I'll just leave this here....

[East Coast Hustle]

And no, I've been answering Rat and Trip's questions.

Well yeah but also because I've given up on going around in circles with the more difficult questions.

And apart from questioning your credentials, as I said, ECH and Nigel asked a lot of things I'm also wondering about. And so did Dok.

Yeah, a lot of people asked me a lot of things.  I would like to remind people that this is, what, 10 against 1?  I don't know, I lost count.  And so yeah, I decided to not take seriously those who decided to act like asshats because it seemed clear to me they did not have an intellectual curiosity for my answers and instead were looking for cannon fodder.  A feeling validated by how ECH, Nigel, and especially Dok decided to continuously misrepresent me by accusing me of being for putting kids in jail and cutting them off from financial aid when I've expressed the exact opposite on multiple occasions.  You'll excuse me if I don't give into that shit. 

And in Nigel's case the questioning credentials was a response to you not taking seriously the credentials of her friend. And with ECH, similarly with respect to his first-hand experiences in a former lifetime.

The Nigel friend thing happened months ago in a different thread so I don't recall the context nor the specific comments I made.  If someone wants to link me up I will revisit what I said and why.  As for ECH, you've got the cart before the horse.  ECH pretty early on in the discussion started to paint me as an uninformed idiot, and I'll be glad to provide the quotes. 

Look, at this point, it is clear to me that everyone has made up their mind and the facts be damned.  (which is funny since that is what everyone is accusing me of)  Y'all have come to the conclusions you've come to.  So if you think I'm a fake dogmatic fool, so be it.  I'm still going to stick around.  I'm still going to assault y'all with puns.  I've put a lot of time into this place, I still have a couple of good e-friendships amongst the community that I don't totally want to lose, so I'm still gonna be here.  It's unfortunate that some have had to go by the wayside, but such is life eh? 

1) In other words, it's not YOU, it's ALL OF US.

2)In other words, I haven't been asking because I actually want logically consistent straight answers to my questions from someone who (in theory) actually works in the field being discussed, I wasted my time and yours to the tune of a 54-page thread because I'm just out to get you.

3) your expressed opinions about that stand in direct opposition to your expressed support for the laws and policies that create that situation in the first place.

4) I call it how I see it. And please do provide some links, but don't bother if they're from this thread and don't precede the countless other crapflood threads you've started about this shit over the last couple years in which I have been a very model of patience and tolerance for your continuously escalating evangelism and stubborn denial of the reality of drug culture.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think I will. Got a quota to fill after all.

Basically: I haven't seen the pro-marijuana people change their argument at all. The basic thrust remains the same. They have refuted your points against them, coherently and with evidence, but their argument has not been a counter one in any way.

And I've countered with evidence and reasoning.  Point out where I've done otherwise. 

You have chosen to engage far more with the people you have described as not interested in civil discussion and ignored many points made by people you feel are being respectful. It seems you're more interested in crucifying yourself as a victim by soliciting anger from the most aggressive posters which buries the posts that respectfully expose the flawed foundations of your argument. Is that your intent?

It's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender. You don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law. This outrage at Roger is rooted in hypocrisy: other people have to be excessively precise with their words, yet you wouldn't answer a simple request to clarify a key word you used repeatedly. Can you see how above undermines your credibility as a poster claiming to stick to "evidence and reason"?

In regards to your signature:

If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.

The difference is that there aren't draconian laws that deliver long-lasting harm to people for deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. I'm well within my rights (for good reason) to go mountain climbing, whitewater rafting, and riding motorcycles on giant ramps. It's not the government's place to prevent me from risking my life for shits and giggles, and furthermore it would be depraved to punish people for doing so.

[East Coast Hustle]

I wonder how many children have been seriously injured or killed imitating things they see on the X-Games?

Clearly, we SHOULD make participation in extreme sports illegal.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I wonder how many children have been seriously injured or killed imitating things they see on the X-Games?

Clearly, we SHOULD make participation in extreme sports illegal.

Anything less would create a culture of permissiveness. Those athletes make it look easy and safe.

If we save one child from breaking his neck, incarcerating thousands of adults would be worth it.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here.  Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives.  Is anyone going to concede to that?  

Oh, and I haven't been on the dog-pile but I'm with you that the unaccounted for influence of cultural factors makes a straight examination of data from places that have legalized, very difficult to apply to the question of what the effects may be here.

Someone can call me on apples and oranges here, but looking at the effects of alcohol prohibition on use, it's clear that it did severely cut down on abuse. Most of the research I have looked at suggests that the problems that came along with it, coupled with the fact that people really just didn't care enough about keeping it illegal to deal with the loss of freedoms is really what led to the repeal, despite it actually being effective at addressing abuse. Despite the obvious apples and oranges, I have a really tough time trying to assert that top to bottom legalization of pot wouldn't lead to a fairly substantial increase on use, especially in states that currently have very restrictive laws--so I won't. But the detrimental effects of such a scenario wouldn't, in any way, touch the current shit-storm that's stirred up by prohibition.

If I find the time or ganas, I'll look into some relevant data and examine this proposition a little further, but I'm suspicious that the effect drug prohibition has had on limiting the supply is fairly negligible compared to the effects it's had on cultural perception. But then, considering that it's highly unlikely that Superbowl Bud-Bowl commercials aren't likely to be replaced by Superbowl 'Bud'-Bowl commercials, that effect wouldn't be nearly as pronounced as it could be.

Prohibition did not lead to a reduction in alcohol abuse.  It did lead to an increase in alcohol related fatalities.

It led to a decrease in overall use, but that was, judging by the death and hospitalization rates, mostly among responsible users rather than abusers.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3675.html

I stand corrected. This study has a much more sound presentation than where I got my information so, sorry RWHN, I got nothing for you.

