I'll just leave this here....

[East Coast Hustle]

As for the rest of your screeching, well, Demo Squid said it just as well as I could have and with far less "personal vendetta".

[AFK]

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

You also asked where I got my degree.  There are a limited number of people in my field that received a degree from where I received my degree.  It would be pretty obvious to anyone who has worked with me who RWHN is if they had that information.  That is why I said I was taken aback that you would "crack that door open".  Is it the same as asking me for my address?  No, but it can identify me which is what I want to avoid.  I would hope you could understand why I take that very seriously. 

[East Coast Hustle]

Yep, and that's why within minutes of you accusing me of fishing for your PI (not saying "hey, that could inadvertently reveal my PI, but actually accusing me of intentionally fishing for it) I amended my request to just asking you what your degree is. And that's what I've asked you several times since. And you refuse to answer the question. And no amount of pointing out that you don't want to give information I'm NOT asking for changes that.

[AFK]

Perhaps if you and Nigel hadn't gone into full-on troll mode I would have been more forthcoming.  I shared the information with who I shared it with because they were reasonable and respectful.  It didn't appear to me that either of you two were in a place where sharing that information was going to be of any benefit.  You already seemed pretty convinced I was a fraud based on nothing more than your disagreement with my positions and opinions.  So it seemed fairly useless for me to give you that information.  It still seems fairly useless.   

[East Coast Hustle]

Yep, Nigel and I are the ones who went into troll mode.

Because we started this thread. With no intention of having an actual debate about the subject.

[AFK]

I started the thread with a reasoned discussion about why Obama was changing course.  And I made very clear at the beginning that my opinions were based on suspicions and gut instincts.  I even underlined the word suspect to make it clear.  I did mention that the DEA guy I work with had mentioned stuff about medical marijuana being diverted.  Obviously I could not provide a link to that kind of source.  That's about when you guys started going into "RWHN is making stuff up" mode.  Then it really spun out of control after TGRR posted that link that he thought was about codeine and atropine but was really about Lomotil.  And I reposted stuff from near the beginning of the thread that made it clear that as far as the OP I was speculating, and that I could be wrong. 

But you guys, for whatever reason, decided to ignore that and go into shit-flinging mode. 

This isn't my first rodeo.  I know how the dynamics go.  After awhile momentum goes a certain direction and there is no reasoning with people.  So yeah, at that point I fed it.  I admit it.  I've been admitting it.  But only with you two.  I've been trying to stay straight with everyone else, though it was disappointing when others started questioning my credentials for specious reasons. 

And still no one has acknowledged the atropine thing was based on a bullshit link.  You guys want me to own up to shit when none of you will do the same. 

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I'm fixin to get all ghetto up in here if this doesn't stop real quick...... 


Just sayin....

[AFK]

Meh, you're right.  I'm done with this shit. 

No, I'm not leaving.  You can't get rid of me that easily. 

You're stuck with this Freedom-Hating Spag!

[BabylonHoruv]

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

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

Maybe we should try and interject a second strand of idiot jabbering...

Not only do I think marijuana should be legalized, I think it should be used as the new standard for currencies. The Weed Standard would enable us to grow our way to economic prosperity, and would back our money with something of great practical use but without the supply problems of gold!

Kids will be fine because they don't get that much pocket money anyway, and parents can ration their access to weed by adjusting their income so that they can't get hold of enough to abuse it.

Plus, if your reserves degrade over time, you like, have to spend the money rather than hoarding it, which totally means that the economy will get an immediate kickstart and everything will be great.

I think weed would make an excellent currency, without backing.  There are significant differences in quality of course, but it's valuable at a weight that is perfect for easy exchange, it degrades slowly enough that it can be stored up in a large enough quantity to buy a car, which is about as much wealth as any one person needs to have on hand at one time.  It wouldn't work for high finance or government level finances, but it would work well for the middle class.

[AFK]

Oh hell, I can't help myself.  But this just came across my e-mail:

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/addiction/marijuana-use-and-adolescents-what-clinicians-need-to-know

As marijuana use among teenagers increases and its perceived danger among this age group decreases, clinicians need to know the latest science about the harmful effects of the drug on the adolescent brain, according to a researcher at the University of Colorado, Denver.

Paula Riggs, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, notes the most recent Monitoring the Future Survey shows a significant increase in marijuana use, including daily marijuana use among U. S. high school students and a decrease in perceived risk of use. "There are a number of indicators, including the increasing number of states that have passed 'medical marijuana' legislation, and that society as a whole tends to view marijuana as a relatively benign, recreational drug. However, scientific research does not support this."

