REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

In my state, adults and kids alike have the option of drug courts, with the obvious caveat being that they are non-violent offenders and not trafficking.  They will not go to jail, unless they decide to turn that option down.  But then, the outcomes are on them because they made that choice.  

Are you saying you think it is acceptable/justifiable that an adult has to go to drug courts, take classes, pay fines, and get assraped by the state because they smoke herb? 

Please explain to me how someone gets "assraped" by the state when they go to Drug Court. 

[Vaud]

Okay, thanks for clarifying that you think adults should go to Drug Court for smoking marijuana.

I have no further interest in this conversation, as I suspect I will get a bit too riled otherwise.

[AFK]

Won't answer the question?  I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you aren't actually overly familiar with the Drug Court model. 

[Vaud]

Won't answer the question?  I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you aren't actually overly familiar with the Drug Court model. 

As far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to make me do a fucking thing over what I smoke.
I tend to take shit like that personally.  Please, carry on, I'm just done.

[Requia ☣]

MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences.  Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming.  They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California.  So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest. 

I'm also curious about their funding.  They make it seem it is all coming from people who visit their website but it costs a lot of money to do any kind of clinical research.  Do you happen to know where their funding comes from? 

Weren't you just saying we shouldn't discount evidence from the government just because the government has an agenda?

[AFK]

No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas.  Further, again, I point out that when I post things from the government, they are cited.  So they are backed up by voices, researchers, outside of the government.  And if their is a quarrel with an individual point, there is an avenue to do further research on that individual point. 

Instead, it seems people just want to dismiss it out of hand without actually looking at where the information comes from.  I mean, there are people in this very thread dismissing things and in the same breath saying they haven't actually digested or read the source.  I mean, if people want to counter, have at it.  I can handle that, but can it at least be based upon the information I posted and not some superficial angst for the Big Bad Government Boogeyman? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm still waiting for the report that shows that the freedom to do with your body as you wish is unscientific....


(just trying to lighten the mood a bit)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas. 

This is the same government that runs the BLS?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas. 

This is the same government that runs the BLS?

Would I ever lie to you?
           \

[AFK]

No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas. 

This is the same government that runs the BLS?

Let me rephrase, you shouldn't discount evidence, out of hand, that comes from the government. 

I don't know about other agencies because I don't deal with them, but agencies like SAMHSA and NIDA release funding to organizations like mine to do the work.  The government doesn't do the research, they just pay for it.  We do the work.  We do the research.  They package it and put it out into the public.  I just think it is too easy to say because it has NIDA's name on it, or the DEA's name on it, or SAMHSA's name on it, that it is automatically tainted beef.  Are they perfect?  Of course not, they are made up of monkeys like the rest of us, and they contract with monkeys like me to do their work, but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down. 

[Freeky]

but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down. 

That's kind of self-centered in the extreme, if you think about it. 

People working in jobs like RWHN's:  "Doo dee doo dee doo, doing my work."
Hippies:  "YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP ME DOWN, MAN!"

[Laughin Jude]

No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas. 

This is the same government that runs the BLS?

Let me rephrase, you shouldn't discount evidence, out of hand, that comes from the government. 

I don't know about other agencies because I don't deal with them, but agencies like SAMHSA and NIDA release funding to organizations like mine to do the work.  The government doesn't do the research, they just pay for it.  We do the work.  We do the research.  They package it and put it out into the public.  I just think it is too easy to say because it has NIDA's name on it, or the DEA's name on it, or SAMHSA's name on it, that it is automatically tainted beef.  Are they perfect?  Of course not, they are made up of monkeys like the rest of us, and they contract with monkeys like me to do their work, but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down. 

And what are the chances you'll keep getting that funding if your research shows something different from what the people writing the checks want it to show?

[AFK]

Such as?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas. 

This is the same government that runs the BLS?

Let me rephrase, you shouldn't discount evidence, out of hand, that comes from the government. 

I don't know about other agencies because I don't deal with them, but agencies like SAMHSA and NIDA release funding to organizations like mine to do the work.  The government doesn't do the research, they just pay for it.  We do the work.  We do the research.  They package it and put it out into the public.  I just think it is too easy to say because it has NIDA's name on it, or the DEA's name on it, or SAMHSA's name on it, that it is automatically tainted beef.  Are they perfect?  Of course not, they are made up of monkeys like the rest of us, and they contract with monkeys like me to do their work, but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down. 

And what are the chances you'll keep getting that funding if your research shows something different from what the people writing the checks want it to show?

While I'm not slamming RHWN, I have to say that government funding in ALL areas is largely supplied so that the government can hear what it wants to hear, and cut funding off from people who say things that disagree with them.  The Department of Energy is notorious for this, as is anything having to do with the DHS.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Such as?

I can post some links tonight, if you'd like (this comp doesn't search well on account of nannywall), or I can give you some anecdotal incidents with respect to the DOE right now.