[AFK]

You have chosen to engage far more with the people you have described as not interested in civil discussion and ignored many points made by people you feel are being respectful. It seems you're more interested in crucifying yourself as a victim by soliciting anger from the most aggressive posters which buries the posts that respectfully expose the flawed foundations of your argument. Is that your intent?

Geesh, damned if I do damned if I don't.  Trip was just saying how many of the questions ECH and Nigel had he had too.  And now you are suggesting I engaged them too much and should've been engaging you guys more.  Fuck.  What difference does it make?  And I'm not sure what points were made that I didn't address in some way, even if it wasn't to the specific poster.  A lot of you guys have been covering the same ground if with slightly different questions. 

It's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender.

Hmm, cause I actually was just going through that Reefer Madness thread again, looking for something else, and saw where I clearly said I wasn't for kids losing access to financial aid.  I'll be glad to go through the thread again to grab that quote if you don't believe me.  So yeah, I will continue to take issue with that misrepresentation. 

You don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law.

Well I do think adults have to employ some responsibility when it comes to their actions.  I mean, yeah, knowingly breaking the law should come with acknowledgement of those outcomes.  But I wouldn't say they deserve to have their lives ruined.  I believe in second, third, etc. chances.  You have to in the substance abuse treatment model. 

[East Coast Hustle]

An unjust law is no law at all.

And, in the context of marijuana, any incarceration or financial penalties for anything other than providing to minors or driving under the influence are not just laws. And not only are they unjust, they're immoral.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

An unjust law is no law at all.

And, in the context of marijuana, any incarceration or financial penalties for anything other than providing to minors or driving under the influence are not just laws. And not only are they unjust, they're immoral.

...and if they're enacted on a Federal level they also happen to be illegal. (Kind of the choke-point of this whole issue, really)

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender.

Hmm, cause I actually was just going through that Reefer Madness thread again, looking for something else, and saw where I clearly said I wasn't for kids losing access to financial aid.  I'll be glad to go through the thread again to grab that quote if you don't believe me.  So yeah, I will continue to take issue with that misrepresentation.  

You implied that kids would get one second chance before they're barred from financial aid here:

OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.

I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid. 

Did you mean a second chance in terms of incarceration AND as a separate issue that under no case should kids be barred from financial aid?

It sounds like you've changed your mind since earlier in the thread, or you weren't very clear about it to begin with.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law.

Well I do think adults have to employ some responsibility when it comes to their actions.  I mean, yeah, knowingly breaking the law should come with acknowledgement of those outcomes.  But I wouldn't say they deserve to have their lives ruined.  I believe in second, third, etc. chances.  You have to in the substance abuse treatment model. 

Knowingly repeating the Prohibition (this time with marijuana) should come with acknowledgment of that outcome.

The current marijuana laws cause the legal issues to obscure and compound the health issues. Marijuana addicts that grow a lot of pot to support their habit do not benefit from their land being seized and getting locked up for years and years. Neither do their families. Trying to force people into treatment with incarceration clearly has not worked.

Portugal, Netherlands and South Australia have a model that doesn't incur that kind of damage to society which you can't dismiss by picking at imagined flaws in a study published by a professor who teaches "Research design and data collection for public policy analysis." It would be one thing if you could show he has a track record for juking the stats, but no, you tried to poison the well without even a shred of evidence. You tried to paint some of the most damning evidence against your argument as inconclusive before you even looked at the study.

I appreciate scientific rigor, but that includes giving the benefit of the doubt when it's reasonable to do so.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. 

I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.

Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?

[AFK]

It's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender.

Hmm, cause I actually was just going through that Reefer Madness thread again, looking for something else, and saw where I clearly said I wasn't for kids losing access to financial aid.  I'll be glad to go through the thread again to grab that quote if you don't believe me.  So yeah, I will continue to take issue with that misrepresentation.  

You implied that kids would get one second chance before they're barred from financial aid here:

OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.

I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid. 

Did you mean a second chance in terms of incarceration AND as a separate issue that under no case should kids be barred from financial aid?

It sounds like you've changed your mind since earlier in the thread, or you weren't very clear about it to begin with.

No, I said the same things in the Reefer madness thread.  Kids should not be barred from financial aid because of a drug offense. 

[East Coast Hustle]

What about adults? I got popped for a pot charge when I was 20.

It is the only incident on my criminal record other than the "carrying concealed" charge that came about that same night as a result of having a knife on me when I was searched afterward.

I'd love to go back to school. I could afford to pay for it OR stop working full-time, but not both and there's no way I could do it WHILE working full time. And I can never, for the rest of my life, get federal financial aid.

Does the fact that I was 20 and not 17 at the time of the arrest somehow justify that?

[AFK]

Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:

Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here.  That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. 

I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.

Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?

Not at all.  Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education.  Though it's not a direct one to one.  The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated.  For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely.  So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth. 

[AFK]

What about adults? I got popped for a pot charge when I was 20.

It is the only incident on my criminal record other than the "carrying concealed" charge that came about that same night as a result of having a knife on me when I was searched afterward.

I'd love to go back to school. I could afford to pay for it OR stop working full-time, but not both and there's no way I could do it WHILE working full time. And I can never, for the rest of my life, get federal financial aid.

Does the fact that I was 20 and not 17 at the time of the arrest somehow justify that?

I can't speak to the "carrying concealed" charge because that is out of my area of expertise.  But certainly for the pot possession charge, that should not automatically disqualify you from financial aid for life, assuming that indeed is what has happened.  Now, of course, financial aid resources are limited and there is a competetive nature to it, so there is that reality.  But you should not be banned or barred from that process.