we continue to have a go on each other boiling down to "yes!" - "no!" - "yes!" - "no!"? This debate is futile for we won't going to end a discussion that was begun by pro-Socratic thinkers.

The idea is that no matter what, some subjects are morally reprehensible and therefore approaching them with a cost effectiveness approach is bound to fail. Which off course is non-sense. As the depenalization and eventual legalization have nothing to do with drug-related or fueled offences. Hence the hint towards already such situations with Spirits and Tobacco (and medeication).

Ugh... no. The idea is that money spent on maintaining the law is well spent per se.

[Rattfink]

I mean the costs that arise from the enforcement of laws and the execution of sentences are (in my humble opinion) per se irrelevant, even if someone insists they could be reduced by adopting different procedures to the effect that less cases (such as drug addicts) would end up in the whole system as "cost drivers".

The point remains, if the goal of law enforcement is fewer broken laws, then Portugal is winning. The lower cost is just a bonus. The article does not suggest nations stop enforcing or change laws to save money.

[KoTeMoRe]

No you didn't, and not only because I wrote the "not-underlined part" only after you brought that up.
And I still challenge the statement that "the leading cause to penal reform have been result driven schemes" - be it in the past 40 years or whenever before. The discrepancy I spot - note how I restrict myself to my viewpoint whereas you claim to personate the definition of trueness! - becomes even more apparent if the whole legal system is taken into consideration and not only a few laws detached from the greater whole. How was the legalisation of homosexuality or procuration* a result-driven scheme? How was the tightening of child protection laws (for example regarding child marriage, sexual intercourse but also corporal punishment) result-driven? The number of corresponding examples is staggering. But in fact we're just splitting hairs here - you see a "result"/ problem solved where I see an underlying moral conflict situation taken into consideration. Your approach is rather technocratic while mine is more philosophical.

*) Many societies, such as Germany until 1969, would punish any person who did abet fornication and not only in the sense of conventional prostitution, for example these laws were also applied to landlords who rented apartments to unmarried couples... all of this in lieu of a law against "immoral" fornication.

I'm going to maintain my view point that the leading impetus for legal reforms is in fact the transformation of moral concepts. Or in the most simple words: the leading cause is that some things gradually become agreeable and others become objectionable.
Can't we just agree to disagree or will we continue to have a go on each other boiling down to "yes!" - "no!" - "yes!" - "no!"? This debate is futile for we won't going to end a discussion that was begun by pro-Socratic thinkers.Ugh... no. The idea is that money spent on maintaining the law is well spent per se.

1. What have been the major pushes in all the cases you forwarded? An attempt to make the said infractions less prevalent. Result driven stance.
Penalizing homo******ity is a morally driven law that was rejected. Child marriage enforcment would lead to less cases of child/minor abuse by their spouses. Result driven stance. On other cases the drop of the blasphemy laws indicate a clear cut of all morally led valued. Corporal punishment is again not a moral case, but a clear human investment case. Abused children tend in a various accounts to reproduce their tormentor´s practices. This again has less to do with morality. It is a matter of public policy. The fact is bar the homo****** issue, all the other cases had laws clearly punishing abuse (be that child marriage, corporal punishment etc).

The fact that emotionnal signals tend to be translated into legal aftershocks is a completely normal way human societies behave.

The Law today has less moral concepts and as such the State is withdrawing more and more from the whole civil religion/moral order aspect. It is becoming a facilitator/manager rather than a Pater Familias. The cause for problematic situations to become legally forbidden or tolerated is by all accounts related to a cost/efficiency tangent on the States behalf rather than some silly moral crusade. Which incidentally it had always been since the great Liberal Revolution. The tendency of this is simply related to the empowerment of the people as a whole opposed to the happy few from the past.

2. You actually stated that your mind will not change. Therefore I find it ridiculous for you to go all maïeutic on me. Where you claim philosophy, I rather see a social conservative reaction. There is no philosophical underlining into bringing up any morality in the Penal law. As for that, due process goes quite sometimes against the vertuous. IE no evidence, no proof, no case despite a real infraction happening. Where is the morality there? The advent of victimology and efforts towards victims that often are brought as the moral swing have actually less insight into why the State has created relief funds for victims...that is to save the social tissue by not having victims go ballistic.

3. The law is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any money spent to maintain it has to be scrutinized for cost effectiveness (the Prohibitions Chinese and American) are classical examples. On a more modern approach, the cost and size of Law Enforcment on specific issues Is simply outlandish. We are looking at close to a 100 bln USD for incarceration in the US. About 15 bln USD for marijuana. These are impressive numbers. Absolutley nightmarish numbers.

[harryc]

The "war on drugs" would have ended years ago if it wasn't for the political and economic interests of certain parties.

Drug control is more about political capital than any regard for the health of society.

In the big cities there is also an opportunistic element in the drug war, folks who should be/need to be locked up and the easy charge is drug possession.

Plus it is always a good political football, going after the OTHER guys, because of THEIR drug use (Rush ?).

[muck]

1. What have been the major pushes in all the cases you forwarded? An attempt to make the said infractions less prevalent. Result driven stance.
Penalizing homosexuality is a morally driven law that was rejected. Child marriage enforcment would lead to less cases of child/minor abuse by their spouses. Result driven stance. On other cases the drop of the blasphemy laws indicate a clear cut of all morally led valued. Corporal punishment is again not a moral case, but a clear human investment case. Abused children tend in a various accounts to reproduce their tormentor´s practices. This again has less to do with morality. It is a matter of public policy. The fact is bar the homosexuality issue, all the other cases had laws clearly punishing abuse (be that child marriage, corporal punishment etc).

