http://www.alternet.org/drugs/taken-pot-smoking-parents-2-year-old-murdered-foster-care
(Better links and some disturbing video at site).
QuoteTwo-year-old Alexandria Hill was placed in foster care after her parents were caught smoking marijuana in their home while she slept. Authorities charged them with "neglectful supervision," and just months away from getting their baby back, the loving parents learned they would never see their young child again. Placed in a foster home to protect her from them, Alexandria was brutally killed.
THE CHILD HAS BEEN PROTECTED. PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS.
Quote"She would come to visitation with bruises on her, and mold and mildew in her bag," Hill told KVUE-TV, "It got to a point where I actually told CPS that they would have to have me arrested because I wouldn't let her go back."
But she was safer with the foster mother.
QuoteFoster mother Sherill Small was arrested and charged with murder.
Oh. Well. Oops. But hey, at least she was safe from pot.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 09, 2013, 03:15:51 PM
Quote"She would come to visitation with bruises on her, and mold and mildew in her bag," Hill told KVUE-TV, "It got to a point where I actually told CPS that they would have to have me arrested because I wouldn't let her go back."
But she was safer with the foster mother.
QuoteFoster mother Sherill Small was arrested and charged with murder.
Oh. Well. Oops. But hey, at least she was safe from pot.
CHILD: PROTECTED.
PARENTS: PUNISHED.
MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED.
Truly, the standard of success by which all such cases should be measured.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 09, 2013, 03:17:36 PM
Truly, the standard of success by which all such cases should be measured.
Yes. Parents who smoke pot don't DESERVE their kids, and if they lose the kid for years, thus utterly fucking the family life of the kid and the parents, well, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? And then if the kid gets KILLED by whackjob foster parents, then the kid is forever NOT at risk for marijuana use.
PROHIBITION: IT WORKS.
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 09, 2013, 03:17:36 PM
Truly, the standard of success by which all such cases should be measured.
Yes. Parents who smoke pot don't DESERVE their kids, and if they lose the kid for years, thus utterly fucking the family life of the kid and the parents, well, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? And then if the kid gets KILLED by whackjob foster parents, then the kid is forever NOT at risk for marijuana use.
PROHIBITION: IT WORKS.
True words. I bet this scares all sorts of parents off pot. So this works in so many ways. Really, I'm sure the system is so pleased with itself right now.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 09, 2013, 03:22:29 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 03:19:41 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 09, 2013, 03:17:36 PM
Truly, the standard of success by which all such cases should be measured.
Yes. Parents who smoke pot don't DESERVE their kids, and if they lose the kid for years, thus utterly fucking the family life of the kid and the parents, well, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? And then if the kid gets KILLED by whackjob foster parents, then the kid is forever NOT at risk for marijuana use.
PROHIBITION: IT WORKS.
True words. I bet this scares all sorts of parents off pot. So this works in so many ways. Really, I'm sure the system is so pleased with itself right now.
I have heard that it is unacceptable to put even a single child at risk for weed. No exceptions.
But not, apparently, for massive and fatal head trauma. That's the exception.
There is no contradiction. You have merely been brainwashed by NORML.
CPS was JUST DOING THEIR JOB(TM)
If even ONE child is PROTECTED from DEMON WEED, it was all WORTHWHILE(TM).
I suspect there was more to the child being taken away than just the parents using pot, but there is no way to know because the journalist clearly had an agenda. If anyone can find a full account or report of why the kid was taken away please post it in this thread.
Clearly the foster care system in that state sucks and needs to be fixed.
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 03:16:34 PM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 09, 2013, 03:15:51 PM
Quote"She would come to visitation with bruises on her, and mold and mildew in her bag," Hill told KVUE-TV, "It got to a point where I actually told CPS that they would have to have me arrested because I wouldn't let her go back."
But she was safer with the foster mother.
QuoteFoster mother Sherill Small was arrested and charged with murder.
Oh. Well. Oops. But hey, at least she was safe from pot.
CHILD: PROTECTED.
PARENTS: PUNISHED.
MISSION: ACCOMPLISHED.
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
Dad said: (http://www.kvue.com/news/Father-of-murdered-foster-child-speaks-to-KVUE-218037541.html)
Quote"We never hurt our daughter. She was never sick, she was never in the hospital, and she never had any issues until she went into state care."
this article (http://www.inquisitr.com/892429/foster-mother-charged-in-murder-of-2-year-old-alexandria-hill/) sheds a smidgen more light:
QuoteCourt records showed that the girl's mother had a medical condition that didn't allow her to be left alone with the child.
a little bit more from ... uhhh... daily mail, great
Quotehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385159/Foster-mother-beats-toddler-seized-biological-parents-social-services-discovered-smoking-pot.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
According to court records, Alexandria's mother has a medical condition that does not allow her to be left alone with her own child and Hill's marijuana use had become so bad he almost dropped his daughter down the stairs.
QuoteThe parents, who are not together, handed Alexandria to Hill's mother to care for - until the state intervened on November 26th.
According to the Department of Family and Protective Services, the family disagreed who should take custody of the girl and decided to involve the CPS themselves - until both mom and dad got their lives in order.
so, a little bit more complicated than "kid was taken away because parents smoked pot", but really the point is that the foster family should have been checked out too. I'm surprised the state didn't look into the foster family after the biological dad noted bruises on the girls arm.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 03:53:41 PM
I suspect there was more to the child being taken away than just the parents using pot, but there is no way to know because the journalist clearly had an agenda. If anyone can find a full account or report of why the kid was taken away please post it in this thread.
Clearly the foster care system in that state sucks and needs to be fixed.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Yeah, having worked with the state foster system in Oregon for a year, I would stake money that this wasn't a mere fluke, you fucking creepy, evil punishment pervert.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 03:53:41 PM
I suspect there was more to the child being taken away than just the parents using pot, but there is no way to know because the journalist clearly had an agenda. If anyone can find a full account or report of why the kid was taken away please post it in this thread.
Clearly the foster care system in that state sucks and needs to be fixed.
Hush. They're protecting at risk children.
And the article states, in no uncertain terms, why the kid was taken. Stop making shit up. Thanks.
So, what we have is the local news station (KVUE) agreeing with the OP (Which was, as RWHN was happy to ignore, directly linked to KVUE), Daily Mail (yeehaw) doing it's thing, and this
http://www.inquisitr.com/892429/foster-mother-charged-in-murder-of-2-year-old-alexandria-hill/
Well, just look at the other articles at that site.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:07:18 PM
Yeah, having worked with the state foster system in Oregon for a year, I would stake money that this wasn't a mere fluke, you fucking creepy, evil punishment pervert.
Not only that, but the very idea of separating a family to "protect" the child from weed, whereas having alcohol around a kid is perfectly acceptable.
No matter what, the kid loses. In this case, the kid lost her life. But she's been PROTECTED.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 09, 2013, 04:05:39 PM
Dad said: (http://www.kvue.com/news/Father-of-murdered-foster-child-speaks-to-KVUE-218037541.html)
Quote"We never hurt our daughter. She was never sick, she was never in the hospital, and she never had any issues until she went into state care."
this article (http://www.inquisitr.com/892429/foster-mother-charged-in-murder-of-2-year-old-alexandria-hill/) sheds a smidgen more light:
QuoteCourt records showed that the girl's mother had a medical condition that didn't allow her to be left alone with the child.
a little bit more from ... uhhh... daily mail, great
Quotehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385159/Foster-mother-beats-toddler-seized-biological-parents-social-services-discovered-smoking-pot.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
According to court records, Alexandria's mother has a medical condition that does not allow her to be left alone with her own child and Hill's marijuana use had become so bad he almost dropped his daughter down the stairs.
QuoteThe parents, who are not together, handed Alexandria to Hill's mother to care for - until the state intervened on November 26th.
According to the Department of Family and Protective Services, the family disagreed who should take custody of the girl and decided to involve the CPS themselves - until both mom and dad got their lives in order.
so, a little bit more complicated than "kid was taken away because parents smoked pot", but really the point is that the foster family should have been checked out too. I'm surprised the state didn't look into the foster family after the biological dad noted bruises on the girls arm.
Yes, that is what I was thinking too, it really wasn't making sense to me that this was just the state intervening in a couple of casual marijuana smoking parents. I knew there had to be more involved.
So this really has nothing to do with pot and everything to do with a shitty foster care system. That shit should not be tolerated.
Too refute the bullshit in the Daily Mail (and in conversation with anyone other than RHWN, this wouldn't be necessary), the KVUE link records:
QuoteAlex was living with foster parents after DFPS removed her from her parent's home last November for "neglectful supervision."
Not her grandmother's home. Their home.
So RWHN KNEW their had to be more involved. Even if he had to listen to the Daily Mail.
:lulz:
Next, we'll be hearing RWHN talk about Those People. Because it's in the Daily Mail.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 03:53:41 PM
I suspect there was more to the child being taken away than just the parents using pot, but there is no way to know because the journalist clearly had an agenda. If anyone can find a full account or report of why the kid was taken away please post it in this thread.
Clearly the foster care system in that state sucks and needs to be fixed.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
BETTER DEAD THAN POTHEAD.
IT'S JUST AN ISOLATED CASE IN ONE STATE.
https://www.childwelfare.gov/can/statistics/
And here it is, in all it's glory, the investigative powerhouse that is the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html
:lulz:
This is the source preferred by preventionists/prohibitionist/punishment freaks for high quality source material.
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
May I suggest you search your staff member's names on the Daily Mail, in case they're secretly smudgy people, jihadists, or Kim Kardashian?
ETA: And I wonder how you managed that while looking at other portions of PD?
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
So, what we have is the local news station (KVUE) agreeing with the OP (Which was, as RWHN was happy to ignore, directly linked to KVUE), Daily Mail (yeehaw) doing it's thing, and this
http://www.inquisitr.com/892429/foster-mother-charged-in-murder-of-2-year-old-alexandria-hill/
Well, just look at the other articles at that site.
Too much trouble, I keep getting spammy pop-ups: "CLICK HERE TO VIEW YOUR ARREST RECORD!" :lol:
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
May I suggest you search your staff member's names on the Daily Mail, in case they're secretly smudgy people, jihadists, or Kim Kardashian?
ETA: And I wonder how you managed that while looking at other portions of PD?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 04:41:39 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
So, what we have is the local news station (KVUE) agreeing with the OP (Which was, as RWHN was happy to ignore, directly linked to KVUE), Daily Mail (yeehaw) doing it's thing, and this
http://www.inquisitr.com/892429/foster-mother-charged-in-murder-of-2-year-old-alexandria-hill/
Well, just look at the other articles at that site.
Too much trouble, I keep getting spammy pop-ups: "CLICK HERE TO VIEW YOUR ARREST RECORD!" :lol:
They also provide many high quality dating sites.
