I'll just leave this here....

[East Coast Hustle]

And yet, oddly enough, you keep avoiding the questions from one of the people whose intellectual integrity has been consistent throughout this entire thread because, according to you, those questions are just "playing games".

I mean, I've conceded the Lomotil point, I'm still not convinced you have the academic credentials necessary for your field of employment no matter what you've told anyone else privately, every question I've asked you ITT has had a legitimate scientific, cultural, or philosophical point behind it, and to top it off I'm not even arguing from a standpoint of being pro-legalization. I'm just arguing from a standpoint of being pro-logic and pro-ideological consistency.

And what do I get in return? I get accused of fishing for your PI because I asked what degree you hold and all of my questions get dodged or evaded because you seem to think that the fact that you can't come up with a logical answer that's consistent with your beliefs means that I'm out to get you. Couldn't mean that I've consistently been able to expose flaws in your thought process that you're unwilling to confront. No, I'm just playing games.

If that makes me dogmatic then fuck me.

Indeed. Fuck you.

[Faust]

Not good enough, guys.

I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight.  We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.

The servers boiler pressure has dropped to half of what we need, at this rate we'll be stuck on the Mississippi until January.

[Scribbly]

There's a difference between intellectual integrity and dogmatism, by the way. If you haven't noticed, what pretty much every other person on the site has been saying is that you've been crossed that line. Potentially because you're making yourself look like an ass playing stupid games.

Because I'm making counter arguments? 

How are my counter arguments dogmatic while the counter arguments from the pro-marijuana side NOT dogmatic? 

I've provided evidence to support my argument concerning the impact that community norms and perception of harm have on marijuana use.  That is peer-reviewed science.  If that makes me dogmatic then fuck me.

I've also raised questions about some of the research submitted concerning what has been happening in Europe.  I have fully acknowledged that usage rates are lower in Europe, but they were lower in a lot of places BEFORE any legalization or decriminalization.  That is an important point.  If you guys don't like that, then fuck me, because that is based in fundamental evaluation.  When doing any kind of assessment you do have ton consider confounding variables.  And in the cases where we have only been presented abstracts and not full research articles, it is impossible to know whether or not that variable has been controlled for.  That isn't dogmatism that is science.  Blindly accepting the results of research without considering the protocol and confounding variables is dogmatism.

You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but from where I'm sitting, this is pretty clear group dynamics.  THere are a couple of individuals here using their heads while questioning me but many others have been caught up in a game and aren't really thinking things through.

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.

You have constantly shifted and evaded. You've admitted that you aren't interested in fulfilling the basic criteria necessary to have an actual discussion. But mostly, it is your attitude which pisses me off. You may feel otherwise, but the one who started treating other members of the board like tools is you.

You started this discussion. Despite saying in the past that you wanted to avoid it. YOU were also the first one to start dragging this shit out across other threads. You are the one who turned the discussion toxic. You are responsible for making this week's content largely revolve around your ridiculously incoherent argument, your blind refusal to step back and look at how you are appearing to others, and your apparent insistence that no, it is everyone ELSE who has their head up their ass.

Until this week, I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. After this week, though, it is difficult not to put you in the troll category. The fact you might not be there deliberately doesn't change the fact that this week's board content would have been far more enjoyable if you had never posted at all.

[AFK]

You wanted me to post information about myself that would make it easy for my employer or state partner to link me to this site.  And even Kai mentioned that is something he would be reluctant to do for the same reasons.  That should be an easy concept for you to understand and why that creeps me out a bit.  

And no, I've been answering Rat and Trip's questions.  Because after you got your dander up, which didn't take very long, your "questions" were very clearly rooted in an emotional vendetta.  I mean, if you are going to ask me questions AND insult me in those questions, why the fuck should I bother with that nonsense?  You and Nigel have had no interests in this thread other than trolling, baiting, etc., etc., so I've been playing with that, I've been giving you what you want, which was a fight.  You guys have no interest in anything other than that as your behavior has demonstrated.  So, no, I'm not going to engage the two of you the same way I will engage others.  You want a troll so you two are getting a troll.

For others, I am answering questions the way I see the answers from my perspective.  I'm not going to make shit up.  I'm not going to pretend to believe something just to make people happy.  I believe that legalizing marijuana has many consequences for our youth.  Yes, I will stipulate that, at best, evidence in Europe suggests that some kind of nuanced decriminalization might not have a huge impact on youth.  But that has exactly been the crux of my argument.  I'm not willing to gamble on might.  Others in this thread are.  Great.  Fine.  I don't agree.  But might isn't iron-clad science.  So don't give me shit about intellectual integrity or evidence.  Might is not evidence.  Might tells you that there are more questions to answer.  