Your reservation to let the homosexuality example count is most telling.

Homosexuality was legalized when the society grew more tolerant of it and when it became an acceptable sexual orientation. > An adoption to accommodate shifting moral standards.

Age of consent was raised when societies learned to value the mental and bodily integrity of children - contrary to former (especially medieval) centuries when a human being capable of reproduction was automatically regarded as an "adult" regardless of their exact age; so, were 10th century A.D. folk pedophiles altogether? No, their moral concept just didn't know such a thing. We however look down on that Green Mile actor dude who married a 16-years-old, and call him a child molester only half jokingly... because we have come to (tendentially rightfully) treat sexual relationships between adults and minors with suspicion. > An adoption to accommodate shifting moral standards.

-- Blasphemy laws still exist in quite a few secular societies, by the way, for it's deemed unethical to mock what others regard as holy. > See moral standards at work. --

Corporal punishment wasn't abolished because "abused children tend in a various accounts to reproduce their tormentor´s practices". That's utterly untrue on numerous points; when pedagogues began to lobby against corporal punishment studies that would suggest such a risk didn't even exist as they're rather new findings of criminal psychology. But even those findings don't support your claim in the way you're hinting at. We're not talking "practices of torment" here but about a simple slap in the face.

-- Heck my own parents were in school when corporal punishment was still allowed. They didn't turn into "tormentors", though. And when my father caught me with a cig at the tender age of 13, and I - as a the pubescent teenager I was - told him to get lost by slamming the door into his face, I got a clout off him as well. I don't feel abused anyhow and I didn't turn into a monster either. --

I don't know about Albania but in Belgium it's most certainly forbidden for parents to beat their children. Why is it forbidden? Where does that label come from? Well... Google "should parents be allowed to beat their children" and enjoy the staggering number of posters who call it "immoral" - as did the first pedagogues to speak out against "repressive pedagogics" in the late 19th century. Remarkably few people seem to think of a "result driven" scheme. > An adoption to accommodate shifting moral standards.

I'll label it a "matter of faith" anyway, just because I'm feeling nice today.

The Law today has less moral concepts and as such the State is withdrawing more and more from the whole civil religion/moral order aspect. It is becoming a facilitator/manager rather than a Pater Familias. The cause for problematic situations to become legally forbidden or tolerated is by all accounts related to a cost/efficiency tangent on the States behalf rather than some silly moral crusade. Which incidentally it had always been since the great Liberal Revolution. The tendency of this is simply related to the empowerment of the people as a whole opposed to the happy few from the past.

This is not about a "silly moral crusade". You completely ignore that every society does have a prevalent set of values and they do accrue from morale (retort continues below).

2. You actually stated that your mind will not change. Therefore I find it ridiculous for you to go all maïeutic on me. Where you claim philosophy, I rather see a social conservative reaction.

As did I see a deliberately technocratic approach in your words. Throwing around petty labels isn't going to help us here... though knowing your political stance and knowing that you know mine I can't wipe off the feeling that you want to drench me in a certain light. That's remarkable since I don't try that for once (retort continues below)...

There is no philosophical underlining into bringing up any morality in the Penal law. As for that, due process goes quite sometimes against the vertuous. IE no evidence, no proof, no case despite a real infraction happening (...)

And where do you think do bans and rules deduce their justification from? How can the larger part of a society even mysteriously agree to follow the law? Is it just the threat of punishment and if so, why does the society look down on infractors anyway?
The catalyst is a common set of values and the very same values only exist because of a common morale.
My stance is a profoundly philosophical one since it's nothing but a science called legal philosophy to which we owe the entire body of our judiciary system. Thinkers like Kant and Hegel or in our times Habermas and Fuller devoted their lives and millions of sheets of paper to continue the work of pro-Socratic scholars and illustrate the moral deducation of the law. Deliberations which led to "in dubio pro reo" and "habeas corpus" are profound moral considerations just as well. Every weighing of interests and protected objects boils down to one word: morale.

Your theory that existing law would merely be based on cost-benefit analyses is fundamentally unrealistic, nor are our societies headed that way.

3. The law is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How could that be if there is no predominantly accepted social adhesive to make people follow the law...

Any money spent to maintain it has to be scrutinized for cost effectiveness (the Prohibitions Chinese and American) are classical examples. On a more modern approach, the cost and size of Law Enforcment on specific issues Is simply outlandish. We are looking at close to a 100 bln USD for incarceration in the US. About 15 bln USD for marijuana. These are impressive numbers. Absolutley nightmarish numbers.

Your point being? Mind you, I'm referring to your point. My own opinion looks quite different as stated previously. Another fine example for this kind of dispute is capital punishment. Some say lifelong incarceration is too expensive. Others reply a death sentence is an expensive affair, too. And some say, fuck this, bringing a murderer to justice is simply a matter of justice and not one of money - culminating in the argument that justice (whatever the society sees as justice) is to be given precedence above anything else. I'm rather confident that most people want the law enforcement system of their country to work efficiently - "efficiently" as in procuring ordinary bog rolls for police stations and linen robes for judges, not four-ply-woolen toilet tissue and silken luxury gowns - but rather see enforced what they believe to be justice than have its application "scrutinized for cost effectiveness".

We wouldn't be having this discussion if things were as easy as you say.

That's all from me now.
You're mixing up matters of faith or personal conviction with matters of fact, more bluntly put: you can construe facts differently than me, and you may even be right about it - how could either of us know? - but I'm done arguing about the distinction between the two.