So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Bu🤠ns]

[Lies]

That scared me, for a moment, I didn't realize who it was lol.

[Lies]

yeah, don't get me wrong, I agreed with most of the points you made and I actually don't hate myself for bothering to read all of it.

Cheers man, it was actually a bit of a struggle to write, with my ADD and all, but I felt it was important to get some stuff off my chest so I persevered, and I'm glad I did.

[Verbal Mike]

Lys, that was an epic post and you should write a long essay or a book or something.

[Requia ☣]

RE one tiny bit of Lys's post.

I wouldn't expect drugs to have a big adverse effect on you.  You are, as you point out, borderline genius.  There's a principle I came across when I was researching weed called 'cognitive reserve', It's used to explain why drug research tends to get different results with different demographics.

Basically, smart people get a much smaller negative cognitive effect (whether it be from drugs or age or whatever else) than average people.

You also have to factor in that some drugs have a very different effect on ADD and related conditions (they pretty much count on this when they treat ADD and co with drugs).  Obviously this lifestyle works well for *you* but I wouldn't expect that to apply to everyone.

[AFK]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return.  

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.    

No need to get hot and bothered, RWHN. We are having a very interesting intellectual debate which I, for one, am glad you are a part of. Nowhere in my post did I say "RWHN is spouting conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit". That comment was directed at all of us at a point where we seem to be losing our objectivity in this discussion.

IOW, don't take this shit so personally. It's just a debate on the internet.

The "real scientist" bit irks me a bit as well.  I am a real scientist.  Yes, it is the social sciences, and yes I am NOT a botanist, thus why I articulated that I was speculating.  But I AM a professional.  I've given lectures on evaluation which is an empirical, scientific process.  I am certified by the National Institute of Health.  I know how to do what I do and I do it pretty damned well.  My output has brought results. 

I have no issues with a debate but it really felt like my validity as a professional in my field was being challenged in a way that others here are not challenged in their fields of expertise.  People should disagree with me as I bring up points they feel are incorrect, but it does piss me off when my professionalism is being challenged which I really do feel you and Rat have done in a couple of posts. 

So if you disagree with something bring up some evidence as Telarus did.  But don't tell me I'm naive or that all of my sources of information are bogus or that I don't have proper experience.  I know damn well what I'm doing and I do a damn good job.  But none of y'all are paying me to post here so yeah the quality of information I present here is going to be a little different.  If someone wants to give me a $80,000 grant I'll make sure I research for every post I make. 

[AFK]

Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   

[AFK]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

[Kai]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Bullshit.

I wouldn't expect a social scientist to know about plant vascular physiology either, but I WOULD expect a scientist of any sort to not make wild claims about areas of research they have no first hand experience with. In the same way that I don't make wild claims about how kids react to various drugs socially (notice how I haven't said anything about that in this thread), others shouldn't make wild claims about plants taking up anything thats put in their substrate. Peace.

[Z³]

I hope this isnt getting things too off topic, but both Kais and RWHN's titles are making me lol. srsly.

[Lies]

RE one tiny bit of Lys's post.

I wouldn't expect drugs to have a big adverse effect on you.  You are, as you point out, borderline genius.  There's a principle I came across when I was researching weed called 'cognitive reserve', It's used to explain why drug research tends to get different results with different demographics.

Basically, smart people get a much smaller negative cognitive effect (whether it be from drugs or age or whatever else) than average people.

You also have to factor in that some drugs have a very different effect on ADD and related conditions (they pretty much count on this when they treat ADD and co with drugs).  Obviously this lifestyle works well for *you* but I wouldn't expect that to apply to everyone.

That's actually a very fair point, and worth investigating further, thanks for that.

[AFK]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Bullshit.

I wouldn't expect a social scientist to know about plant vascular physiology either, but I WOULD expect a scientist of any sort to not make wild claims about areas of research they have no first hand experience with. In the same way that I don't make wild claims about how kids react to various drugs socially (notice how I haven't said anything about that in this thread), others shouldn't make wild claims about plants taking up anything thats put in their substrate. Peace.

I didn't make a wild claim.  I speculated that it wasn't out of the realm of possibilities that marijuana would soak up chemicals added to the water.  My basis for that was first hand accounts I've heard from DEA agents, particularly around the food coloring and as BabylonH mentions, the flavoring additives.  Yes, I probably should not have used a technical term like capillary action.  It was something I remembered from my botany classes.  But this is a message board, not a botany lecture.  So I described something incorrectly.  So why not politely correct me instead of publicly chastising me?  

[Lies]

By the way, I personally have a LOT of respect for RWHN's profession and what he does and his view points, and while I agree with him on many things, there are many things I do not.

Regardless of the fact that I do not see eye to eye with him, and speaking from the fact that I too study social science, I still think he's better then most of the "qualified" people out there that I've encountered.

[Kai]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Bullshit.

I wouldn't expect a social scientist to know about plant vascular physiology either, but I WOULD expect a scientist of any sort to not make wild claims about areas of research they have no first hand experience with. In the same way that I don't make wild claims about how kids react to various drugs socially (notice how I haven't said anything about that in this thread), others shouldn't make wild claims about plants taking up anything thats put in their substrate. Peace.

I didn't make a wild claim.  I speculated that it wasn't out of the realm of possibilities that marijuana would soak up chemicals added to the water.  My basis for that was first hand accounts I've heard from DEA agents, particularly around the food coloring and as BabylonH mentions, the flavoring additives.  Yes, I probably should not have used a technical term like capillary action.  It was something I remembered from my botany classes.  But this is a message board, not a botany lecture.  So I described something incorrectly.  So why not politely correct me instead of publicly chastising me?  

It wasn't just you. Just sayin.

This whole thread has got me pissed off. Bunch of people with excellence in different areas arguing. And the drug lords are still stuffing drugs in infant corpses. And addicts are still addicted. And maximum prison sentences are going to stoners while rapists and murderers are continuing to rape and murder. So it goes.

[LMNO]

I'd like to give RWHN some credit; as far as I know he's the only person on this board who works with chemically dependent and at-risk youths.  Because of this, he has very different experiences and opinions about drugs, and has seen far more cases and data regarding their use and effects.

While in my personal experience I have seen people react to drugs in both positive an negative ways, my sample size is extremely small.  Even if I can relate the personal drug histories of 100 people, that's still far too small to be accurate.  That's why anectdotal evidence is generally considered bullshit.

I understand that due to his job, he sees far more negative cases than positive ones; but the point is that these "negative" cases are still fucking humans.  They aren't statistics, and they sure as fuck aren't "acceptable losses" so you can get high whenever you want to.  

You can argue about how "society" is screwed up, and if we ended the War on Drugs and we all were taught and teach "responsibility" to each other, we could eliminate drug abuse and addiction.  And if you believe that world will ever exist, then you probably believe in the model that all people make rational decisions when faced with economic decisions.

RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

What the fuck have any of you done?