The Wall

[BananaStand]

Your opinion without any factual basis does not constitute a debunk.

It's not my opinion. And the factual basis is that there are millions, if not billions, of people in the world who enjoy alcohol without a problem. Do you know any 'social heroin users'? Any "casual crack heads" out there?

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addictive_Properties

Thanks

Of the people who sample a particular substance, what portion will become physiologically or psychologically dependent on the drug for some period of time? Heroin and methamphetamine are the most addictive by this measure. Cocaine, pentobarbital (a fast-acting sedative), nicotine and alcohol are next

Heroin, cocaine, and meth are all more addictive than alcohol.

In a large, nationally representative sample of US adults, the cumulative probability of transition to dependence was highest for nicotine users, followed by cocaine users, alcohol users and, lastly, cannabis users. - See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Addi....Ul73dGrm.dpuf

Again, cocaine > alcohol. This particular study only focused on those four drugs. Heroin and meth were not evaluated, but can you guess where they might rank on this list?

Findings: MCDA [multicriteria decision analysis] modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals

That quote goes on to say that alcohol is the most harmful drug overall, because it ranks high in harm caused to others. That's a bit of a loaded stat in my opinion. If coke were more prevalent, there would probably be more people driving cars while on coke. The illegal status of hard drugs tends to lead them to be consumed in private, which obviously diminishes the harm they might cause to others.

However, if you could buy meth at a convenience store, or swing into applebees for a burger and a line of coke, I suspect the data would be different.

Did someone say there was?

Isn't that what you've been touting? That drugs are "legal" in some places, and those places don't have problems.

Governments all around the world have been doing this for a century with legal drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc.

Yeah....and how's that going? I live in a state that holds a monopoly on liquor sales. If you want booze, you buy it from the state. Businesses and private citizens both must buy their vodka from the gov't. Profits from that business fund just 1% of the state's total revenue. https://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/whe...ey-comes-from/

That's also just part of the story. It only shows money coming in from alcohol use. It doesn't show money going out. Surely there are more traffic patrols needed. Hospitals must be seeing more patients. On and on...you already know all the downsides to alcohol use.

So it's not clear that legalizing alcohol, and strictly controlling the market, has done any good for the government. So how can you say...

If drugs were legal, sold by government sanctioned parties, taxed and monitored, purity and safety measured etc. things could be quite a lot better in pretty much every conceivable sense.

I've just demonstrated how doing that adds very little, if any economic benefit to the government. What you're saying there is a nice dream, but it's just not the reality.

Oh so if someone started advertising meth, then you'd start?

Someone would. Do you really think advertising doesn't work?