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 04:41:39 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
So, what we have is the local news station (KVUE) agreeing with the OP (Which was, as RWHN was happy to ignore, directly linked to KVUE), Daily Mail (yeehaw) doing it's thing, and this
http://www.inquisitr.com/892429/foster-mother-charged-in-murder-of-2-year-old-alexandria-hill/
Well, just look at the other articles at that site.
Too much trouble, I keep getting spammy pop-ups: "CLICK HERE TO VIEW YOUR ARREST RECORD!" :lol:
They also provide many high quality dating sites.
And important information
(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/139/tyjf.jpg)
<3 you roger!
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
He can take it! He's our dark knight.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
Parents: Punished.
Child: Dead from having her head bashed against the floor.
Foster Lady: Punished.
It's like RWHN hit the trifecta!
Quote from: /b/earman on August 09, 2013, 04:55:22 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
He can take it! He's our dark knight.
:lulz:
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
Parents: Punished.
Child: Dead from having her head bashed against the floor.
Foster Lady: Punished.
It's like RWHN hit the trifecta!
RWHN in his office:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRQ2mNwMMQ
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
May I suggest you search your staff member's names on the Daily Mail, in case they're secretly smudgy people, jihadists, or Kim Kardashian?
Considering they had thorough background checks before even working here, that would be rather redundant.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:45:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
May I suggest you search your staff member's names on the Daily Mail, in case they're secretly smudgy people, jihadists, or Kim Kardashian?
Considering they had thorough background checks before even working here, that would be rather redundant.
The Daily Mail, though, is a
credible source.
You can't be too careful.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
This has nothing to do with pot.
Law of Fives in full effect ITT.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:47:36 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 04:52:51 PM
Hush, you guys, he's busy protecting children.
There are evil pot-smoking parents to be punished, you know.
This has nothing to do with pot.
Law of Fives in full effect ITT.
You accepted the Daily Mail as a credible source.
:lolchix:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 06:45:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:45:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
May I suggest you search your staff member's names on the Daily Mail, in case they're secretly smudgy people, jihadists, or Kim Kardashian?
Considering they had thorough background checks before even working here, that would be rather redundant.
The Daily Mail, though, is a credible source.
You can't be too careful.
What part of redundancy are you unable to wrap your head around?
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:48:34 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 06:45:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:45:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 04:39:32 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 04:38:36 PM
Quote from: Osama Bin Login on August 09, 2013, 04:22:00 PM
And now he's fucked off.
:hammer:
If you want to come do my staff evaluations and federal grant reports I'll happily continue to fuck around on the internet.
May I suggest you search your staff member's names on the Daily Mail, in case they're secretly smudgy people, jihadists, or Kim Kardashian?
Considering they had thorough background checks before even working here, that would be rather redundant.
The Daily Mail, though, is a credible source.
You can't be too careful.
What part of redundancy are you unable to wrap your head around?
The part where you accepted the Daily Mail as a source for your argument.
:winner:
Oh, my.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387984/Was-angel-Highway-19-saint-Padre-Pio-Catholics-suggest-priest-whos-dead-35-years-appeared-crash-scene-bless-save-life-teen-victim.html
This would normally seem to be a little out there, but it IS the Daily Mail, so it must be legit.
Yeah, this is NEVER gonna get old. :lulz:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2388182/Elephants-carrying-revenge-attacks-village-herd-hit-killed-train.html
KILLER ELEPHANTS! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
The guy who wrote the article in the OP is clearly a biased shill, so, you know, glass houses, etc.
Also, this happened in Texas, so there is that factor as well.
DAILY MAIL = TOTALLY UNBIASED REAL NEWS http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371617/Prince-William-Kate-Middletons-Royal-wedding-UFO-sightings-forecast.html
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:57:40 PM
The guy who wrote the article in the OP is clearly a biased shill, so, you know, glass houses, etc.
Yeah, well, he linked to KVUE, which I also linked to...And which you ignored, in favor of THIS sterling bastion of journalism:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387718/Housewife-spots-spooky-alien-face-oil-painting-shes-wall-10-YEARS.html
SWEET JESUS! AN ALIEN IN HER PORTRAIT FOR TEN YEARS!
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 07:03:50 PM
Also, this happened in Texas, so there is that factor as well.
I also linked to the health & human services website that shows national stats.
Which, again, you ignored...Because you are biased, intellectually dishonest, and a disgrace to your profession (and that's saying something).
But you have the Daily News on your side. So there's that.
Uh, no genius, I'm not disputing the abuse thing at all. I said this shows that the foster care system is clearly broken and needs to be fixed. But that is the problem here, the pot angle is pretty incidental.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 07:05:59 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 06:57:40 PM
The guy who wrote the article in the OP is clearly a biased shill, so, you know, glass houses, etc.
Yeah, well, he linked to KVUE, which I also linked to...And which you ignored, in favor of THIS sterling bastion of journalism:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2387718/Housewife-spots-spooky-alien-face-oil-painting-shes-wall-10-YEARS.html
SWEET JESUS! AN ALIEN IN HER PORTRAIT FOR TEN YEARS!
It's a reputable publication, it's got JESUS in it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009604/Jesus-spotted-pole-covered-kudzu-vines.html
and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231308/Did-Jesus-REALLY-stay-England-A-new-film-claims-built-church-Somerset-learnt-maths-Druids.html
NOBODY WOULD DARE PUBLISH UNTRUTHS ABOUT JESUS
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 07:10:13 PM
Uh, no genius, I'm not disputing the abuse thing at all. I said this shows that the foster care system is clearly broken and needs to be fixed. But that is the problem here, the pot angle is pretty incidental.
Incidental? I wonder how incidental it is to Alex's grieving parents?
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
Do we know that their marijuana usage was comparable to alcoholism? I mean using info thats not from the daily mail?
from the local news: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/two-year-old-dies-in-foster-care
Quote"She was placed into foster care for neglectful supervision because her mother and I smoked pot at the time," explained Hill.
According to court records, Alexandria's mother had a medical condition that does not allow for the child to be left alone with her. The TDFPS also received allegations that Hill used marijuana on a regular basis and on one occasion Hill almost dropped Alexandria while going down the stairs of the home as he was trying to hand the child to his sister.
During the month of November, Alexandria was being cared for by her paternal grandmother before the State intervened on Nov. 26.
The TDFPS concluded that "Through the assessment of the Department and family members of the parents, it appears the parents have limited parenting skills and need to develop their understanding of being protective of their child. Until these services are offered, the Department does not feel either parent can be the sole caregiver for the child."
this is the :horrormirth: --- this was a lesson to the parents to
be more protective.
Quote"We rely on the child placing agencies to do their due diligence in doing background checks and home studies and training for potential foster parents," explained Julie Moody with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service. "There was one allegation of a previous foster child in her care that had bruising and lead poisoning, but no deficiencies were found."
So the foster family already had an incident where a kid in their care was bruised and lead poisoned....
but no deficiencies were found?? I imagine the investigation went something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFEAh4-ZJc&t=2m50s
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS WITHOUT COMPLETELY TEARING DOWN THE WALLS OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE I'VE BUILT UP OVER THE YEARS SO I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP FIRING NON-SEQUITEURS AT YOU!
\
:lord:
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I tell YOU what...How about you kiss my ass until blisters form on your lips? :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I tell YOU what...How about you kiss my ass until blisters form on your lips? :lol:
BURRRRRRRN :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: stelz on August 09, 2013, 10:13:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I tell YOU what...How about you kiss my ass until blisters form on your lips? :lol:
BURRRRRRRN :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Have I mentioned that I don't particularly care for the man?
Quote from: Cramulus on August 09, 2013, 08:32:59 PM
this is the :horrormirth: --- this was a lesson to the parents to be more protective.
Well, they learned, didn't they?
Another triumph for policy makers all across the country.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: he has quite the imagination, I'll give him that.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: he has quite the imagination, I'll give him that.
Is there a definitive method of diagnosing someone as an alcoholic? A scientifically-based standard of some kind? Curious, here.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
OMG, really? This is the thinnest smokescreen for "I have no idea what I'm talking about" I think I've ever seen.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
OMG, really? This is the thinnest smokescreen for "I have no idea what I'm talking about" I think I've ever seen.
C_A at TCC comes to mind, yes?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: he has quite the imagination, I'll give him that.
Is there a definitive method of diagnosing someone as an alcoholic? A scientifically-based standard of some kind? Curious, here.
There are guidelines but it's basically subjective. Which is why no child ever is taken from parents "because they're alcoholics"... there has to be actual neglect or abuse to go along with the drinking, because simply drinking a lot of alcohol is not illegal.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:33:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
OMG, really? This is the thinnest smokescreen for "I have no idea what I'm talking about" I think I've ever seen.
C_A at TCC comes to mind, yes?
:lol: Totally.
RWHN, I just want to remind you that policies you support caused this child's death.
Congratulations, you're a baby-killer.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
There are guidelines but it's basically subjective. Which is why no child ever is taken from parents "because they're alcoholics"... there has to be actual neglect or abuse to go along with the drinking, because simply drinking a lot of alcohol is not illegal.
Well, based on RWHN's model, he could technically have his kids taken away for having his "monthly beer".
Seriously, though, the story in the OP has to make him happy. I mean, that's one more kid that is not at risk with respect to marijuana.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:38:10 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
There are guidelines but it's basically subjective. Which is why no child ever is taken from parents "because they're alcoholics"... there has to be actual neglect or abuse to go along with the drinking, because simply drinking a lot of alcohol is not illegal.
Well, based on RWHN's model, he could technically have his kids taken away for having his "monthly beer".
Seriously, though, the story in the OP has to make him happy. I mean, that's one more kid that is not at risk with respect to marijuana.
No doubt he sees it as "unfortunate collateral damage" or something equally reprehensible.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: he has quite the imagination, I'll give him that.
Is there a definitive method of diagnosing someone as an alcoholic? A scientifically-based standard of some kind? Curious, here.
There are guidelines but it's basically subjective. Which is why no child ever is taken from parents "because they're alcoholics"... there has to be actual neglect or abuse to go along with the drinking, because simply drinking a lot of alcohol is not illegal.
You are incorrect. Treatment providers have evidence-based, research tested assessment protocols for determining when someone has alcohol dependency.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:38:05 PM
RWHN, I just want to remind you that policies you support caused this child's death.
Congratulations, you're a baby-killer.
Where have I ever said I support shitty Foster care systems?
Congratulations, you are (still) an idiot.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I tell YOU what...How about you kiss my ass until blisters form on your lips? :lol:
Sorry, I will be a little tied up tonight, and she's really not into threesomes.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:15:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I tell YOU what...How about you kiss my ass until blisters form on your lips? :lol:
Sorry, I will be a little tied up tonight, and she's really not into threesomes.
Gotta burn off that extra energy from your one cup a day addiction huh?
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:12:04 PM
You are incorrect. Treatment providers have evidence-based, research tested assessment protocols for determining when someone has alcohol dependency.
Let's see it.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:15:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:12:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
You imagine.
