>You don't seem to want to have a real discussion, thats probably why your coment was voted to death.

I have more votes from this thread then downvotes believe it or not. The majority of my votes come from replies. Only the parent post was voted to "death" by a astronomical -3 votes.

Let's talk about bias and the way humans think. Typically when someone has an agenda they aren't aware of it. You seem to be accusing me of this. You think that I have a strong opinion and that I'm not open to change at all. That's why you say I'm not open to discussion. It's actually pretty typical. There's not a single person in the world who can change their opinion based off of a discussion. You can't talk to a christian and cause him to flip his script with a logical argument, nor can you convince an atheist either, nor can you convince a flat earther. Just not going to happen because it's human nature. So I turn around and I accuse you of the same thing. I can present to you hard evidence all you're going to do is try to build a biased logical scaffold to support your agenda like you are with your argument above ^^^ Doesn't everybody do this shit? Some people lie to themselves and claim they're above it all, I can honestly say I haven't seen it. I'm not above it you're not above it.

So if everyone on the face of the earth "doesn't want to have a real discussion" because of human nature. Why bring it up? It's pointless, unless you want to insult me or raise emotions. So just don't mention it, we're both human and we know how humans act. So let us proceed with our biased argumentative agendas. I'll build a logical scaffold around my agenda and you continue to build yours until we have such convoluted logic that neither of us can make sense of it.

>"DieDrogenpolitik der Niederlande führte zu einem Rückgangder Konsumenten harter Drogen auf ein Niveau, das unterhalb des Niveaus der meisten Länder Westeuropas und den USAlag. Zwischen 1979 und 1994 sank dieKonsumprävalenz in Bezug auf harte Drogen von 15 auf 2,5Prozent"

Let's talk about science and the reliability of science. Science is about observations! and with enough observations you can paint a statistical picture but never the truth. Science can never prove anything, it can only establish correlation and causation to a statistical degree because there can always be a contradictory observation found at any point in the future. Proof is the domain of maths and logic but not of science. So with that out of the way you present to me one scientific observation that actually supports your view point and lends more credence to it but does not prove your viewpoint.

But Here's another tidbit:

" In Portugal - lifetime - people reporting drug use over any course of their lifetime has gone up somewhat significantly over the last decade, from about 7.8 percent to 12 percent."

- https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-P...

A secondary observation saying drug use has gone up! Two observations that are contradictory. If science was about truth then two contradictory observations would destroy the universe as we know it, but science isn't about truth. It's just a best attempt at truth.

Thus with two contradictory observations which is true? Which is real? The best answer is we don't know.

And that is my agenda: We don't know.

The world is complicated and it is incredibly naive to say that legalization of drugs has no risks and can only do good for society when not only are the statistics controversial but in terms of common sense it does really hold up.

What is your agenda? The promotion of legalizing drugs because of a single observation? Such an extreme action based off of mixed results.

Let's get a little meta here and observed what happened. You accused me of not wanting to have a real discussion. I turned it around and said that we're all biased and nobody wants to discuss anything, nobody really goes into a conversation expecting to get their entire belief system flipped they go into the conversation with the goal of changing others this is what I'm doing, this is what you're doing.

By stating this fact I lessen the perception of bias around myself by declaring everyone including you and me biased.

You then present evidence to promote your agenda, I don't discount your evidence at all. Instead I say your evidence is valid and I present contradictory evidence that is equally valid.

Then I say due to this contradictory evidence we can't know for sure. I present an unbiased controversial view and you present a very hard directional and opinionated view point. Typically the unbiased viewpoint appears more legitimate to outside observers simply because it's not as extreme.

What I did here is a very common strategy used by tobacco corporations to promote their smoking agenda by saying the cancer statistics are controversial. It's also done by corporations who want to continue global warming, they claim the climate data is also controversial.

I then start discussing the meta aspects of the conversation, pointing out strategies and pointing out things to make me appear even more unbiased.

With all that said and with all of that laid out on the table. Am I not willing to discuss things or are you? Who's actually more biased? Can you flip your opinion at a drop of a dime or are you like the rest of humanity? You tell me what's going on here because as far as I'm concerned the argument is over, we reached the end and who won?

No one, as usual. We're both not stupid. You and I both knew this was the outcome the minute we entered the conversation so why are we here? Because we're human and we're bored. EOD.