if the claim that you're making is actually one of the theses of the book, then the book is nonsensical and not empirically based as well

In my country, there are what we call 'safe injection sites' being opened in many metropolitan zones, which are effectively government funded opium dens

but I doubt that is one of their claims

have you read the book?

me rn

we already tried not having a welfare system

you know what happened?

No

we got a welfare system

In the cities where these policies have been implemented most actively, the annual rate of overdose deaths has increased, not declined

Use has also increased

We can both read the book, and discuss the merits of its arguments.

okay, so you want me to read a book that you haven't read, which you claim says something that I now is empirically not true

Almost doubling, in both cases

no, I don't need to

I literally don't need to

its an empirical fact that under prohibition, alcohol use was reduced

not only that, but its repeatable

it literally doesn't matter to this guy whats what

what matters is his feelings

I never said he claimed drugs didn't reduce consumption, though I'm pretty sure such statistics are completely unreliable anyway.

about what is right

a repeatable phenomenon under many scenarios

yes, you're right its pure feeling

Next prohibition will be on non-reproductive sex acts

he wants so badly for prohibition of something to INCREASE its usage

<:AIDS:397209911567581185>

By 2024

just because of ideology

PURE

ideology

schniff

@Nerthulas you literally don't know if he makes that argument.

neither do you

Now you're just strawmanning.

but I know you made it

But such stats are unreliable

Muh empiricism

😂

"muh evidence"

How can the government measure the black market? A market they have zero control over. Why would a citizen openly admit to consuming alcohol at a time where it was a crime? I can't trust the studies methodology.

I've made this argument before and you've completely failed to address it.