Drinking alcohol isn't a crime. Or are you suggesting that your kids be taken away if you drink a beer while they're asleep?
I tell you what, why don't you read up on how child protective services work, come back, and THEN we can have this discussion. I'm not going to waste my time until then.
I tell YOU what...How about you kiss my ass until blisters form on your lips? :lol:
Sorry, I will be a little tied up tonight, and she's really not into threesomes.
I didn't invite her.
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:13:49 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:38:05 PM
RWHN, I just want to remind you that policies you support caused this child's death.
Congratulations, you're a baby-killer.
Where have I ever said I support shitty Foster care systems?
Congratulations, you are (still) an idiot.
It's all part of prohibition, asshole.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 11:50:25 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:13:49 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:38:05 PM
RWHN, I just want to remind you that policies you support caused this child's death.
Congratulations, you're a baby-killer.
Where have I ever said I support shitty Foster care systems?
Congratulations, you are (still) an idiot.
It's all part of prohibition, asshole.
And trigger-happy state intervention?
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:12:04 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: he has quite the imagination, I'll give him that.
Is there a definitive method of diagnosing someone as an alcoholic? A scientifically-based standard of some kind? Curious, here.
There are guidelines but it's basically subjective. Which is why no child ever is taken from parents "because they're alcoholics"... there has to be actual neglect or abuse to go along with the drinking, because simply drinking a lot of alcohol is not illegal.
You are incorrect. Treatment providers have evidence-based, research tested assessment protocols for determining when someone has alcohol dependency.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You are so... just kinda
dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
It would be way less cringetastic if you just stopped trying to pretend you are even in the same ballpark with me, intellectually speaking.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 11:12:04 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 09, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 09, 2013, 10:22:51 PM
Quote from: The End on August 09, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
Yes, incidental. I imagine the kid would have been taken away if they had both been alcoholics. (alcohol being a legal drug). The system in Texas is the issue here. It has nothing to do with pot.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: he has quite the imagination, I'll give him that.
Is there a definitive method of diagnosing someone as an alcoholic? A scientifically-based standard of some kind? Curious, here.
There are guidelines but it's basically subjective. Which is why no child ever is taken from parents "because they're alcoholics"... there has to be actual neglect or abuse to go along with the drinking, because simply drinking a lot of alcohol is not illegal.
You are incorrect. Treatment providers have evidence-based, research tested assessment protocols for determining when someone has alcohol dependency.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
It would be way less cringetastic if you just stopped trying to pretend you are even in the same ballpark with me, intellectually speaking.
His brain is addled from that cup of coffee.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcoholism/DS00340/DSECTION=tests-and-diagnosis
QuoteTests and diagnosis
By Mayo Clinic staff
A doctor who suspects you have an alcohol problem will ask you several questions regarding drinking habits and may have you fill out a questionnaire. The doctor may ask for permission to speak with family members or friends. Family members may also contact the doctor on their own to discuss their concerns. However, confidentiality laws prevent your doctor from giving out any information about you without your consent.
There are no specific tests to diagnose alcoholism, but you may need other tests for health problems that may be linked to your alcohol use.
To be diagnosed with alcoholism, you must meet criteria spelled out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include a pattern of alcohol use leading to serious problems, as indicated by three or more of the following at any time during one 12-month period:
Tolerance, indicated by an increase in the amount of alcohol you need to feel drunk (intoxicated). As alcoholism progresses, the amount leading to intoxication can also decrease as a result of damage to your liver or central nervous system.
Withdrawal symptoms when you cut down or stop using alcohol. These can include tremors, insomnia, nausea and anxiety. You may drink more alcohol in order to avoid those symptoms, sometimes drinking throughout the day.
Drinking more alcohol than you intended or drinking over a longer period of time than you intended.
Having an ongoing desire to cut down on how much you drink or making unsuccessful attempts to do so.
Spending a good deal of time drinking, getting alcohol or recovering from alcohol use.
Giving up important activities, including social, occupational or recreational activities.
Continuing to use alcohol even though you know it's causing physical and psychological problems.
Nah, there's no need for doctors to use their judgment or assess the subjective impact of alcohol use in an individual's life. It's all flatly objective and cut-and-dried, like a blood test. One either IS or IS NOT an alcoholic. Period.
No need to get into quibbly little details. :lol:
And CPD regularly takes children out of homes
because parents are alcoholics. Not because of abuse or neglect due to their drinking, but because of the alcoholism itself. RWHN
says so. You should go read something about how protective services
really work, if you don't believe him.
:lulz:
Well were all aware of the strengths of rwhns reading comprehension skills so im sure whatever he would have us read would not in anyway fail to align with what he as an expert in policy has already said.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles. And in yet another job it was my job to catalog and research the various evidence-based drug and alcohol assessment tools to make recommendations to a school-based provider as to what they should be using.
You've taken a few college courses.
QuoteIt would be way less cringetastic if you just stopped trying to pretend you are even in the same ballpark with me, intellectually speaking.
I'm on the pitcher's mound, you are still trying to find the parking lot.
Short date? :lulz:
No, she has a kid. It's story time.
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:08:12 AM
No, she has a kid. It's story time.
Hope you didn't give the kid any of that devil coffee.
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are
even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that
specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough
in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 04:55:18 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
:spittake:
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 04:55:18 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
clearly we need to ban milk
Quote from: Don Coyote on August 10, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 04:55:18 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
clearly we need to ban milk dads.
People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.
One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.
Go figure.
Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.
Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:08:36 AM
People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.
One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.
Go figure.
Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.
Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.
That's entirely logical. I wonder if these case by case metrics could be applied to something like marijuana. Or coffee.
Also, drinking to relax? Everyone who has drank on more than a few occasions has done that at least once. If it's self-medication it's one thing, but if your nerves are shot and you take a shot, and that's it, that seems like a poor qualifier.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:14:37 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:08:36 AM
People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.
One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.
Go figure.
Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.
Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.
That's entirely logical. I wonder if these case by case metrics could be applied to something like marijuana. Or coffee.
They could, absolutely.
I dated someone once who was an absolute nightmare when he was in coffee withdrawals. He definitely met the criteria for abuse under those circumstances. Caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs on the planet.
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:29:06 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:14:37 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:08:36 AM
People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.
One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.
Go figure.
Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.
Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.
That's entirely logical. I wonder if these case by case metrics could be applied to something like marijuana. Or coffee.
They could, absolutely.
I dated someone once who was an absolute nightmare when he was in coffee withdrawals. He definitely met the criteria for abuse under those circumstances. Caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs on the planet.
But did he have a one or sometimes two cup a day habit?
Sorry to be harping on this, but RWHN's supposed caffeine addiction is either pretty sad or pretty laughable. But, yeah, it is a pretty addictive substance, that is largely considered benign because of it's legality and lack of sever health consequences. Hell, it's a drug that RWHN can consume
while at work. To feed his addiction.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.
Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.
I was gonna write another post but I decided I didn't give a fuck. RHWN isn't going to stop being a delusional dickbag who believes laws and lectures can cure all ills if he just yells loud enough. Everyone else is either going to be saddened or infuriated by his tunnel vision.
I'm gonna go work on my story instead.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.
In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least
some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in
my America.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 05:44:28 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.
In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.
I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:53:03 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 05:44:28 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.
In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.
I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.
Certainly when it comes to "meaningful conversation," RWHN wouldn't be having it even if he'd graduated sixteen times from every Ivy-League school on the planet. I'm just objecting to the notion that it is his lack of proper education that disqualifies him, when in fact it is his self-imposed myopic worldview. And, it's a safe bet, all that coffee.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 06:13:00 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:53:03 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 05:44:28 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.
In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.
I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.
Certainly when it comes to "meaningful conversation," RWHN wouldn't be having it even if he'd graduated sixteen times from every Ivy-League school on the planet. I'm just objecting to the notion that it is his lack of proper education that disqualifies him, when in fact it is his self-imposed myopic worldview. And, it's a safe bet, all that coffee.
:lulz:
I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?
I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
:lulz:
I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?
I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.
If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 06:23:42 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
:lulz:
I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?
I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.
If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.
Well, yeah, twitchy caffeine addicts who drink once a month are a bit of a weird invite.
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 05:44:28 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.
In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.
This is the best post on PD. Ever. :lulz:
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 06:23:42 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
:lulz:
I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?
I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.
If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.
No, no, THAT was the best post on PD, ever.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:39:45 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 06:23:42 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
:lulz:
I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?
I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.
If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.
No, no, THAT was the best post on PD, ever.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
You, as usual, are completely wrong. Still looking for that parking lot?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:35:22 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.
Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.
Actually it is policy AND science.
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 05:06:04 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on August 10, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 04:55:18 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
clearly we need to ban milk dads.
No, no, no, you're not getting it.
Milk is a GATEWAY DRUG that leads to COFFEE.
VIRTUALLY ALL COFFEE ADDICTS ABUSED MILK AT AN EARLY AGE.
Quote from: stelz on August 10, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 05:06:04 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on August 10, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 04:55:18 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
clearly we need to ban milk dads.
No, no, no, you're not getting it.
Milk is a GATEWAY DRUG that leads to COFFEE.
VIRTUALLY ALL COFFEE ADDICTS ABUSED MILK AT AN EARLY AGE.
Tits.
Not even once.
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:53:03 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:35:22 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.
Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.
Actually it is policy AND science.
Yes, because brushing all contradictory data off as biased shill pieces is wicked scientific.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:45:12 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 10, 2013, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 05:06:04 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on August 10, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 04:55:18 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 10, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders
QuoteAlcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.
Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:
Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.
It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."
To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.
Yep.
Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.
Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.
In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.
The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home.
But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.
I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.
My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.
clearly we need to ban milk dads.
No, no, no, you're not getting it.
Milk is a GATEWAY DRUG that leads to COFFEE.
VIRTUALLY ALL COFFEE ADDICTS ABUSED MILK AT AN EARLY AGE.
Tits.
Not even once.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:potd:
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
*cue some bullshit about privacy and anonymity for the chillerin and how not even the girlfriend he claims to have knows where his house is*
<3 you guys.
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 07:50:25 PM
<3 you guys.
You sure do have a lot of love energy lately. Is that your normal personality, or have you been hitting the bean juice? I only ask because I'm concerned.
I'm following a recipe in one of Ayn Rand's book. You take a bunch of poor people you grind them up, and then proceed to shit on them, and also smoke 3 packs of cigs a day.
This whole thread is amazing. :lulz:
Quote from: stelz on August 10, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
*cue some bullshit about privacy and anonymity for the chillerin and how not even the girlfriend he claims to have knows where his house is*
Oh, she's VERY familiar with my house.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 01:14:02 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 10, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
*cue some bullshit about privacy and anonymity for the chillerin and how not even the girlfriend he claims to have knows where his house is*
Oh, she's VERY familiar with my house.
Everyone rwhn has sex like most of the population. Let us be impressed.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 11, 2013, 01:24:49 AM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 01:14:02 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 10, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
*cue some bullshit about privacy and anonymity for the chillerin and how not even the girlfriend he claims to have knows where his house is*
Oh, she's VERY familiar with my house.
