Somehow, it seems to me you want to discuss the matter, but don't want to do any leg work or mouth work to talk to the professionals I mentioned.
What I don't ever want to do is to talk about all the facets of this or any subject all at once, helter skelter. It is useless to discuss anything that way, just a flurry of words from which one comes away with only general impressions.
You brought up the increased cost as your first reaction to the introduction of the subject and then, using your relative to make the point, the specific cost per addict. So I was trying to focus on that. I still don't know what your point is about cost. Why do you think your relative would cost more if drugs were legal? We've gone back and forth several times now and I still don't understand what your point is about costs. Once I understand your point, then I can either accept it or challenge it, maybe doing some of that research you want in the process, and we can dispose of it and move on to some other point. There is no value in my talking to any experts until I have a grasp of your point, which I still do not have.
If drugs become legal, there will no doubt, be more of them, more readily available.
Here you've introduced another facet. Worthy of discussion, but can we dispose of the first point first?
Drugs will have the same effects on people, whether or not they are legal or illegal.
And another facet.
Just about anyone with the will, I guess, can make meth, or crystal meth, or LSD type drugs.
And yet another. We can't constructively discuss them all at once.
Now, would you either clarify and support your original point, overtly discard it in favor of a different point, or we can just drop the whole thing.
|