A growing body of research shows that adolescent marijuana use can be detrimental to the brain development and may produce long-lasting neurocognitive deficits and increased risk of mental health problems including psychosis, said Dr. Riggs, who spoke about this topic at the recent California Society of Addiction Medicine meeting.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. Although some have questioned whether marijuana is an addictive drug, scientific research shows that one in 10 people overall, and one in six adolescents, who use marijuana develop dependence or addiction, Dr. Riggs says. Research shows that marijuana can cause structural damage, neuronal loss and impair brain function on a number of levels, from basic motor coordination to more complex tasks, such as the ability to plan, organize, solve problems, remember, make decisions and control behavior and emotions.

Dr. Riggs also cited recent studies indicating that adolescents may be more vulnerable to addiction, in part due to rapid brain development. "Emerging research suggests that individuals who start using marijuana during their teenage years may have longer-lasting cognitive impairments in executive functioning than those who start later," she says. "Animal studies also suggest that exposure to marijuana during adolescence compared to adulthood may increase the vulnerability or risk of developing addiction to other substances of abuse such as cocaine and methamphetamine."

She adds, "It is important for pediatricians, psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians to be aware of current research because they are on the front line to identify teens when they first start to experiment. They need to be able to effectively screen adolescents for marijuana use, and be armed with the scientific facts to educate teens and families about associated risks."

ETA: http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/heavy-methamphetamine-marijuana-users-at-increased-risk-of-schizophrenia

People hospitalized for methamphetamine or marijuana use are more likely than those being treated as inpatients for other substance use disorders to develop schizophrenia, according to a new study.

Researchers examined medical records of patients admitted to California hospitals over a 10-year period with a diagnosis of dependence or abuse for methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, opioids or alcohol, HealthDay reports. The study included 42,412 people in the methamphetamine group, and 23,335 in the marijuana (cannabis) group.

Patients hospitalized for dependence on methamphetamine and who had never been diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychotic symptoms at the beginning of the study were 1.5 to three times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the course of the study, than patients who used cocaine, alcohol or opioids. The risk of schizophrenia in methamphetamine users was similar to the risk seen in heavy marijuana users, the researchers report in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

"We really do not understand how these drugs might increase schizophrenia risk," researcher Dr. Stephen Kish said in a news release. "Perhaps repeated use of methamphetamine and cannabis in some susceptible individuals can trigger latent schizophrenia by sensitizing the brain to dopamine, a brain chemical thought to be associated with psychosis."

[Phox]

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.

Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.

Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.  That whole atropine melee?  That began with TGRR posting a link and a quote he thought showed codeine being combined with atropine when it was actually an anti-diahhreal drug called Lomotil, which others in this thread, including ECH, conceded was an acceptable medical use of atropine.  Has TGRR copped to that?  Nope.  That whole bullshit discussion was based on a bullshit link, but neither he nor any of you other chikcen-shits would cop to it because, why?  Don't talke to me about intellectual integrity.

And then some assclowns decide that I'm a phony and that I don't really do the job I've said I do for the past 5 years.  But then when someone they like says, "no, he's real", then they change their mind.  Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.

And then TGRR making shit up about what I actually believe.  That I SUPPORT kids going to jail for possession, that I support families being busted up because of possession convictions, that I support kids not being able to get financial aid, when I have repeatedly said I DON'T support any of that shit and that the shit should be changed.   Yet, people continue to post that I do support all of that.  Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity. 

Look, I'm not going to submit to stupid games.  The question ECH posed was a game.  Do I think, on paper that a kid experimenting with pot is better off than a kid who just lost his family because of drug confictions.  Well, Jesus, of fucking course.  Who the fuck would say otherwise?  But the real world doesn't work that way.  It isn't an either/or.  Both of those can be adressed and I believe they can be addressed without legalizing marijuana.  You don't agree?  Fine, I don't give a fuck and I really don't expect anyone to agree with that position.  But that has shit all to do with my intellectual integrity.

Indeed, if I were to bend my actual beliefs in this area in a way to satisfy you spags, what the fuck does that say about my intellectual integrity?  That I stray from the constructs of how I think around this subject just so you all can agree.  Don't fucking talk to me about intellectual integrity. 

