Trump 42%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 10%

[Schmoe]

If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

For me, it's not whether I believe it would reduce them or not, it's about having a moral baseline. This is one of the things I disagree with libertarians on--I think that our country was founded on moral principles and it's okay for laws to reflect that. Do we really think that we won't lose even more favor with the Lord if we call things like prostitution acceptable in our society? Politics have come to the point of being theological for me, which is why this is the first time I'll be voting third party--because I do believe that the Lord will bless us more if more of us take a stand for what we think is actually right, not just the lesser of two evils.

[jvquarterback]

If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

And that's where and why I'll never be a Libertarian. Because I do think it would.

This isn't an evidenced based belief.

Self reported rates of drug use have increased minimally in places where drugs have been decriminalized. Actual drug use rates may have gone up or down, it's hard to know, but most people estimate rates of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine use has remained stable or decreased slightly, while marijuana use has remained stable or increased slightly.

In any event, what sort of illegality of drug use are you talking about? Do you want to jail all the young Utah mothers using amphetamines so they can keep up with their kids, or just the young black mothers from Detroit who use cocaine for the same reason?

[BroncoBot]

If only we had more prostitution, drug use, and abortions, then our society would really be on the right path.

I totally agree that we could use less of it. But disagree that making it legal would have any significant difference on how much of it is happening.

For me, it's not whether I believe it would reduce them or not, it's about having a moral baseline. This is one of the things I disagree with libertarians on--I think that our country was founded on moral principles and it's okay for laws to reflect that. Do we really think that we won't lose even more favor with the Lord if we call things like prostitution acceptable in our society? Politics have come to the point of being theological for me, which is why this is the first time I'll be voting third party--because I do believe that the Lord will bless us more if more of us take a stand for what we think is actually right, not just the lesser of two evils.

I understand your view as well. And believe it has it's merits in a society where everyone has more or less agreed to certain morals. I simply don't believe that the role of government is to decide all moral values and enforce them on everyone. Of course society could use less prostitution, drugs, abortion, etc etc etc and I'm a very pro life guy myself. However, it becomes a slippery slope when we want government to decide where our morals should be instead of the home and our churches. When we rely on GOVERNMENT to make moral decisions, everyone loses rights and liberties.

If someone believes it is his right to smoke marijuana, tobacco, cocaine, heroin or peyote I see no problem with that if he is not harming others and knows the risks involved. And before you go all socialist on me about the cost/toll of using drugs, remind yourself of the last time you had some sugar which is one of the largest health care costs facing America today

I think we've been brainwashed into thinking that some "drugs" are morally reprehensible and other are fine. Marijuana vs tobacco? which one would you have a family member using? I with 100% certainly would rather have a loved one tell me they use some recreational pot vs tobacco if we are looking at long term health effects.

What's legal isn't always morally correct. What's illegal shouldn't always be condemned. However, this thought is not reflected in the blessed society we find ourselves a part of. If you oppose gay marriage currently you are a bigot, a religious zealot who can be sued. If you oppose transgenders using the bathroom of their choice or voice opposition to the idea of gender neutral, you may be labelled a criminal. The government and those who are using the government to break apart family values are pushing their PC legislation as moral issue with criminal charges if opposed. I've never liked the idea of government deciding what my morals and what my children's morals should be through legislation. If it means we become a more "libertarian" society where religious ideas are not suppressed, values are not criminalized and actual moral thoughts and beliefs can be taught freely, I'd gladly exchange that for legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of drugs.

[Mars]

Abortion is tough, because legalizing it dropped the National crime rate about 20%. There would be major repercussions to making it illegal again.

I know the freakonomics guys believe this and would have us all believe it but their analysis is garbage.

I think I'll side with the professional statisticians, since you brought no facts to the party.

But yeah. Utah should make marijuana legal for medical purposes.

[jvquarterback]

It's an easy debate to review. Levitt made errors in his analysis which have been reviewed in multiple publications.

One rebuttal (Lott and Whitley 2001) was that they overestimated the effect and there was no effect or at most the effect was 2/3 of what Levitt previously reported. Joyce confirmed the lack of correlation and said it was more likely due to changes in drug use (by the mothers of the children). Levitt responded with an unreviewed blog post on his website.

The second more damning rebuttal (Foote and Goetz, 2005) showed no correlation between abortion and crime rate. The article contends and Levitt admits to an "error" in the computer program that inflated the relationship between abortion and the decrease in crime rate. Donohoe Levitt published an unreviewed editorial response admitting the error, but continued to claim that the reanalyzed data still showed a correlation. Foote and Goetz reran the data as Levitt proposed and again found no positive correlation between abortion and decreased crime rates and published the results in a peer reviewed journal.

There is another paper from the UK that initially reported a correlation, however after review, the authors rescinded their claims (unlike Levitt and Donohoe).

If people were honest this would get the same treatment as the vaccine causes autism madness but because Levitt's original conclusion was in line with what NPR producers believe you won't hear about it.

[Mars]

It's an easy debate to review. Levitt made errors in his analysis which have been reviewed in multiple publications.

One rebuttal (Lott and Whitley 2001) was that they overestimated the effect and there was no effect or at most the effect was 2/3 of what Levitt previously reported. Levitt responded with an unreviewed blog post on his website.

The second more damning rebuttal (Foote and Goetz, 2005) showed no correlation between abortion and crime rate. The article contends and Levitt admits to an "error" in the computer program that inflated the relationship between abortion and the decrease in crime rate. Levitt published an unreviewed editorial response admitting the error, but continued to claim that the reanalyzed data still showed a correlation. Foote and Goetz reran the data as Levitt proposed and again found no positive correlation between abortion and decreased crime rates and published the results in a peer reviewed journal.

If people were honest this would get the same treatment as the vaccine causes autism madness but because Levitt's original conclusion was in line with what NPR producers believe you won't hear about it.

That's very interesting. If you have any links I would love to read them.

[jvquarterback]

That's very interesting. If you have any links I would love to read them.

Added links above - some of them require subscriptions. It's been a few years since I've reviewed the literature and it's looks like the data are more and more against the conclusion that abortion reduces crime.

[Mars]

Interesting. So Freakanomics may have doubled the impact numbers, though the correlation does still seem to exist (as shown in Romania, Canada, and Australia, as well as the United States).

Freakanomics also overlooks the impact of crack cocaine (marginal) and the reduction of lead in homes (undetermined, but likely quite large). Interesting. That leaves abortion as the lead known cause in the crime drop, but far from the only factor. Though newer lead studies may disagree by now, I didn't look yet.

[jvquarterback]

Interesting. So Freakanomics may have doubled the impact numbers, though the correlation does still seem to exist (as shown in Romania, Canada, and Australia, as well as the United States).

It shows you can make stuff up and get people like you to believe it. There is no correlation in the Levitt data. And they likely fabricated the results in the first place.

BTW you're advocating the murder of a more than a million innocent babies per year and justifying it with that fabricated data.

[Mars]

Interesting. So Freakanomics may have doubled the impact numbers, though the correlation does still seem to exist (as shown in Romania, Canada, and Australia, as well as the United States).

It shows you can make stuff up and get people like you to believe it. There is no correlation in the Levitt data. And they likely fabricated the results in the first place.

BTW you're advocating the murder of a more than a million innocent babies per year and justifying it with that fabricated data.

I would say that I advocate adoption. For many too poor to raise a child, this is a much better option than either abortion or parenting.