On the recurrence of discussions

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Everything RWHN posts reads like satire to me, but I imagine that's Poe's Law.

[Freeky]

This threads ams dildoes.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You are mistaking satire for anger.


I wear lots of uniforms.  One is a father, one is a husband, one is a musician, one is a poet, one is a scientist, and yes, one is a grassroots community organizer/preventionist.  My job is very important to me, as are my goals to reduce substance abuse and make my community a healthy place for children to live and grow.  BUT, I am not solely defined by it.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6svEdDPCJIg

[East Coast Hustle]

It isn't the solution.  I've said this repeatedly but you guys are too busy getting your hate on to pay attention.  The actual community-based prevention strategies and efforts are the solution.  But legalization significantly alters the environment and would neutralize and overcome those efforts.

Why? Alcohol is legal for adult (21+) consumption. Illegal for children to consume but they are known to do so and abuse alcohol anyway. From what I've seen there are tons of prevention campaigns against underage drinking, counseling programs for kids with a substance abuse problem.

So how would having these same sorts of programs and sanctions, etc. in place allowing adults to consume it if they wish while still trying to address the problems with children and teenagers abusing alcohol or drugs, RUIN THINGS FOREVER?

Also, without a bunch of money going to the prosecution of drug users, maybe some of it can be diverted back to useful prevention and education programs.

(Since apparently this thread's about drugs now too and I haven't finished reading the last three pages)

Legalizing drugs would make them more available and increase access.  Yes, I know some drugs are already easy to get, but this would make them measurably MORE easy to get.  That impacts usage rates causing them to go up.  Maybe, you could get them back down with prevention programs but funding for prevention is woefully inadequate as it is.  And I have no faith in state governments to reroute any potential savings in enforcement to prevention.  As it is my governor is cutting prevention funding that comes from tobacco settlement money and not taxes.


So I'm really not taking some significant risks and relying on maybes.

You know, if you would just SHUT UP and stop trotting out the same old crap anytime someone weighs in on this, all of this shit might go away. I know it's not your responsibility, but it would definitely earn you a gold star.

[East Coast Hustle]

That goes double for the rest of you. You know where this is going, it's been there a half-dozen times already, so...


STOP MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT NOBODY IS LISTENING TO AND JUST SHUT UP.

[AFK]

Just trying to not be rude and ignore questions, but, I'll be a team player.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Im not going to wade through the rest of this before making an offer. Since i work for a cancer study AND in some of our studies track illicit drug use AND those include specific drugs, separating out recreational marijuana use i can attempt to see if weve done any studies linking smoking weed and cancer rather than force feeding it to mice. focusing on my study will help me narrow it down. the caveat being that the studies in question may not have been going on long enough to be helpful (i think weve only been tracking it in my generation). If you guys wish. When i have the time. Ill start up a separate thread providing it only includes epidemiology and not drug policy.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

In the interest of being scientific i will include articles that indicate the following:
benefit
no benefit
detriment
no detriment

since those four are all different things with some overlap. I will also include other intoxicants both legal and illegal (as will all of you). Again were talking science here. Any spaggotry involving policy or crime rates will be split off into a cant follow the rules thread even if im the one doing it. Sound like a plan? Is this something people would be interested in?

[P3nT4gR4m]

In fact, this entire conversation, in all affected threads, is just further proof that we are monkeys just like all the humans are.  We ALL KNOW that this conversation, like a few others, will change nobody's mind, and just get everyone all butthurt, castrate the rest of the board, and create an enormous amount of ill-will that will probably never go away.

But what happens when the SHINY, SHINY subject is brought up?  We're all over it like a test monkey on a heap o' cocaine.  Because we're DUMB.  We don't LEARN.

Theory:

so this board is full of bald monkeys, that's a given but it's my opinion that the ones who frequent this place are a bit more intelligent than most of the ones I pass by in the street. We enjoy intellectual pursuits, like debating things. It's stimulating on a whole bunch of levels, you sharpen your intellect, you're forced to examine structures in your head that's in danger of becoming beliefs, you can learn shit...

Surely the best challenge is the debate that's hardest to win? Hence the old faithfuls. Problem is, we're bald monkeys and there comes a point where that takes over. Banging your head against a brick wall is a good workout but it does make you kinda punchy if you do it for too long and, when that happens, it's like watching a food fight at a retard convention. Kinda amusing but kinda depressing at the same time.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Crickets.

[AFK]

Im not going to wade through the rest of this before making an offer. Since i work for a cancer study AND in some of our studies track illicit drug use AND those include specific drugs, separating out recreational marijuana use i can attempt to see if weve done any studies linking smoking weed and cancer rather than force feeding it to mice. focusing on my study will help me narrow it down. the caveat being that the studies in question may not have been going on long enough to be helpful (i think weve only been tracking it in my generation). If you guys wish. When i have the time. Ill start up a separate thread providing it only includes epidemiology and not drug policy.

How are you defining "epidemiology" for the purposes of this thread you are proposing?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Causes spreading and distribution of disease. Risk factors. That sort of thing.

[AFK]

Okay, just trying to see what the breadth would be.  Sounds like an interesting topic to me, though, I'm biased for obvious reasons.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well im having a rather frustrating time stuck at north station trying to get reception. But really any science as long as it describes any health benefits or disease risk factors and only medical science. No policy. No crime stats. Just how drugs effect the body and mind.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And aparently night fell while i was underground...