Everyone rwhn has sex like most of the population. Let us be impressed.
But can you get laid, and throw children in jail? CAN YOU?!??!?
Quote from: stelz on August 10, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:46:20 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 10, 2013, 06:36:27 AM
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 12:07:54 AM
And they are all the same, everywhere, and all assessors always use the same protocols and would come to the same conclusion given the same case.
You are so... just kinda dumb. I don't think you know what the word "assessment" even means.
I was PAID in a prior job, by the state, to train providers on how to use an assessment, specifically, the JASAE assessment for juveniles.
You should, ethically speaking, give them their money back.
Given that they (the state) loved my work so much that they put me in charge of a gambling treatment network, I'm not sure that would make any sense.
We have only your word for that. Perhaps if you linked us to a reputable source (say, the Daily Mail)...
*cue some bullshit about privacy and anonymity for the chillerin and how not even the girlfriend he claims to have knows where his house is*
That was probably just the
black girlfriend.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 06:13:00 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:53:03 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 05:44:28 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.
In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.
I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.
Certainly when it comes to "meaningful conversation," RWHN wouldn't be having it even if he'd graduated sixteen times from every Ivy-League school on the planet. I'm just objecting to the notion that it is his lack of proper education that disqualifies him, when in fact it is his self-imposed myopic worldview. And, it's a safe bet, all that coffee.
He is presenting himself as an authority, and invokes frequent appeals to that supposed authority, so yes, it's relevant.
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 06:23:42 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
:lulz:
I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?
I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.
If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.
That's an excellent, and I'd bet accurate, observation. :lol:
Quote from: V3X on August 10, 2013, 07:59:38 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 10, 2013, 07:50:25 PM
<3 you guys.
You sure do have a lot of love energy lately. Is that your normal personality, or have you been hitting the bean juice? I only ask because I'm concerned.
:spittake:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:53:03 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 10, 2013, 05:35:22 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 10, 2013, 05:31:10 AM
I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.
He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.
Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.
Actually it is policy AND science.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Translation:
Quote from: The End on August 10, 2013, 03:53:03 PM
Actually I was a C/B liberal arts undergrad and didn't make it into my first choice grad program.
:lulz: Betting that he doesn't have more than a 135 IQ. At BEST.
You're projecting again. :lulz:
Yeah, NIGEL.
If he doesn't have more than a 135 IQ, what does that make you, considering you're driving around the parking lot while he's on the pitcher's mound? NEWSFLASH, NIGEL, IT'S A METAPHORICAL BALLPARK. WHY DID YOU EVEN BRING YOUR CAR?
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
You're projecting again. :lulz:
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Nope, I don't think so. I know for an absolute fact that I'm a lot smarter than you are. A lot.
A whole fucking lot. You're essentially a retard, from up here.
Quote from: Pæs on August 11, 2013, 03:00:48 AM
Yeah, NIGEL.
If he doesn't have more than a 135 IQ, what does that make you, considering you're driving around the parking lot while he's on the pitcher's mound? NEWSFLASH, NIGEL, IT'S A METAPHORICAL BALLPARK. WHY DID YOU EVEN BRING YOUR CAR?
OH SHIT I'M A BICYCLE COMMUTER IN THE NASCAR OF LIFE. :cry:
....
:lulz:
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 03:06:11 AM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
You're projecting again. :lulz:
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Nope, I don't think so. I know for an absolute fact that I'm a lot smarter than you are. A lot.
A whole fucking lot. You're essentially a retard, from up here.
Uh, no. I mean, I think it's precious that you think because you've taken some college courses that you are some kind of social science guru, when in fact you're, well, not.
May I remind you that you botched some very basic-level data analysis in the last big drug thread.
Come back and talk when you've actually graduated and have some work experience under your belt.
You can only dream of holding a candle to my knowledge and experience and accomplishment.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
I mean, I think it's precious that you think because you've taken some college courses that you are some kind of social science guru, when in fact you're, well, not.
FTFY.
8)
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 03:06:11 AM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
You're projecting again. :lulz:
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Nope, I don't think so. I know for an absolute fact that I'm a lot smarter than you are. A lot.
A whole fucking lot. You're essentially a retard, from up here.
Yeah, I mean, I'm smarter than this idiot and you're a fair bit smarter than me. It's cute when he puffs his chest though.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 11, 2013, 10:52:42 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 03:06:11 AM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 02:57:27 AM
You're projecting again. :lulz:
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Nope, I don't think so. I know for an absolute fact that I'm a lot smarter than you are. A lot.
A whole fucking lot. You're essentially a retard, from up here.
Yeah, I mean, I'm smarter than this idiot and you're a fair bit smarter than me. It's cute when he puffs his chest though.
You also botched some very elementary data analysis in that thread, which you had started, so yeah...
Umm, no. Just no. Wishful thinking on you and Nigel's part.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Uh, no. I mean, I think it's precious that you think because you've taken some college courses that you are some kind of social science guru, when in fact you're, well, not.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: You're right, I'm not, in fact, a social scientist at all. Not that I would expect you to be capable of absorbing details like that.
I'm just way, way, way, way smarter than you, and you are an incompetent monkey. I was smarter than you before I started school, and I'll still be smarter than you, as well as more educated, when I finish it.
I mean, technically I've been paid to work as a social scientist for the last year, but that isn't really my area of concentration.
I take it I'm correct about your complete lack of any science background. :lol:
No. You are incorrect. I have education in hard science as well as public policy. AND I have actual work experience in both. I've worked in a lab. I've worked in public health. I've worked in policy. I am one of the go-to guys in the state. I was the engineer of the strategy that brought down the marijuana legalization law. New Hampshire has reached out to me for help with marijuana policy. New York State has reached out to me with help in prescription drug abuse prevention strategies. I've done national presentations.
You'v taken some college courses and holler on the internet. You don't hold a candle to me, though, I do agree you probably are smarter than ECH.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 04:08:16 PM
I am one of the go-to guys in the state. I was the engineer of the strategy that brought down the marijuana legalization law. New Hampshire has reached out to me for help with marijuana policy.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
QuoteI'm like, one of the most important guys in Maine!
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
What's your "hard science" background? High school biology lab?
"Worked in public health" :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: was that what you called Brookstone?
Come on, RWHN, just admit what we all already know; you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed and you're a graduate from a second-rate program, working in a podunk villa doing bureaucratic makework. You might as well not exist, nobody would notice.
And, you're at least one standard deviation dumber than me. That much is obvious. :lol:
See, I mean any dumbass can use silly gifs in the place of actual debate and discussion and to deflect and divert attention. Another example of how you are really not even close to my level.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 04:16:08 PM
See, I mean any dumbass can use silly gifs in the place of actual debate and discussion and to deflect and divert attention. Another example of how you are really not even close to my level.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: You're right, I'm not even close to your level. Thank goodness. I'm way, way above you. I'm out of your league on so many levels it's amazing that we can even sense each other's presence. It's like we're different species.
How does your species even get into a grad program? Even a third-rate one?
Oh, wait. Maine.
RWHN: just so we can move this conversation along a little bit here, Nigel is saying you are stupid, not that no one has ever entrusted you with power. Continuing to list off your achievements isn't going to refute her claim, because there's a whole lot of "government is full of idiots" sentiment around these parts and all your appeals to authority on the subject of your intelligence are being undermined by that.
You're the kind of guy who works at Brookstone, and thinks puns are "clever". And you're so inbred you have no chin.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
In other words, you know... Maine. :lulz:
So this is what sex with Nigel is like? I can totally see RWHN's asshole destroyed from here.
Quote from: /b/earman on August 11, 2013, 05:52:22 PM
So this is what sex with Nigel is like? I can totally see RWHN's asshole destroyed from here.
:nuke2:
Quote from: stelz on August 11, 2013, 05:56:06 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 11, 2013, 05:52:22 PM
So this is what sex with Nigel is like? I can totally see RWHN's asshole destroyed from here.
:nuke2:
LOL
Quote from: /b/earman on August 11, 2013, 05:52:22 PM
So this is what sex with Nigel is like? I can totally see RWHN's asshole destroyed from here.
:lulz:
This place needs some kind of smoking crater emote.
For RWHN's asshole. :lulz:
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
How does your species even get into a grad program? Even a third-rate one?
Oh, wait. Maine.
Projecting again. Oh, wait. Nigel.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 04:22:19 PM
RWHN: just so we can move this conversation along a little bit here, Nigel is saying you are stupid, not that no one has ever entrusted you with power. Continuing to list off your achievements isn't going to refute her claim, because there's a whole lot of "government is full of idiots" sentiment around these parts and all your appeals to authority on the subject of your intelligence are being undermined by that.
Psst, right. I mean, why compare actual professional achivements to still taking college courses.
That's like discounting the accomishments of an NBA star comparing them to some college kid in a Div. III school.
Also, because y'all seem to be dense, I don't work in government. But I AM the President of two non-profit boards, one of an organization I am rebuilding. And they specifically asked me to head that up, why? Track record and having reputable skill sets.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 07:42:07 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
How does your species even get into a grad program? Even a third-rate one?
Oh, wait. Maine.
Projecting again. Oh, wait. Nigel.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
You can't even string together a sentence that
makes sense. :lulz:
Not that you needed to, to graduate from the Ed Muskie School of Bureaucracy.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 04:22:19 PM
RWHN: just so we can move this conversation along a little bit here, Nigel is saying you are stupid, not that no one has ever entrusted you with power. Continuing to list off your achievements isn't going to refute her claim, because there's a whole lot of "government is full of idiots" sentiment around these parts and all your appeals to authority on the subject of your intelligence are being undermined by that.
Psst, right. I mean, why compare actual professional achivements to still taking college courses.
That's like discounting the accomishments of an NBA star comparing them to some college kid in a Div. III school.
Also, because y'all seem to be dense, I don't work in government. But I AM the President of two non-profit boards, one of an organization I am rebuilding. And they specifically asked me to head that up, why? Track record and having reputable skill sets.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
He's a Really Important Guy in some podunk burg in Maine! Be impressed!
My level of education has no bearing on the fact that I'm smarter than you. I was born that way.
I know that's a difficult concept to grasp, Mr. Gump.
It's just nature. You can't fight it. Some people are just smarter, better-looking, and more pleasant to be around than others.
I usually don't hold people's relative stupidity against them, but in your case, I'll make an exception because you're so, so unpleasant.
:lulz: He's an NBA star! Oh lordy that's a good one.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 04:08:16 PM
No. You are incorrect. I have education in hard science as well as public policy. AND I have actual work experience in both. I've worked in a lab. I've worked in public health. I've worked in policy. I am one of the go-to guys in the state. I was the engineer of the strategy that brought down the marijuana legalization law. New Hampshire has reached out to me for help with marijuana policy. New York State has reached out to me with help in prescription drug abuse prevention strategies. I've done national presentations.
