Age of Marijuana Use and Psychosis

Drug courts are not definitively more expensive.

http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/f...web%5B1%5D.pdf

"Moreover,although up-front costs fordrug courts were generallyhigher than for probation,drug courts were found tobe more cost-effective inthe long run because theyavoided law enforcementefforts, judicial case-processing, and victimizationresulting from future criminal activity."

"In the ensuing years, researchers have continuedto uncover definitive evidence forboth the efficacy and cost-effectiveness ofdrug courts."

"In line with their effects on crime rates, drugcourts have continued to prove cost-effective"

I could do this with a dozen more papers. Something tells me it would be an entirely fruitless effort.

Regardless of any actual benefit to those going through the program beyond cost (which again I could provide study after study), it just FEELS better to say, "Nah, lets continue to throw people in prison!"

I just love how the argument goes from helping people to saving money, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Not true. :)
When your source said longitudinal studies provided proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", I parroted that.
When Fallen's source said drug courts cost more overall than drug jails (so to speak), I parroted that.
When Terrence's source said aspirin caused death at a rate of 1 per 10,000, I parroted that.
When Fallen's source did not address withdrawal symptoms, I pointed that out.
When Andy's source had a sample size of several hundred, I pointed that out.
When Fallen's source was not longitudinal as I explicitly requested, I pointed that out.

I have not drawn the conclusion you wanted me to. That is not sufficient to demonstrate that I disagree with your sources, and since I explicitly embrace your sources you couldn't make an empirical case even if you wanted to. You believe I ignore/dispute your sources anyway, because that is more comfortable than entertaining the belief that you might be wrong.

.

Here is a bottom line. I asked you what specifically a study would have to say to convince you that marijuana wasn't safe. You answered, and I provided a study that said that. I volunteered what specifically a study would have to say to convince me that marijuana was safe. No one has provided that study.

---

Note how you specifically try to hide your second 3 points. That's a very non scientific trick.

You still haven't grasped that I now believe that marijuana is unsafe to people who's brains have not completed development because I did my own research.

You, in turn, try to seize facts from studies on your "epic quest" and shoot down everything else. You even list yourself doing it after you say that it is bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

Drug courts are not definitively more expensive.

http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/f...web%5B1%5D.pdf

"Moreover,although up-front costs fordrug courts were generallyhigher than for probation,drug courts were found tobe more cost-effective inthe long run because theyavoided law enforcementefforts, judicial case-processing, and victimizationresulting from future criminal activity."

"In the ensuing years, researchers have continuedto uncover definitive evidence forboth the efficacy and cost-effectiveness ofdrug courts."

"In line with their effects on crime rates, drugcourts have continued to prove cost-effective"

I could do this with a dozen more papers. Something tells me it would be an entirely fruitless effort.

---

Look man, it's not like I went searching for some obscure source to come up with my objections to the conclusion you drew. All the figures in your new source are per-client. I have never disputed that drug courts are cheaper per-client! Net-widening is still a significant phenomenon, as is capacity... based on what YOUR source said! As your new source says, and I recognize that directly quoting from your source will somehow count as me ignoring it, "67% of states and territories report that state appropriations and/or budgets fail to meet the demand for drug court services." This is exactly like your belief that citing side effects suffered while using an anti-psychotic is relevant to side effects suffered while withdrawing from them. You're answering a question nobody asked, and then you get mad at me for repeating the question you didn't answer.

Quote:

---

Regardless of any actual benefit to those going through the program, it just FEELS better to say, "Nah, lets continue to throw people in prison!"

---

I explicitly say I want to reform the prison system, you say I'm motivated by feeling good about the prison system. Will you never tire of defeating straw men?

So you admit then that drug courts are better for offenders than prisons? Just fucking admit that and you'll look like far less of an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Note how you specifically try to hide your second 3 points. That's a very non scientific trick.

---

I tried to hide something... by explicitly typing it out... WHAT???

Quote:

---

You still haven't grasped that I now believe that marijuana is unsafe to people who's brains have not completed development because I did my own research.

