I'll just leave this here....

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

So, capital punishment is also a deterrent to murder?

I have never met a teenager that made the decision to smoke or not smoke pot based on potential consequences.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never met one, and I was a teenager during the fucking REAGAN YEARS.

The first time I smoked was at a Type O Negative concert -in a club with security mind you- because I had recently broken up with a high school girlfriend, and the dude next to me had a joint, so I figured fuck it. And you know, that was one awesome fucking concert. Of course, I went into the mosh pit and literally killed everyone instead of grinning stupidly and enjoying 10 minute long songs.

[Cain]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.

Violent ones that run over trespassing children.

Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.

How many warnings do the little fuckers need?

However, it has to be said, driving the car at five miles an hour isn't exactly a huge deterrent.

Especially when they stop every few minutes to go "woah" and inspect the cool interplay of light on the mirrors.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I think you are confusing two different ideas.  I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.  

I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.

Violent ones that run over trespassing children.

Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.

How many warnings do the little fuckers need?

However, it has to be said, driving the car at five miles an hour isn't exactly a huge deterrent.

Especially when they stop every few minutes to go "woah" and inspect the cool interplay of light on the mirrors.

Or to think how amazing it is is that the car is running on liquid dinosaur, man!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.

In a sense yes.  My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective.  Youth use is linked to access.  Youth use is linked to perception of harm.  Youth use is linked to community norms.  Youth use is linked to family norms.  This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.  

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.

I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs.  Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time.  It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws.  I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.  

The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy.  Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form.  I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.  

So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job.  My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring.  But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.  

I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs.  This isn't a moral crusade for me.  But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective.  Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience.  For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy.  Is it perfect?  Of course the fuck not.  

Perfect is the enemy of good.  

Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.

In a sense yes.  My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective.  Youth use is linked to access.  Youth use is linked to perception of harm.  Youth use is linked to community norms.  Youth use is linked to family norms.  This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.  

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.

It makes sense... he's human. Humans have all sorts of contradictory positions in life

If we apply the BiP concept, I think RWHN's position is understandable. I disagree with it, but I don't think he intentionally being disingenuous. Maybe just imprisoned by a set of beliefs.

[AFK]

It's handy to work within minutes of the polling station. 

What did I miss? 

[AFK]

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.

But see, I don't think it makes much sense for me to waste much time thinking about whether or not alcohol being legal is OK.  It is.  It isn't ever going to change.  It's a waste of my time to fret over it, so I work with the system as it actually exists.  Additionally, I don't practice, nor preach, complete abstinence from alcohol where it concerns adults.  I do talk about parental modeling in my work and the role that plays on adolescent substance abuse.  And I practice it at home by not drinking in front of my children and not taking them to gathering where alcohol is being consumed.  I also never drink to inebriation.  For me it's one and done and I nurse that puppy for a solid hour. 

Which usually leads to my wife laughing at me.

And the horrible, soul-crushing shame.

[AFK]

It makes sense... he's human. Humans have all sorts of contradictory positions in life

If we apply the BiP concept, I think RWHN's position is understandable. I disagree with it, but I don't think he intentionally being disingenuous. Maybe just imprisoned by a set of beliefs.

But there's a motherfucking bar in my bars and the barmaids are impressive!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.

But see, I don't think it makes much sense for me to waste much time thinking about whether or not alcohol being legal is OK.  It is.  It isn't ever going to change.  It's a waste of my time to fret over it, so I work with the system as it actually exists.  Additionally, I don't practice, nor preach, complete abstinence from alcohol where it concerns adults.  I do talk about parental modeling in my work and the role that plays on adolescent substance abuse.  And I practice it at home by not drinking in front of my children and not taking them to gathering where alcohol is being consumed.  I also never drink to inebriation.  For me it's one and done and I nurse that puppy for a solid hour.  

Which usually leads to my wife laughing at me.

And the horrible, soul-crushing shame.

Bolded: don't want to waste time thinking about something?

Italicized: You deserve it. Not that I'm encouraging you to get wasted, but what's the point of drinking if you're not even going to work up a buzz? It's a waste of alcohol. Especially if you're drinking hour warm Rolling Rock, unless extreme penance is your thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.

But see, I don't think it makes much sense for me to waste much time thinking about whether or not alcohol being legal is OK.  It is.  It isn't ever going to change.  It's a waste of my time to fret over it, so I work with the system as it actually exists.  Additionally, I don't practice, nor preach, complete abstinence from alcohol where it concerns adults.  I do talk about parental modeling in my work and the role that plays on adolescent substance abuse.  And I practice it at home by not drinking in front of my children and not taking them to gathering where alcohol is being consumed.  I also never drink to inebriation.  For me it's one and done and I nurse that puppy for a solid hour. 

Which usually leads to my wife laughing at me.

And the horrible, soul-crushing shame.

I think that I just have some sort of weird thing for intellectual and moral consistency or something.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

But you are right.  It is creating some interesting scenarios.  The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue.  A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana.  (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana)  The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school.  The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.

But law enforcement are in the trickiest position.  When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that.  The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card.  so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list.  Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore.  It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.  

Going after dispensaries means that grandma with glaucoma has to buy her weed from a dealer, unless she wants to risk being charged with manufacturing for growing her own.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

They're also raiding growers, and growers are people who have the medical marijuana license themselves and are legally allowed to grow extra to sell to dispensaries and other licensed people, which means that they are, in fact, raiding users of medicinal marijuana.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma. 

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

I dunno, because we have some goddamn human compassion for people who are terminally ill and in alot of pain? And we think that if there's something that alleviates some of their discomfort and makes their quality of life vastly better that they should be allowed to have it right goddamn now instead of 5 or 10 years down the road when Pfizer has finally figured out a way to synthesize it in a lab?

[AFK]

So would it be appropriate for all prescription medicines to go through this new voter-approved process?  Or is it just medical marijuana?  If so, why? 

RWHN,
Asking the questions for a little change of pace.