Okay, so when did it become okay to be a slippery fuck and not answer direct questions from people who haven't been arguing with you? And do not fucking throw me in with anyone else, because I didn't say a goddamn thing about atropine in codeine, legalization, or anything like that. I asked you a direct question. "Do you agree or disagree with the practice of placing toxic substances in medicines to prevent abuse?" That is only tenuously related to atropine in codeine, but it is a general question which was worded in a specific way so that you didn't have to specifically address the atropine/codeine thing, but you could answer directly, the people accusing you of supporting "poisoning drug abusers". And yet, you refused to answer that question, you fuck.

I never questioned your credentials, and personally, I don't necessarily blame ECH and Nigel for not accepting your word when you refused to divulge them. It's not hard to think that when a neutral party supports you, that people will be like, "okay, well, if he told them, then I'll believe them." Sorry dude, but your personal credibility got shot to hell ITT. And you certainly aren't helping it by doing this shit. You start a thread that you know will start this discussion, and yet, you try to duck out immediately. But then instead of staying out of it, you come back later and well, we have 50+ pages of bullshit.

You know what, RWHN, I respected your position on this until now. But you keep saying that ECH and Nigel's position are misinformed and not based in reality. But guess what? I live in reality thank you, and I observed the drug culture for many years. And the funny thing is, my experiences tend to validate what ECH and Nigel are saying. And of course, now you're going to tell me that I'm misinformed and everything you say is how Reality^TM actually works. Except, ya know, it isn't actually. But that's okay. At this point, the fact that you cannot accept that people's experiences differ from your data tells me that you are not worth talking to in a meaningful way.

And no, you're intellectual integrity went out the fucking window when you started evading questions and proselytizing. Which was fairly early on, so you know at this point, compromising your beliefs won't do shit about it. So fuck you, you're a bitch with no intellectual integrity, no credibility, and no redeeming qualities to speak of. Enjoy your "debate", bitch.  

[Triple Zero]

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.

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.

And the atropine thing ... I think it got rolled up in the shitstorm, plus some righteous indignation if it were true. I didn't completely follow that, so there is no citations for codeine laced with atropine? That was just a rumour, doesn't exist?

But there's still codeine with acetaminophen? Which is less strange because it's both a painkiller. But if it's being done so it can be sold on a less restrictive schedule, because it prevents abuse, where the mechanism to prevent abuse is "irreversible liver damage from acetaminophen", then it's still somewhat questionable. I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to explicit malice, it seems more likely to be the unintended consequences of fucked up bureaucratic regulations.

Reading up on codeine, Dutch Wikipedia provides an interesting citation that addition of codeine to acetaminophen (paracetamol) only minimally increases the therapeutic effect (analgesic). So with incidental usage the advantage is minimal, while in the case of long-term usage the disadvantages are probably worse than the advantages; tolerance and abuse/addiction.

So that does kind of put a damper on the reasoning that it's excusable because they're both analgesics, if it doesn't actually significantly improve the effect.

And, about the atropine/diarrhoea medication confusion: codeine has anti-diarrhoeic properties and is indeed added to anti-diarrhoeal medicines. I have no idea whether this proves anyone's point about anything, but I just thought I'd mention it.

This info is from the Farmacotherapeutic Compass, which is the main drug reference used by doctors and pharmacists In the Netherlands¹: atropine is a rational choice for the following indications: decreasing secretion of fluids (saliva, bronchial, vaginal) prior to anesthesia, some sort of heart condition and as an antidote for a specific type of poison. It warns to take extra care when administering it in presence of diarrhea because of the effect it has on the intestines, though it is not contra-indicated.

While on English Wikipedia the anti-secretion effect of atropine is argued to benefit diarrhoea treatment, Dutch doctors will not prescribe it as such, and if you ask me it seems like a dangerous substance that is--similar to acetaminophen--of little benefit when added to a drug, except for pushing it to a different controlled substances Schedule.

¹ Short article on English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmacotherapeutisch_Kompas



On a sidenote, the English Wikipedia has an interesting tidbit that SSRIs inhibit the effect of codeine. I don't know if the effect is strong enough, but I wonder if that could be used to treat physical dependence? One could slowly build down their codeine dosage (as is required to avoid dangerous withdrawal symptoms) but they would be less tempted to start using it again, not feeling the effects. Plus, if their descent into substance abuse is somehow based in depression-like circumstances (not unlikely), an SSRI wouldn't be a half bad to get up to speed with improving their lifestyle, too. This is just a completely wild theory of course, I'm not a doctor

[AFK]

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? 

[Triple Zero]

Maybe just really really avoid drug related topics in the future, then. Cause this thread is actually a degree worse than the ones we had before, IMO.