You'v taken some college courses and holler on the internet. You don't hold a candle to me, though, I do agree you probably are smarter than ECH.
Bolded the part where you implied that governments were interested in the things you have to say. Maybe you meant "non-governmental advocacy groups in these states" but it's not what you said.
QuoteA failing nonprofit organization in backwater Maine asked me to help rebuild them. Because I'm so competent!
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Why does one immediately get the sensation of looking into a very, very small puddle of muddy water?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 04:08:16 PM
No. You are incorrect. I have education in hard science as well as public policy. AND I have actual work experience in both. I've worked in a lab. I've worked in public health. I've worked in policy. I am one of the go-to guys in the state. I was the engineer of the strategy that brought down the marijuana legalization law. New Hampshire has reached out to me for help with marijuana policy. New York State has reached out to me with help in prescription drug abuse prevention strategies. I've done national presentations.
You'v taken some college courses and holler on the internet. You don't hold a candle to me, though, I do agree you probably are smarter than ECH.
Bolded the part where you implied that governments were interested in the things you have to say. Maybe you meant "non-governmental advocacy groups in these states" but it's not what you said.
I think you're probably expecting too much of him... logical consistency would require a level of intellect he just doesn't have the capacity for.
Poor thing.
Dear RWHN:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/1157557_10151759215202777_787267739_n.jpg)
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
It's just nature. You can't fight it. Some people are just smarter, better-looking, and more pleasant to be around than others.
OMG, irony overload.
:lulz:
Also, it hasn't escaped my attention that for every post I make, you make about 5 in response.
Overcompensation much?
:lulz:
I'm starting to feel kind of dirty... it really isn't fair to pick on someone with RWHN's relative mental disadvantage.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 08:40:41 PM
I'm starting to feel kind of dirty... it really isn't fair to pick on someone with RWHN's relative mental disadvantage.
You can pick on me any day :wink:
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 08:41:09 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 08:40:41 PM
I'm starting to feel kind of dirty... it really isn't fair to pick on someone with RWHN's relative mental disadvantage.
You can pick on me any day :wink:
:lol: Sounds like more fun anyway... you'd be a fair challenge in a battle of wits, whereas RWHN is essentially unarmed.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 08:34:10 PM
Also, it hasn't escaped my attention that for every post I make, you make about 5 in response.
Overcompensation much?
:lulz:
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
That's my posting style, and has been for years. Old habit from the dialup BBS days.
Plus, it drives Pagans and bureacrats batshit. :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 07:53:11 PM
It's just nature. You can't fight it. Some people are just smarter, better-looking, and more pleasant to be around than others.
OMG, irony overload.
:lulz:
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
I don't think you know what that word means. :lol: I don't know if you've noticed this yet, but YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON HERE WHO LIKES YOU.
And I'm not even convinced of that.
We could put up a poll ("WHO LIKES RWHN???"), but the results would be utterly predictable.
I can't parse data worth a damn, but if you're so much smarter than me then why aren't YOU working for a bunch of non-profits in shitty central Maine?
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 11, 2013, 09:16:31 PM
I can't parse data worth a damn, but if you're so much smarter than me then why aren't YOU working for a bunch of non-profits in shitty central Maine?
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
From the two "brilliant" individuals who botched simple data analysis in the last big drug thread. Diversion and projection.
And really, PD.COM is going to devolve to high school popularity contests?
A very sad, sad day for Discordia.
I mean, have I not made the point fine enough that my popularity here is something I'm quite unconcerned about? I'm here for the Discordia.
Keep on dancin.
Oh look, bear "hey can I be cool too guise?" man has joined the dance party too.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 10:01:43 PM
Oh look, bear "hey can I be cool too guise?" man has joined the dance party too.
The son of man was sent to serve.
Maybe they'll let you have one of their cool jackets to wear.
Do you know how many kids die wearing jackets a year?
I don't mind picking up a little slack while Nigel's busy. :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
From the two "brilliant" individuals who botched simple data analysis in the last big drug thread. Diversion and projection.
And really, PD.COM is going to devolve to high school popularity contests?
A very sad, sad day for Discordia.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Quote from: /b/earman on August 11, 2013, 10:12:37 PM
Do you know how many kids die wearing jackets a year?
Jackets are gateway apparel for
ski masks.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
My name is RWHN, and I can't feel my asshole. 9 out of 10 dumb asses Americans suffer from being a dumb piece of shit. You can raise awareness in your local community too by castrating people like myself , and others who read "The Daily Mail".
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
What are you even rambling about now, O chinless wonder? Bragging about working for a failing nonprofit in BFE Maine? Bragging about your high-school biology experience? Your rich-but-racist grandparents? Your B-average GPA at the Nobody Has Ever Heard Of It School Of Public Brownnosing? Your "girlfriend"? Or are you back to claiming Brookstone was somehow a public health job?
:lulz:
I bet your mom tells you you're really smart, and handsome.
Quote from: /b/earman on August 11, 2013, 10:12:37 PM
Do you know how many kids die wearing jackets a year?
Yeah, and it usually starts with peer pressure. You should probably practice some refusal skills before you get in too deep.
I'm being generous with the B average. You should thank me.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:17:30 PM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 11, 2013, 10:12:37 PM
Do you know how many kids die wearing jackets a year?
Jackets are gateway apparel for ski masks.
Ski masks are a gateway drug for butt chugging.
Quote from: stelz on August 11, 2013, 10:16:01 PM
I don't mind picking up a little slack while Nigel's busy. :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
From the two "brilliant" individuals who botched simple data analysis in the last big drug thread. Diversion and projection.
And really, PD.COM is going to devolve to high school popularity contests?
A very sad, sad day for Discordia.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Are you angling to get a jacket too? Maybe they'll let you sit next to them at the lunch table.
:lulz:
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 10:27:26 PM
I'm being generous with the B average. You should thank me.
Thank you for YOUR delusion and wishful thinking? Well, okay, thanks for the entertainment!
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 10:26:07 PM
What are you even rambling about now, O chinless wonder? Bragging about working for a failing nonprofit in BFE Maine? Bragging about your high-school biology experience? Your rich-but-racist grandparents? Your B-average GPA at the Nobody Has Ever Heard Of It School Of Public Brownnosing? Your "girlfriend"? Or are you back to claiming Brookstone was somehow a public health job?
:lulz:
I bet your mom Ayn Rand tells you you're really smart, and handsome.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
I'll let Nigel, the brilliant thinkmonkey, explain to you the classic tell-tale signs of peer pressure and the obvious need to fit in. She's wicked smart after all, so this should be a walk in the park for her. Let's see if she lives up to her billing...
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
Yeah, it's not like you're a BUFFOON or anything. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
I'll let Nigel, the brilliant thinkmonkey, explain to you the classic tell-tale signs of peer pressure and the obvious need to fit in. She's wicked smart after all, so this should be a walk in the park for her. Let's see if she lives up to her billing...
She's still in the parking lot remember? You're all dressed up hoping to play baseball when the game is clearly chess.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
I'll let Nigel, the brilliant thinkmonkey, explain to you the classic tell-tale signs of peer pressure and the obvious need to fit in. She's wicked smart after all, so this should be a walk in the park for her. Let's see if she lives up to her billing...
Okay:
Hey Nigel! Can you explain to me why RWHN never responds to my clarifications after he misinterprets or misunderstands the things I say? I guess it has something to do with jackets, but he won't tell me.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:42:06 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
I'll let Nigel, the brilliant thinkmonkey, explain to you the classic tell-tale signs of peer pressure and the obvious need to fit in. She's wicked smart after all, so this should be a walk in the park for her. Let's see if she lives up to her billing...
Okay:
Hey Nigel! Can you explain to me why RWHN never responds to my clarifications after he misinterprets or misunderstands the things I say? I guess it has something to do with jackets, but he won't tell me.
Unfortunately, I totally can't! I totally have only the most rudimentary idea of how the authoritarian personality type works, and I'm actually kind of grateful for that.
Clearly, however, I am bullying all of the rest of the people here into not liking him. Even when I'm not here, and also even though according to him I am not very well liked.
That much is clear.
I'm in the parking lot circling the pitcher's mound with a shopping cart full of jackets.
I have no idea what any of this means, but it will probably show up on a drug-prevention poster eventually.
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:42:06 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
I'll let Nigel, the brilliant thinkmonkey, explain to you the classic tell-tale signs of peer pressure and the obvious need to fit in. She's wicked smart after all, so this should be a walk in the park for her. Let's see if she lives up to her billing...
Okay:
Hey Nigel! Can you explain to me why RWHN never responds to my clarifications after he misinterprets or misunderstands the things I say? I guess it has something to do with jackets, but he won't tell me.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
Do you see how your answer doesn't address my question, or is this thread about to be all about shiny infographics? Because I just cleared out a bunch of space on my hard drive for making those.
I actually really want to see that infographic.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 11:26:24 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:42:06 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
Remember kids: if everyone disagrees with you they're all angling for jackets.
I'll let Nigel, the brilliant thinkmonkey, explain to you the classic tell-tale signs of peer pressure and the obvious need to fit in. She's wicked smart after all, so this should be a walk in the park for her. Let's see if she lives up to her billing...
Okay:
Hey Nigel! Can you explain to me why RWHN never responds to my clarifications after he misinterprets or misunderstands the things I say? I guess it has something to do with jackets, but he won't tell me.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
Do you see how your answer doesn't address my question, or is this thread about to be all about shiny infographics? Because I just cleared out a bunch of space on my hard drive for making those.
Your question is nonsensical. This thread has nothing do to with agreeing or disagreeing with anything, not anymore anyway. It's now totally about this vapid trial of my intelligence. I mean, really, how moronic is that to begin with? "I'm smarter than you are!" Are we in 4th grade again?
So anyway, yeah, I've played along, since then we can observe the aforementioned behavior from stella and bearman. The need and desire to be accepted and to be given their club jackets.
Do you understand now?
Working on a Big Words from the backlog, I'll have your infographic up later.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:34:28 PM
...
Do you understand now?
I think I understand.
But you should probably make that infographic, just to be sure.
I'll take that as a no. Too bad Nigel isn't able to explain this to you.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
It isn't a gif, it's a jpg.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Also, I understand that you are not very observant, but trying to jab at my handle is not likely to be effective because, unlike you, I don't select things like that in order to brag about myself. I understand that you assumed that would be the case, because that is the kind of petty boasting you would do, but you should give up every trying to understand my motivations because I'm a lot smarter than you are, and there's no way you will ever be able to grasp the complexities of an intelligence so far above your own.
That said, I will do you a favor and clue you in. My handle is a joke about the fact that even though I'm not actually on a social science track, I keep getting matched with social science internships, much to my dismay. I understand that you can't comprehend humor more subtle than bad puns, but it is a form of self-deprecating irony. Trying to jab at it just makes you look stupid.
Er, stupider.
Also, I know we all look alike to you but I wasn't the person who made the comment about a popularity poll.