So let me ask all of you this, what have you been doing, what WILL you do to see things change more to your liking?  What have you done to advocate for changes that would keep kids out of jail for possession?  What have you done to advocate for second chances for kids who get in trouble so they can get financial aid?  What have you done in any of this shit you keep throwing at me?  

Me, I fought tooth and nail to save the youth drug court program here in my state when the state legislature put it on the chopping block.  I fought hard to keep that shit going precisely because I want to keep kids out of jail.  Ultimately, we failed, and the state cut it anyway despite the data I provided that showed it was working.  I walk my talk.  Do you guys?  If you haven't, what will you do now?  

Bickering over the internet is fun but if you actually want shit to change, get out there and do something about it.  

[AFK]

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 constantly shifted and evaded. You've admitted that you aren't interested in fulfilling the basic criteria necessary to have an actual discussion. But mostly, it is your attitude which pisses me off. You may feel otherwise, but the one who started treating other members of the board like tools is you.

Prove it.  I see a lot of generalization but nothing to back it up.  TGRR has been misrepresenting me.  ECH and Nigel and others have accused me of being a fraud.  I've not insulted anyone.  I've not called anyone a fraud.  I've not called anyone an "intellectually dishonest bastard".  I can't help that you guys don't like my arguments.  And I didn't ask for half of the board to come in here and start a melee.  This thread started with a very even-keeled commentary on the shift in policy by the Obama administration.  It went to shit when someone posted a bogus link to codeine being mixed with atropine.  And I still haven't seen anyone acknowledge that.  So spare me your "evasion" bullshit. 

You started this discussion

But it was escalated by others who admitted they were being overly aggressive. 

Despite saying in the past that you wanted to avoid it.

Yeah, I did.  But people couldn't resist poking.  I've been the nice guy on this board for the past 5 or 6 years.  I've normally stayed out of the dog-pile threads because I find it to be rather pointless.  I even stood up for AKK when he was getting pounded, until I realized he had no interest in being civil.  I think I've been perfectly civil.  I fuck with ECH and Nigel because it's what they want. 

YOU were also the first one to start dragging this shit out across other threads.

Actually, it was ECH when he started that thread about people posting their shoe color or eye color or whatever.  So I'm afraid you are wrong.  He's also the one who threatened to ruin every single thread I started.  And then I started a thread with a piece of writing that I wanted to share, you know, like what a lot of people tend to do in Apple Talk these days.  It was ECH and Nigel who decided to turn that thread into a hate fest.  And then I bump something I wrote in Or Kill Me because I saw that someone was reading it.  It was a good piece of writing, one LMNO turned into a POEEcast, I have some fond memories of that piece.  So I wanted to share it again.  And then Nigel starts shitting on me in THAT thread.  You might want to reconsider who is actually spreading this shit to multiple threads, because it isn't me. 

You are the one who turned the discussion toxic.

Nope.  Those would be the people who started accusing me of being a fraud and trying to pin me down on a hypothetical that was based on the bogus link TGRR provided. 

You are responsible for making this week's content largely revolve around your ridiculously incoherent argument, your blind refusal to step back and look at how you are appearing to others, and your apparent insistence that no, it is everyone ELSE who has their head up their ass.

I can assure you that not everyone is on the same page as you.  But out of respect I will say no more about that. 

Until this week, I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. After this week, though, it is difficult not to put you in the troll category. The fact you might not be there deliberately doesn't change the fact that this week's board content would have been far more enjoyable if you had never posted at all.

Given the bias in your observations to this point I will give what you said all of the considerations it merits. 

[Scribbly]

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 constantly shifted and evaded. You've admitted that you aren't interested in fulfilling the basic criteria necessary to have an actual discussion. But mostly, it is your attitude which pisses me off. You may feel otherwise, but the one who started treating other members of the board like tools is you.

Prove it.  I see a lot of generalization but nothing to back it up.  TGRR has been misrepresenting me.  ECH and Nigel and others have accused me of being a fraud.  I've not insulted anyone.  I've not called anyone a fraud.  I've not called anyone an "intellectually dishonest bastard".  I can't help that you guys don't like my arguments.  And I didn't ask for half of the board to come in here and start a melee.  This thread started with a very even-keeled commentary on the shift in policy by the Obama administration.  It went to shit when someone posted a bogus link to codeine being mixed with atropine.  And I still haven't seen anyone acknowledge that.  So spare me your "evasion" bullshit. 

You started this discussion

But it was escalated by others who admitted they were being overly aggressive. 