---

Yes yes, this famous research that you've never been able to elaborate on in any way other than that it means that I and Dr. Horwood are still wrong. Let me guess, the proof is marvelous but you've just run out of room in the margins? That story's been tried, buddy.

Quote:

---

You, in turn, try to seize facts from studies on your "epic quest" and shoot down everything else. You even list yourself doing it after you say that it is bad.

---

I very successfully seize facts from my studies and everyone else's, although I like to think of it as more of a plucking motion. Fallen's study did not address withdrawal symptoms, that's a fact. It is therefore useless when it comes to discussing withdrawal symptoms. If I ask you for a hammer, you can give me the best screwdriver in the world, it's still not a hammer. My pointing out that it's not a hammer in no way means that I am criticizing its utility as a screwdriver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

The fact that he is against drug courts because they can in some scenarios cost more money...No mention at all of them actually being beneficial over incarceration for the people involved, should be all you need to know about Latrinsorm, WB.

---

It makes me wonder about those prison reforms.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...d-1591700.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I tried to hide something... by explicitly typing it out... WHAT???

---

When you want to conceal something you put it in the middle of a document rather than the beginning or end. I don't normally call you hypocritical. Saying that "picking apart studies is bad" and then citing yourself doing it? Yeah.

As for what changed my mind? I did some actual research rather than having a foregone conclusion. It's something I'd suggest you trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

So you admit then that drug courts are better for offenders than prisons? Just fucking admit that and you'll look like far less of an asshole.

---

I have already agreed that drug courts are better for an offender than our current prisons, explicitly and implicitly. If you have been unable to see that, I suspect that your emotional investment is to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fallen

So you admit then that drug courts are better for offenders than prisons? Just fucking admit that and you'll look like far less of an asshole.

---

I've used his own nonsense against him so many times its not even funny...doesn't matter. You've been Latrined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I have already agreed that drug courts are better for an offender than our current prisons, explicitly and implicitly. If you have been unable to see that, I suspect that your emotional investment is to blame.

---

Was it here you did that?

"It depends on the cost, and this was the big problem with Fallen's drug courts. If the cost of one prisoner is three law-abiding citizens not being able to go to rehab, that's a dilemma. If the cost of one prisoner is nothing, that's a lay-up. These are matters that must be determined empirically, and Fallen's data demonstrates that they're closer to the former than the latter."

or here?

"I read all the points with great interest. If jail time is an acceptable deterrent for people in drug court, why isn't it for people in no court? Surely the best possible outcome is for people to not become involved with our justice system at all."

or here?

"As I said, those points failed to take into account the larger picture in two ways that were described in your source. First, a less (apparently) draconian penalty leads police and prosecutors to arrest more people for drug offenses: if a drug court graduate only costs 50% of a prisoner but you have three when you'd otherwise have had one, the drug court costs more. (Point 41.) Second, there are only so many beds in the hospital, so to speak. If I spend that bed on a drug court participant we agree it saves me money over sending that participant to prison, but I could have spent that bed on a drug user who wasn't involved with the criminal justice system... yet. That's a cost. (Point 33.) Again, these are points from your source, yet you accuse me of ignoring things that don't support my argument."

Where is this explicit and implicit statement of your endorsement of drug courts? All I see is you doing anything in your attempt to justify continuing to throw people in prison for drug offenses. I suspect you don't know what the words explicit and implicit mean.

I didn't say I endorsed drug courts. I said that drug courts are better for AN offender, hence the 50% comment... but as an overall system it costs more, hence the three vs. one. Again, this distinction is from your own source.

I've told you over and over that I favor a total overhaul of our justice and prison systems, yet you keep roaring that I want to throw people in prison, and somehow I'm the a**hole. How is that, seriously? Why is it so hard for you to address what I actually say, and not some caricature of a totalitarian? Why are you so invested in this issue that your emotion blinds your reason? It really puzzles me. I've seen a lot of religions, but this is the most inexplicable I can remember.