User Controls
trump: death penalty for fentalog dealers
-
2018-03-21 at 8:47 AM UTCWe need one full extreme or the other:
All possession=death penalty or all drugs=legal
The way it is now is just set up so that they can make max profit on the drugs and then max profit on their prison slave labor when those doing the drugs inevitably get caught -
2018-03-21 at 8:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Juicebox We need one full extreme or the other:
All possession=death penalty or all drugs=legal
The way it is now is just set up so that they can make max profit on the drugs and then max profit on their prison slave labor when those doing the drugs inevitably get caught
you're like a fuckhole -
2018-03-21 at 8:48 AM UTCHow so
-
2018-03-21 at 8:49 AM UTC
-
2018-03-21 at 8:49 AM UTCNo
-
2018-03-21 at 9:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by lempoid loompus lets make opiates legal so we can launch semi-effective billion dollar campaigns so that people dont die from the thing we just made accessible to everyone
what do you mean the thing we just made accessible to everyone? its already accessible to everyone, its always been accessible to everyone, and it always will be accessible to everyone. prohibition never made the slightest bit of difference to its availability.
. -
2018-03-21 at 9:40 AM UTCi was 'harry' in this vice article which i did back on the silk road forums
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/9bzbwd/silk-road-is-good-for-you
you'll prolly recognize some of the things i say coz i've said similar many times on here before.
. -
2018-03-21 at 10:35 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 8:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well that's an interesting claim. Do you want to try and prove it? How did you disentangle educational effects from regulatory/pricing/social effects when you came to this conclusion?
Well let's see the stat controlling for socioeconomic factors then.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.67.7.645&ved=2ahUKEwjArJXiv__ZAhUMcq0KHePPBP8QFjAEegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2ZqYUyC81HVnZDP0Bzy_1x
Immediate results were found when social and economic EXCUSES aren't valid. There is also a recent Thailand study i saw that i cant find. -
2018-03-22 at 8:31 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 9:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.67.7.645&ved=2ahUKEwjArJXiv__ZAhUMcq0KHePPBP8QFjAEegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2ZqYUyC81HVnZDP0Bzy_1x
Immediate results were found when social and economic EXCUSES aren't valid. There is also a recent Thailand study i saw that i cant find.Ideally one would like to quantify consumption responses
to both economic incentives and "pure" publicity.
The effects of the campaign would be the sum of the pure
publicity response and the response to campaign-induced
tax (hence price) increases. Unfortunately it is not possible
to separate campaign-induced taxation from that which
would have occurred in the absence of the campaign.
How do you justify the linear growth model? I don't see how it's reasonable since it neither tracks reality or any natural population growth pattern. -
2018-03-22 at 9:25 AM UTCCompletely ignoring what i said, are we?
Short. Term. -
2018-03-23 at 8:17 AM UTCWhat am I ignoring? You posted that study as evidence no? So how is asking you to explain one of its assumptions "ignoring what you said"? It seems to be responding directly to what you said.
-
2018-03-23 at 9:55 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 10:09 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 7:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Ask whoever wrote to explain it. Why the fuck would you ask anyone else dumbass
Did you read any part of the exchange leading up to that post? I'm asking §m£ÂgØL presented it as evidence to the effect that public education campaigns have been causally responsible for the decrease in tobacco use we see in the US. If he doesn't understand the paper than he's being intellectually dishonest by offering it as evidence. If he does he should be able to defend its conclusions. -
2018-03-23 at 7:52 PM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 10:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Did you read any part of the exchange leading up to that post? I'm asking §m£ÂgØL presented it as evidence to the effect that public education campaigns have been causally responsible for the decrease in tobacco use we see in the US. If he doesn't understand the paper than he's being intellectually dishonest by offering it as evidence. If he does he should be able to defend its conclusions.
You didn't read it. -
2018-03-24 at 3:43 AM UTC
-
2018-03-24 at 9:50 AM UTC