Lastly, Stella and I started out fighting like cats and dogs, but gradually found that we actually like each other. Implying that she's groveling at me for a "jacket" is fucking insulting as shit, and if you take a look at that you may start to see that people dislike you less because they all wish to band together and find social acceptance in a happy peedee family, and more because you're an ass to them.
Also, are you seriously like 87 years old? Club jackets? Was that ever a thing in this century? Are you writing from 1979, because if you are I think Dok's headed your way and you know how dangerous that can get.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 11:41:06 PM
Also, are you seriously like 87 years old? Club jackets? Was that ever a thing in this century? Are you writing from 1979, because if you are I think Dok's headed your way and you know how dangerous that can get.
Uh, yeah, I'm like, terrified and shit.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:34:28 PM
So anyway, yeah, I've played along, since then we can observe the aforementioned behavior from stella and bearman. The need and desire to be accepted and to be given their club jackets.
Do you understand now?
QuoteYou're all doing just what I knew you were going to do!
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
:lulz:
For the record, I think this thread has been fyn and educational. And while I happen to think Nigel has overstated her case a bit, a little 4th-grade level hammering is probably called for since you keep acting like an overwhelmed schoolteacher. "Because I said so" is never a valid argument, but it does serve to underscore a person's general lack of relevant expertise.
Nigel can be mean, but you can be willfully ignorant, and this is PD so I'm not sure what else you expected.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
It isn't a gif, it's a jpg.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Also, I understand that you are not very observant, but trying to jab at my handle is not likely to be effective because, unlike you, I don't select things like that in order to brag about myself. I understand that you assumed that would be the case, because that is the kind of petty boasting you would do, but you should give up every trying to understand my motivations because I'm a lot smarter than you are, and there's no way you will ever be able to grasp the complexities of an intelligence so far above your own.
That said, I will do you a favor and clue you in. My handle is a joke about the fact that even though I'm not actually on a social science track, I keep getting matched with social science internships, much to my dismay. I understand that you can't comprehend humor more subtle than bad puns, but it is a form of self-deprecating irony. Trying to jab at it just makes you look stupid.
Er, stupider.
Also, I know we all look alike to you but I wasn't the person who made the comment about a popularity poll.
Lastly, Stella and I started out fighting like cats and dogs, but gradually found that we actually like each other. Implying that she's groveling at me for a "jacket" is fucking insulting as shit, and if you take a look at that you may start to see that people dislike you less because they all wish to band together and find social acceptance in a happy peedee family, and more because you're an ass to them.
Your life is pretty uninteresting to me so I don't study it like you seem to do mine.
My observations are my observations. To me it is as plain as day. Maybe I'm wrong, and I certainly don't expect anyone to own up to it publicly, but someone is welcome to prove me wrong and explain the observed behavior in another light.
Maybe you can start smarty pants.
We all really just act like we dislike RWHN because conformity and stuff! It isn't because of how he talks to people or his personality at all, which we don't even really know because pixels on a screen.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:45:33 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
It isn't a gif, it's a jpg.
Also, I understand that you are not very observant, but trying to jab at my handle is not likely to be effective because, unlike you, I don't select things like that in order to brag about myself. I understand that you assumed that would be the case, because that is the kind of petty boasting you would do, but you should give up every trying to understand my motivations because I'm a lot smarter than you are, and there's no way you will ever be able to grasp the complexities of an intelligence so far above your own.
That said, I will do you a favor and clue you in. My handle is a joke about the fact that even though I'm not actually on a social science track, I keep getting matched with social science internships, much to my dismay. I understand that you can't comprehend humor more subtle than bad puns, but it is a form of self-deprecating irony. Trying to jab at it just makes you look stupid.
Er, stupider.
Also, I know we all look alike to you but I wasn't the person who made the comment about a popularity poll.
Lastly, Stella and I started out fighting like cats and dogs, but gradually found that we actually like each other. Implying that she's groveling at me for a "jacket" is fucking insulting as shit, and if you take a look at that you may start to see that people dislike you less because they all wish to band together and find social acceptance in a happy peedee family, and more because you're an ass to them.
Your life is pretty uninteresting to me so I don't study it like you seem to do mine.
My observations are my observations. To me it is as plain as day. Maybe I'm wrong, and I certainly don't expect anyone to own up to it publicly, but someone is welcome to prove me wrong and explain the observed behavior in another light.
Maybe you can start smarty pants.
What are you talking about? Are you drunk?
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:42:14 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 11:41:06 PM
Also, are you seriously like 87 years old? Club jackets? Was that ever a thing in this century? Are you writing from 1979, because if you are I think Dok's headed your way and you know how dangerous that can get.
Uh, yeah, I'm like, terrified and shit.
RWHN: Here for the Discordianism, unless the Discordianism questions government authority or makes jokes that aren't about him.
Are you seriously claiming that I showed up on a forum where you were accepted and liked, and singlehandedly turned everyone against you due to their need to fit in, and this had nothing whatsoever to do with the way you talk to people?
Is this really what you're claiming?
Because that's AMAZING. :lulz:
Quote from: V3X on August 11, 2013, 11:44:11 PM
For the record, I think this thread has been fyn and educational. And while I happen to think Nigel has overstated her case a bit, a little 4th-grade level hammering is probably called for since you keep acting like an overwhelmed schoolteacher. "Because I said so" is never a valid argument, but it does serve to underscore a person's general lack of relevant expertise.
Nigel can be mean, but you can be willfully ignorant, and this is PD so I'm not sure what else you expected.
Well that's bollocks of course because in every drug thread we've had I've provided data and studies to back up my side of the debate. So it's quite inaccurate to posit all of my arguments are "because I said so." In this thread, well, you are asking me to prove a negative, that not all DEA employees are corrupt ass-hats. What kind of data would you have me produce to prove that?
I dunno, ask them for a staff roster and comb Google to see if their names ever come up in investigations.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:50:55 PM
Are you seriously claiming that I showed up on a forum where you were accepted and liked, and singlehandedly turned everyone against you due to their need to fit in, and this had nothing whatsoever to do with the way you talk to people?
Is this really what you're claiming?
Because that's AMAZING. :lulz:
No dumbass. I'm talking about Stella and bearman's behavior in this thread and the new one. Are you not able to follow the threads of this discussion? It is,still, in reference to Gogira's question.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:53:18 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 11, 2013, 11:44:11 PM
For the record, I think this thread has been fyn and educational. And while I happen to think Nigel has overstated her case a bit, a little 4th-grade level hammering is probably called for since you keep acting like an overwhelmed schoolteacher. "Because I said so" is never a valid argument, but it does serve to underscore a person's general lack of relevant expertise.
Nigel can be mean, but you can be willfully ignorant, and this is PD so I'm not sure what else you expected.
Well that's bollocks of course because in every drug thread we've had I've provided data and studies to back up my side of the debate. So it's quite inaccurate to posit all of my arguments are "because I said so." In this thread, well, you are asking me to prove a negative, that not all DEA employees are corrupt ass-hats. What kind of data would you have me produce to prove that?
I dunno, ask them for a staff roster and comb Google to see if their names ever come up in investigations.
Nobody's asking you to do shit, actually.
There is strong evidence of systemic corruption within the DEA. Your response to that, so sar, seems to be "NUH UH".
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:50:55 PM
Are you seriously claiming that I showed up on a forum where you were accepted and liked, and singlehandedly turned everyone against you due to their need to fit in, and this had nothing whatsoever to do with the way you talk to people?
Is this really what you're claiming?
Because that's AMAZING. :lulz:
No dumbass. I'm talking about Stella and bearman's behavior in this thread and the new one. Are you not able to follow the threads of this discussion? It is,still, in reference to Gogira's question.
I think you may not be as lucid as you think you are.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:45:35 PM
We all really just act like we dislike RWHN because conformity and stuff! It isn't because of how he talks to people or his personality at all, which we don't even really know because pixels on a screen.
You are definitely not as bright as you wish to claim. That you really can't see that Stella would use your jpg as social acceptance, or bearman's thread as a riff of of your comment about me being unpopular, really speaks to a quality of your observation skills.
Or denial, maybe it's just that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, clearly you're addled (drunk?) but this isn't the DEA corruption thread.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:59:07 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:45:35 PM
We all really just act like we dislike RWHN because conformity and stuff! It isn't because of how he talks to people or his personality at all, which we don't even really know because pixels on a screen.
You are definitely not as bright as you wish to claim. That you really can't see that Stella would use your jpg as social acceptance, or bearman's thread as a riff of of your comment about me being unpopular, really speaks to a quality of your observation skills.
Or denial, maybe it's just that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
People riffing off each other in a social group, sure, you could say that there's social acceptance motivation at play. There always is. What's your point?
And I have a good 30 IQ points on you, I'm certain of it. :lulz:
You think a lot of things that don't make any sense.
Did RWHN just defend judging Nigel despite not paying attention to the details of her life? What happened to "who I am on this forum is just a small part of me."?
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 12:10:55 AM
Did RWHN just defend judging Nigel despite not paying attention to the details of her life? What happened to "who I am on this forum is just a small part of me."?
That only applies when it's US judging HIM. Because he's
special. :lol:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2a3wh5.jpg)
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:50:55 PM
Are you seriously claiming that I showed up on a forum where you were accepted and liked, and singlehandedly turned everyone against you due to their need to fit in, and this had nothing whatsoever to do with the way you talk to people?
Is this really what you're claiming?
Because that's AMAZING. :lulz:
:magick:
Quote from: /b/earman on August 12, 2013, 12:19:40 AM
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2a3wh5.jpg)
OMG, you have NO idea how hilarious this is!
SpecTACular work Mr. Bearman! Thank you for the levity!
:lulz:
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 12:10:55 AM
Did RWHN just defend judging Nigel despite not paying attention to the details of her life? What happened to "who I am on this forum is just a small part of me."?
I have no idea what you are prattling on about.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 12:40:33 AM
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 12:10:55 AM
Did RWHN just defend judging Nigel despite not paying attention to the details of her life? What happened to "who I am on this forum is just a small part of me."?
I have no idea what you are prattling on about.
It's okay man. Intelligence isn't one of my expectations of you.
I mean, somehow Nigel managed to follow the conversation just fine but your reading comprehension failed you.
Bit embarrassing after all of that "I AM ON THE PITCHERS MOUND" chest-thumping.
RWHN doesn't know me very well. :lol:
But just for shits and giggles, I went and got my own shit anyway.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
/
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3ArI_SGjcXg/Tmu83onzzrI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/jUxGaMDbkx0/s320/an_Idiot.jpg)
Or perchance:
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
/
(http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/05/0561dfd87b496a562071004f77c9398597de5bd8_full.jpg)
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 12:49:37 AM
I mean, somehow Nigel managed to follow the conversation just fine but your reading comprehension failed you.
Bit embarrassing after all of that "I AM ON THE PITCHERS MOUND" chest-thumping.