Despite saying in the past that you wanted to avoid it.

Yeah, I did.  But people couldn't resist poking.  I've been the nice guy on this board for the past 5 or 6 years.  I've normally stayed out of the dog-pile threads because I find it to be rather pointless.  I even stood up for AKK when he was getting pounded, until I realized he had no interest in being civil.  I think I've been perfectly civil.  I fuck with ECH and Nigel because it's what they want. 

YOU were also the first one to start dragging this shit out across other threads.

Actually, it was ECH when he started that thread about people posting their shoe color or eye color or whatever.  So I'm afraid you are wrong.  He's also the one who threatened to ruin every single thread I started.  And then I started a thread with a piece of writing that I wanted to share, you know, like what a lot of people tend to do in Apple Talk these days.  It was ECH and Nigel who decided to turn that thread into a hate fest.  And then I bump something I wrote in Or Kill Me because I saw that someone was reading it.  It was a good piece of writing, one LMNO turned into a POEEcast, I have some fond memories of that piece.  So I wanted to share it again.  And then Nigel starts shitting on me in THAT thread.  You might want to reconsider who is actually spreading this shit to multiple threads, because it isn't me. 

You are the one who turned the discussion toxic.

Nope.  Those would be the people who started accusing me of being a fraud and trying to pin me down on a hypothetical that was based on the bogus link TGRR provided. 

You are responsible for making this week's content largely revolve around your ridiculously incoherent argument, your blind refusal to step back and look at how you are appearing to others, and your apparent insistence that no, it is everyone ELSE who has their head up their ass.

I can assure you that not everyone is on the same page as you.  But out of respect I will say no more about that. 

Until this week, I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. After this week, though, it is difficult not to put you in the troll category. The fact you might not be there deliberately doesn't change the fact that this week's board content would have been far more enjoyable if you had never posted at all.

Given the bias in your observations to this point I will give what you said all of the considerations it merits. 

I'm not going to do your introspection for you. God knows enough other people have tried.

As to what I'm going to do about it, though, I think I'm mostly going to smile at your holier than thou attitude. Although I can think of several steps I could take to effect the change I'd like to see in the world, I think it would probably, all things considered, be a touch extreme.

I'll probably keep posting in this thread though.

[AFK]

Wait, so I just provided you some evidence that runs contrary to your belief as to what's been going on in this thread and you aren't even going to consider it? 

And I'm the dogmatic one? 

Did you see the bogus link that TGRR provided that set off the atropine nonsense? 

Have you seen where I've been accused of being for youth imprisonment and losing access to financial aid when I've said the opposite?

Have you seen where I've been accused of being a fraud?

have you seen the one thread I created and the one thread that I bumped that OTHERS turned into shit stirring?

Your view on this is very one-sided and the fact that you won't consider evidence to the contrary suggests to me that perhaps you aren't the best person to judge intellectual integrity and dogma. 

[Scribbly]

Wait, so I just provided you some evidence that runs contrary to your belief as to what's been going on in this thread and you aren't even going to consider it? 

And I'm the dogmatic one? 

Did you see the bogus link that TGRR provided that set off the atropine nonsense? 

Have you seen where I've been accused of being for youth imprisonment and losing access to financial aid when I've said the opposite?

Have you seen where I've been accused of being a fraud?

have you seen the one thread I created and the one thread that I bumped that OTHERS turned into shit stirring?

Your view on this is very one-sided and the fact that you won't consider evidence to the contrary suggests to me that perhaps you aren't the best person to judge intellectual integrity and dogma. 

I've read the thread. I've come to my own conclusions regarding your behaviour in it.

I've given your opinion on my opinion all the consideration it merits. 

[AFK]

[AFK]

Look at how unreasonable I am in this post!

Uh, no, I'm like voicing my opinion from my perspective man.  I mean, this is a discussion board right?  We're here to discuss, share opinions, right?  I'm not sure I said anywhere that I expected everyone to take my opinion as fact.  And you may have noticed that Jenne and I had a healthy, but friendly sort-of disagreement on the issue.  But, it's why I've made it very clear by using words like suspect.  I don't work for the Obama administration nor do I have any direct ties to them, so I have no way to know why they are doing this.  But I have a hunch, a gut feeling (therefore not based on facts), and so I shared it.  I could be wrong, I may very well be wrong.  Does that make you happy?

Let me make this clear, I am not out there actively advocating against medical marijuana.  Its' not part of my job.  Hell, it CAN'T be a part of my job.  I can't advocate for anything because of my funding.  My day to day job hardly involves marijuana at all.  My main focus is on alcohol, Rx drug abuse, inhalants, and now bath salts.  But, as an individual, I do have opinions on the matter.  I think there is probably a better model for medical marijuana and hope that someone out there is working on that. 

