No. What I'm saying is that by falsely undermining a subject they are effectively delegitimizing it under the guise of skepticism. Do you think that experts haven't already "sat down and looked over the data and evaluated it?" This is the typical "Oh we're just talking here; No harm no foul" that constantly comes from the "right". So I just don't buy the, "I'm just asking questions" excuse any more.
Climate change, vaccines, abortion, economics, etc are some areas where this is done constantly and always with an agenda.
Which experts are those? Taking the cocaine example, are you actually saying that possession being illegal is absolutely beyond question, that it has been discussed and studied to the greatest extent possible, there is absolutely no other way of looking at it and that is final? Really?
I personally question whether possession being a crime is the best approach. You are saying that means I am advocating that people should all be encouraged to carry cocaine around which of course is absolute nonsense. I don't want that at all, cocaine is a dangerous drug, use can have serious consequences, but I am not convinced that throwing people in jail for possessing it is the most effective approach. I think that perhaps a combination of education and treatment, along with enforcing existing laws against distributing it, producing it, and being under the influence in public. You on the other hand are suggesting I should not be able to even suggest this, that the way we handle it is settled and that is that. This is a very rigid and inflexible outlook that is exactly the opposite of science.
Climate change, abortion, vaccines and economics are great examples of other things that are not settled at all, we should always be questioning, always studying and always trying to further our understanding.
I think it's obvious that humans activity has contributed to climate change, scientists are pretty much in agreement but there is still some debate over how much and what can be done about it, and it's worth remembering that these same scientists in the 70s were fretting that the earth was going to enter another ice age. We learned more and determined that was in fact not likely to happen and now it is pretty clear there is a warming trend and it's pretty clear why. It is naive though to think it is impossible that we will learn something new at some point in the future that will change the outlook. That's how science works.
Same deal with abortion, some people very strongly that it is murder and should be illegal, in their mind that is beyond question. I on the other hand question that approach, I am staunchly pro-choice, as well as anti-abortion. Paradox? Absolutely not. I believe there are things that can be done to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal, that will have a better outcome for all involved. I think abortion should be legal, accessible, safe and rare. I support family planning, "free" taxpayer funded birth control and accurate sex education (not ideology, just simply the facts, risks and methods to mitigate the risks). Maybe it will turn out my ideas don't work, if that turns out the case then we change course when presented with new information, it's never settled and absolute.
Vaccines I think it's pretty clear that in general they are effective and that the risk is offset by the benefit, but I absolutely think we should continue to study intensely and I am open to any new information we discover, once again this is how science works, in fact
the entire premise of science is based on constantly questioning, testing and trying to prove our theories wrong. That is literally one of the core components of the scientific method. Religion is settled, science is never settled.
Economics I'm not going to discuss because Dave has made it clear he doesn't want that discussed here but there is absolutely room to question economic theories, there are many of them, many are in contradiction and their proponents all believe they are absolutely right and there is no room for questioning, but there absolutely is.
It is absolutely always ok to question something, always, period. Any theory that cannot stand up to questioning is a gigantic red flag. Free energy nuts have been questioning the laws of physics intently for far longer than the laws were defined in scientific terms, yet they are still holding up just fine because despite intense questioning, nobody has yet found a situation under which they do not hold up.