Her response was very general and doesn't acknowledge any prior conversation.
Dear lord. :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 12:56:18 AM
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 12:49:37 AM
I mean, somehow Nigel managed to follow the conversation just fine but your reading comprehension failed you.
Bit embarrassing after all of that "I AM ON THE PITCHERS MOUND" chest-thumping.
Her response was very general and doesn't acknowledge any prior conversation.
Sure, it could look that way to an absolute simpleton, reading that one post out of context.
He doesn't even know what thread he's in. :lol: Cant tell if he's really that dumb, or if he's drunk, or what.
But, in any event Paes, you are quite right, which is why I find Nigel's delusions about my intelligence so comical. There is no way for her to actually have the first clue about my background other than what I've shared. Anything else is 4th grade school yard antics. Which, perhaps I will posit, is a window into her character.
:lulz:
Yeah. Nigel's delusions.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 11, 2013, 11:39:18 PM
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 11:23:30 PM
Wow, I am shocked that our resident "thinkmonkey" can't explain the classic signs of needing to fit in.
You see Gogira, it's pretty simple. Stella uses the same silly gif that Nigel does because she's a me-too. She wants to be accepted and liked by Nigel, so she thinks if she emulates her behavior, then she will continue to be accepted as one of them. It isn't bullying, it's the strong need within Stella to have that validation and acceptance.
We see the same from bearman, latching on to Twid's coffee gag, and starting up the popularity thread after Nigel makes a comment about measuring my popularity here. Again, not bullying, just bearman's strong desire and motivation to be accepted as one of the members of the cool club.
Do you understand or shall I make you an infographic?
It isn't a gif, it's a jpg.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Also, I understand that you are not very observant, but trying to jab at my handle is not likely to be effective because, unlike you, I don't select things like that in order to brag about myself. I understand that you assumed that would be the case, because that is the kind of petty boasting you would do, but you should give up every trying to understand my motivations because I'm a lot smarter than you are, and there's no way you will ever be able to grasp the complexities of an intelligence so far above your own.
That said, I will do you a favor and clue you in. My handle is a joke about the fact that even though I'm not actually on a social science track, I keep getting matched with social science internships, much to my dismay. I understand that you can't comprehend humor more subtle than bad puns, but it is a form of self-deprecating irony. Trying to jab at it just makes you look stupid.
Er, stupider.
Also, I know we all look alike to you but I wasn't the person who made the comment about a popularity poll.
Lastly, Stella and I started out fighting like cats and dogs, but gradually found that we actually like each other. Implying that she's groveling at me for a "jacket" is fucking insulting as shit, and if you take a look at that you may start to see that people dislike you less because they all wish to band together and find social acceptance in a happy peedee family, and more because you're an ass to them.
Also this.
I didn't even dislike you when we were arguing, really. I could respect you.
Can't say the same for a jerk who crows about throwing kids under a bus and calls it "prevention".
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 01:08:13 AM
:lulz:
Yeah. Nigel's delusions.
Yes. Nigel's delusions.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:05:09 AM
But, in any event Paes, you are quite right, which is why I find Nigel's delusions about my intelligence so comical. There is no way for her to actually have the first clue about my background other than what I've shared. Anything else is 4th grade school yard antics. Which, perhaps I will posit, is a window into her character.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
"perhaps I will posit" :lol:
You should really work on learning to string a sentence together.
The fact that you're a dull knife isn't too hard to figure out; you're obviously a SGiTR and you're never going to figure it out. 4th grade level is about all you're capable of understanding.
It's all you are capable of delivering.
NO U
I walk my talk. Every damned day. I got where I am through skill, yes intelligence, and hard work. I haven't been randomly plucked from the populous to be put in the positions I have. My reputation is one that I've built. So much that I was offered a five-figure increase at a new job which I unfortunately had to decline because it would have created a commute that would have drastically reduced family time. And among everything else, I'm a damned good father and always put my kiddos first.
Why do you keep bringing your kids up like being a parent is some kind of moral high ground?
Keep? Where else did I mention them in this thread? Also, if you read again, it was offered as the explanation of why I turned down a job. You are reading words that aren't there.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 01:28:30 AM
Why do you keep bringing your kids up like being a parent is some kind of moral high ground?
Because he's a PREVENTIONIST and in the World According To RWHN kids are little pawns to be used to further whatever his fucked up little agenda happens to be at the moment.
Uh, yeah, yeah, THAT's it.
You are painful.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
I walk my talk. Every damned day. I got where I am through skill, yes intelligence, and hard work. I haven't been randomly plucked from the populous to be put in the positions I have. My reputation is one that I've built. So much that I was offered a five-figure increase at a new job which I unfortunately had to decline because it would have created a commute that would have drastically reduced family time. And among everything else, I'm a damned good father and always put my kiddos first.
Bullshit.
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 01:36:29 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
I walk my talk. Every damned day. I got where I am through skill, yes intelligence, and hard work. I haven't been randomly plucked from the populous to be put in the positions I have. My reputation is one that I've built. So much that I was offered a five-figure increase at a new job which I unfortunately had to decline because it would have created a commute that would have drastically reduced family time. And among everything else, I'm a damned good father and always put my kiddos first.
Bullshit.
Prove otherwise or keep on walking skippy.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:30:29 AM
Keep? Where else did I mention them in this thread? Also, if you read again, it was offered as the explanation of why I turned down a job. You are reading words that aren't there.
Dude, if you're going to conflate this thread with the DEA one then it's perfectly legit for me to mention the fact that you shoehorn your offspring into every conversation you get into. You didn't need to excuse yourself for not taking that cushy job, none of us care and it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which last I checked in this thread was the fact that you've alienated everyone on this board and are blaming Nigel and her devilish peer-pressure for it, which no one has ever done on PD before, ever.
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
QuoteI WORKED MY WAY TO THE TOP OF A FAILING NONPROFIT THROUGH INTELLIGENCE AND HARD WORK. EVERYBODY ELSE IS STUPID AND BELOW ME, THAT IS WHY I SPEND ALL WEEKEND ON A FORUM WHERE NOBODY LIKES ME BECAUSE I'VE ALIENATED ALL OF THEM BY TALKING DOWN TO THEM. KIDS KIDS GIRLFRIEND KIDS.
\
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9443990200_ebeaf55cff_z.jpg)
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:38:34 AM
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 01:36:29 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
I walk my talk. Every damned day. I got where I am through skill, yes intelligence, and hard work. I haven't been randomly plucked from the populous to be put in the positions I have. My reputation is one that I've built. So much that I was offered a five-figure increase at a new job which I unfortunately had to decline because it would have created a commute that would have drastically reduced family time. And among everything else, I'm a damned good father and always put my kiddos first.
Bullshit.
Prove otherwise or keep on walking skippy.
You've made it perfectly clear that loudly saying NO YOU ARE WRONG is a legitimate approach to a discussion. Don't try and change the rules now.
PS: I'm RWHN's boss IRL. Prove otherwise or keep walking.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
I bet you wouldn't be such a dick if you had a taste of my chocolate salty balls.
My IRL boss hates confrontation so you've already proven otherwise, dipshit.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 01:53:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
I bet you wouldn't be such a dick if you had a taste of my chocolate salty balls.
He NEEDS your chocolate salty balls in his mouth.
EVERYBODY needs your chocolate salty balls in their mouths.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 01:53:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
I bet you wouldn't be such a dick if you had a taste of my chocolate salty balls.
Wow, a joke from the 90s, how interesting....hmm.....no actually it isn't at all. Sorry.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:54:59 AM
My IRL boss hates confrontation so you've already proven otherwise, dipshit.
I'm your IRL boss's boss, a damned good father, a passionate lover and an alligator wrestler and MY LIFE IS GOING REALLY WELL JUST FYI IDC WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME.
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 01:57:25 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:54:59 AM
My IRL boss hates confrontation so you've already proven otherwise, dipshit.
I'm your IRL boss's boss, a damned good father, a passionate lover and an alligator wrestler and MY LIFE IS GOING REALLY WELL JUST FYI IDC WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME.
:lulz:
I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL GIRLFRIEND. A BEAUTIFUL GIRLFRIEND. SHE IS BLACK AND DOESN'T KNOW WHERE I LIVE OH WAIT NO THAT WAS A DIFFERENT ONE, SHE IS WHITE AND SHE KNOWS MY HOUSE REALLY WELL IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE I MEAN THAT I HAVE TOTAL SEX WITH HER IN MY HOUSE.
(http://i.imgur.com/56fIlaT.png)
MY GIRLFRIEND REALLY LOVES ME YOU GUYS, WE HAVE DIFFERENT VALUES BUT WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL GIRLFRIEND AND SHE LOVES ME AND SHE HAS DEFINITELY MET MY KIDS DID I MENTION THAT I'M A TERRIFIC FATHER? WELL I AM.
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 02:01:18 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/56fIlaT.png)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 01:57:25 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:54:59 AM
My IRL boss hates confrontation so you've already proven otherwise, dipshit.
I'm your IRL boss's boss, a damned good father, a passionate lover and an alligator wrestler and MY LIFE IS GOING REALLY WELL JUST FYI IDC WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME.
My boss's boss is a woman.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:57:06 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 01:53:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
I bet you wouldn't be such a dick if you had a taste of my chocolate salty balls.
Wow, a joke from the 90s, how interesting....hmm.....no actually it isn't at all. Sorry.
No, see, you were too busy being a paranoid goddamned freak to get in on the cookie spree in the spring. One of the things in the goodie boxes that went out were chocolate salty balls, which are magically goddamned delicious. My friend's wife's been having a shit month and they made her fucking day. You're just so hellbent on being better than everyone else that you missed out.
Oh well.
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 04:08:16 PM
No. You are incorrect. I have education in hard science as well as public policy. AND I have actual work experience in both. I've worked in a lab. I've worked in public health. I've worked in policy. I am one of the go-to guys in the state. I was the engineer of the strategy that brought down the marijuana legalization law. New Hampshire has reached out to me for help with marijuana policy. New York State has reached out to me with help in prescription drug abuse prevention strategies. I've done national presentations.
You'v taken some college courses and holler on the internet. You don't hold a candle to me, though, I do agree you probably are smarter than ECH.
:tyra:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:05:09 AM
But, in any event Paes, you are quite right, which is why I find Nigel's delusions about my intelligence so comical.
Personally, I can only go on what I've seen.
You don't come across as very bright.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
I walk my talk. Every damned day. I got where I am through skill, yes intelligence, and hard work. I haven't been randomly plucked from the populous to be put in the positions I have. My reputation is one that I've built. So much that I was offered a five-figure increase at a new job which I unfortunately had to decline because it would have created a commute that would have drastically reduced family time. And among everything else, I'm a damned good father and always put my kiddos first.
But do you drive a Miata?