But I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how aggressive you are being.  I mean, I've not done anything or said anything personal against you or anyone else.  I'm just voicing my opinion based upon my perspective.  I don't understand the aggression.  Especially given how long I've been a part of this community.  But hopefully it is helping you vent whatever it is you've got going on there. 

[AFK]

Lookie, RWHN conceded on a point.  This was like on page 4 or 5?  I was using the wrong language because others have been using this language as well, so I was a bit confused, but had it cleared up when I did a little more research.  That's pretty darn evasive there, isn't it? 

And if it makes everyone happy I will concede on the "prescription" thing.  Though, I will stipulate that state officials, I work with, very regularly use "prescription" as short hand and interchangeably when they talk about medical marijuana.  So it isn't officially in the language of the laws but it is the language being used by people who have authority or impact on the law.  

Can we all hug now?  

[AFK]

OFUK!  RWHN making supportive comments that incriminates the gov't.  How unreasonable!!!

Regarding why the crackdown is happening now when public opinion does seem to be shifting in favor of some sort of decriminalization/legalization, I wonder if part of it is simple bureaucracy.  I might not be reading this report right:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf

but if I am, it looks like the annual budget for marijuana enforcement related activities is roughly $250 million.  From my experience, once there's a line item for something in your budget, the tendency is to want to maintain and defend that item, as that money might just disappear from your department altogether if the reason for it is gone.

Not saying this is the whole reason, or even a major part of the reason, but that is a significant amount of money, and cracking down on medical marijuana distributors might help pad out the annual statistics in order to justify that money to Congress.

That is certainly possible. 

[AFK]

This is where the whole gov't poisoning drug abusers things started.  Look at this unreasonably worded request for more information showing the U.S. gov't made a concerted effort to poison drug abusers. 

I want to point out that ECH and RWHN are saying two different things.

RWHN is saying they will produce drugs that are less prone to abuse

ECH is suggesting they might produce drugs that are less deadly

Putting Aceteminophen in the opiates was an attempt to produce drugs that are less prone to abuse, after all, a rational person is less likely to abuse a drug that is more likely to kill him.

(yes, I know drug users are not rational, no I am not defending the tactic.  I'm pointing out that I read RWHN's news as likely to lead to more aceteminophen type tricks, not less)

Eh, acetaminophen is also a medicine that treats pain, which is why it is included in prescription medicines.  I think the theory that the U.S. Government intentionally added it for scheduling purposes is interesting and I'd be interested in reading some information on that.  Recently, the FDA recommended that amounts of acetaminophen be limited in drugs, but it had nothing to do with addiction.  It was about the fact that too much acetaminophen can really fuck up your liver.  

I don't think the current attempts to create addiction resistant medications is strictly limited to acetaminophen levels.  Again, he didn't lay out the specifics of what is happening now, and as in many research ventures of this kind, I would expect multiple methods are being tested.  

[AFK]

Here's that link again that TGRR provided.  Again, the quote is referring to the anti-diarrhea drug Lomotil (diphenoxylate+atropine = Lomotil) which ECH just recently again conceded was an appropriate use of atropine. 

Oh please 

There's no "if" about it. The reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is to "prevent abuse".

No.

Codeine is mixed with acetaminophen for analgesic purposes.

The bastards mix it with fucking ATROPINE to "prevent abuse".  ATROPINE.

Other drugs that are present in Schedule V narcotic preparations like the codeine syrups are ethylmorphine and dihydrocodeine. Paregoric and hydrocodone were transferred to Schedule III from Schedule V even if the preparation contains two or more other active ingredients, and diphenoxylate is usually covered by state prescription laws even though this relative of pethidine is a Schedule V substance when adulterated with atropine to prevent abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine

The fucking filth.  This is fucking VILE.  The government should not be allowed to have a fucking thing to do with drugs, beyond ensuring that the contents of the drug are as advertised, as with food, etc.

[East Coast Hustle]

Please explain to me how telling us what degree you hold would link your employer to this place?

That's just asinine.


"OH, RWHN HAS A MASTERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. SINCE THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON IN AMERICA WHO HAS THAT DEGREE WE ALL TOTALLY KNOW WHO HE IS NOW AND SINCE HIS EMPLOYERS SCOUR THE ENTIRE INTERNET FOR THE KEYWORDS MASTERS DEGREE IN PUBLIC HEALTH THIS WILL TOTALLY GET HIM FIRED!"

I mean, really, DERP much?