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 02:31:02 AM
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
Yeah, snark at Roger for not always being here then tell us about your awesome life when someone points out that you spend a fuckload of time interacting at a community pf people united in their distaste for you.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 02:31:02 AM
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
Don't mind if I do, loser. :lulz:
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 02:35:20 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 02:31:02 AM
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
Yeah, snark at Roger for not always being here then tell us about your awesome life when someone points out that you spend a fuckload of time interacting at a community pf people united in their distaste for you.
Yeah, I was too busy fucking off with a bunch of my friends all day.
Bad Roger, no strap on.
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 02:35:20 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 02:31:02 AM
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
Yeah, snark at Roger for not always being here then tell us about your awesome life when someone points out that you spend a fuckload of time interacting at a community pf people united in their distaste for you.
BUT I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL GIRLFRIEND WHO LOVES ME AND I HAVE KIDS AND YOU DON'T KNOW THE REAL ME, MAN. I'M REALLY REALLY HAPPY AND SUCCESSFUL. REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HAPPY AND SUCCESSFUL AND I HAVE LOTS AND LOTS OF FRIENDS WHO LIKE ME.
MY BEAUTIOOFUL GIRLFRIEND TOTALLY KNOWS WHERE I LIVE
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 02:31:02 AM
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
RWHN HAS A PERFECT LIFE AND A KICKASS JERB AND A SUPERIOR BRAIN THE SIZE OF A WATERMELON AND A GIRLFRIEND WHO TOTALLY FUCKS HIM AT HIS HOUSE AND HE STILL MISSES ROGER WHEN ROGER ISN'T HERE TO SMACK HIM AROUND
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
Convince Nigel she NEEDS me in her life! GO GO GO!
Quote from: Pæs on August 12, 2013, 02:35:20 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 02:31:02 AM
Oh, I knew this moment was coming. Go ahead Roger, I've got my popcorn, make some more pithy observations on all of the posts you've missed.
Yeah, snark at Roger for not always being here then tell us about your awesome life when someone points out that you spend a fuckload of time interacting at a community pf people united in their distaste for you.
That's MY Discordia! ;)
See, all I have is a regular life and a decent job and a wife who's really good to me, and a couple of kids who have made me proud.
So I have to go out and do things on the weekend, still.
Quote from: /b/earman on August 12, 2013, 03:00:00 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
Convince Nigel she NEEDS me in her life! GO GO GO!
I hope you aren't attached to your lips.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:01:18 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 12, 2013, 03:00:00 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
Convince Nigel she NEEDS me in her life! GO GO GO!
I hope you aren't attached to your lips.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:01:18 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on August 12, 2013, 03:00:00 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
Convince Nigel she NEEDS me in her life! GO GO GO!
I hope you aren't attached to your lips.
I don't follow? Someone is going to break my face?
Quote from: The End on August 11, 2013, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 11, 2013, 04:22:19 PM
RWHN: just so we can move this conversation along a little bit here, Nigel is saying you are stupid, not that no one has ever entrusted you with power. Continuing to list off your achievements isn't going to refute her claim, because there's a whole lot of "government is full of idiots" sentiment around these parts and all your appeals to authority on the subject of your intelligence are being undermined by that.
Psst, right. I mean, why compare actual professional achivements to still taking college courses.
That's like discounting the accomishments of an NBA star comparing them to some college kid in a Div. III school.
Also, because y'all seem to be dense, I don't work in government. But I AM the President of two non-profit boards, one of an organization I am rebuilding. And they specifically asked me to head that up, why? Track record and having reputable skill sets.
Im going to jump in here and read the rest tomorrow. But unt are probably one of the most unscientific intellectually dishonest people ive ever talked to. And again to clarify since i have to do this everytime i talk to you its because of your absolute inability to take in data that conflicts with your ideology. Your track record is policy. And he you arent a govt employee them what business do you have in dc? Why has ny reached out to you? Are you a lobbyist? Because if you are you are part of the problem my lack of respect goes into active hatred.
I'm not a lobbyist, I'm not a gov't employee. I head up an anti-drug coalition focusing on youth substance abuse prevention, funded, in part by a federal grant. A grant held also by many other similar coalitions across the country. We are a member of CADCA, a national association[size=78%] of coalitions. My work has been spotlighted there, at the national conferences. Through that, and other avenues, my expertise has been requested to help other communities with their strategies. I've also had a bunch ask me to review their grant applications. I've built a pretty solid reputation. [/size]
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:40:02 AM
I'm not a lobbyist, I'm not a gov't employee. I head up an anti-drug coalition focusing on youth substance abuse prevention, funded, in part by a federal grant. A grant held also by many other similar coalitions across the country. We are a member of CADCA, a national association[size=78%] of coalitions. My work has been spotlighted there, at the national conferences. Through that, and other avenues, my expertise has been requested to help other communities with their strategies. I've also had a bunch ask me to review their grant applications. I've built a pretty solid reputation. [/size]
\
(http://i.imgur.com/irsMaGp.gif)
But I'm not nearly as accomplished as the .gif-lady here.
:lulz:
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:44:40 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:40:02 AM
I'm not a lobbyist, I'm not a gov't employee. I head up an anti-drug coalition focusing on youth substance abuse prevention, funded, in part by a federal grant. A grant held also by many other similar coalitions across the country. We are a member of CADCA, a national association[size=78%] of coalitions. My work has been spotlighted there, at the national conferences. Through that, and other avenues, my expertise has been requested to help other communities with their strategies. I've also had a bunch ask me to review their grant applications. I've built a pretty solid reputation. [/size]
\
(http://i.imgur.com/irsMaGp.gif)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
But I'm not nearly as accomplished as the .gif-lady here.
:lulz:
Wow. He finally said something that wasn't utter bullshit.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
But I'm not nearly as accomplished as the .gif-lady here.
:lulz:
She can really strut that ass.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 01:28:30 AM
Why do you keep bringing your kids up like being a parent is some kind of moral high ground?
Because unlike some people, his kids have never been taken away by CPS and murdered, so, you know, he must be a good dad.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 01:53:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:44:03 AM
I haven't blamed her for shit. You suck at reading and understanding. I've blamed Stella and bearman for acting like puppy-eyed lackeys because they need to be accepted by Nigel. That blame lies squarely with them.
And I said I don't give a fuck whether I'm popular here or not.
Try to follow better.
I bet you wouldn't be such a dick if you had a taste of my chocolate salty balls.
soooooo good.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:59:57 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
But I'm not nearly as accomplished as the .gif-lady here.
:lulz:
She can really strut that ass.
I was referring to you oh bright one.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:40:02 AM
I'm not a lobbyist, I'm not a gov't employee. I head up an anti-drug coalition focusing on youth substance abuse prevention, funded, in part by a federal grant. A grant held also by many other similar coalitions across the country. We are a member of CADCA, a national association[size=78%] of coalitions. My work has been spotlighted there, at the national conferences. Through that, and other avenues, my expertise has been requested to help other communities with their strategies. I've also had a bunch ask me to review their grant applications. I've built a pretty solid reputation. [/size]
I'm a little late to the party so I was not around for what seems to be many drug threads in which you have previously posted. Can you link and/or cite studies that show that marijuana prohibition is beneficial to the country? If you are this involved in drug prevention it seems like that would not be a difficult thing to do.
I dislike seeing people dogpiled on a forum, but it's not hard to see why this is happening to you. Differing opinions are a good, but I would be interested to see some independent facts on the subject that support your position other than your own assertions.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:51:34 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:59:57 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
But I'm not nearly as accomplished as the .gif-lady here.
:lulz:
She can really strut that ass.
I was referring to you oh bright one.
I'm not even going to touch the weaksauce retorts you keep employing while at the same time coming out with regular sarcastic dismissals of the insults used by others.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/everything_you_know_about_drugs_is_wrong/
QuoteI wanted to write this book because I was disturbed by much of what is being said about the effects of drugs and drug policy. Most people engaged in the discussion don't know anything about drugs. Voices from people like me, scientists who have studied drugs and people who came from places I come from, are not included in those discussions. I thought the book would be a way to contribute to the discourse.
SO TRUE!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/us/justice-dept-seeks-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:51:34 AM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:59:57 AM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:17 AM
But I'm not nearly as accomplished as the .gif-lady here.
:lulz:
She can really strut that ass.
I was referring to you oh bright one.
NICE ONE, SLAPPY.
Best argument out of you yet. Now you should say something about her tits, right?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:28:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/us/justice-dept-seeks-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html
That'll be a step in the right direction, for once.
Gee, I wonder if anyone has been promoting these ideas on multiple occassions in the drug discussions.....hmm....
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:45:49 PM
Gee, I wonder if anyone has been promoting these ideas on multiple occassions in the drug discussions.....hmm....
Sure. Diversion for rich white kids, 29 years in jail for everyone else.
Because it's not like the average state legislator is a punishment freak or anything.
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
I didn't see that in the article anywhere.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
Unless you need a huge pool of very cheap labor.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:04:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I know. Neither does criminalizing weed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
Life without parole of they cough around children.
Quote from: stelz on August 12, 2013, 04:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
Life without parole of they cough around children.
Maybe "diversion", if they're white enough and rich enough. But they still get a felony hung around their necks if it's type A. Misdemeanor if it's type B.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize sex.
Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals trafficking in human bodies.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:55 PM
I didn't see that in the article anywhere.
It was in the article I posted, which you didn't read.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:51:40 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
Unless you need a huge pool of very cheap labor.
DING DING DING DING DING
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:04:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I know. Neither does criminalizing weed.
It does if you understand public health. Marijuana isn't benign to the health of communities. It just isn't.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 04:12:09 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:50:55 PM
I didn't see that in the article anywhere.
It was in the article I posted, which you didn't read.
My response was to Dok's post, not yours.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize sex.
Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals trafficking in human bodies.
Uh, there are crimes associated with sex. I hope I don't have to list them off for you.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:24:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:04:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 03:56:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 03:50:46 PM
If course, if you understand drug abuse as a symptom of social problems rather than as a cause, criminalizing it in the first place makes no sense at all.
If you understood that substance abuse is a public health problem, you'd understand that criminalizing it on some level is necessary. Don't throw the book at addicts who need help, but you absolutely need to have penalties for those who feed the problem, the criminals bringing the shit in and selling it.
We should also criminalize strep throat.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
I know. Neither does criminalizing weed.
It does if you understand public health. Marijuana isn't benign to the health of communities. It just isn't.
Are you suggesting that strep throat is?
Strep throat has individual impacts, drug abuse has environmental impacts. (Please note in this usage of the term environment =\= trees)
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:34:28 PM
Strep throat has individual impacts, drug abuse has environmental impacts.
Strep throat: Not communicable. :lulz:
I didn't say that. But strep throat is only going to directly impact those who have it. Drug abuse impacts people who aren't abusing the drugs.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 04:36:35 PM
I didn't say that.
Yes you did.
QuoteStrep throat has individual impacts, drug abuse has environmental impacts.
And
QuoteDrug abuse impacts people who aren't abusing the drugs.
So does booze. BRING BACK THE VOLSTEAD ACT!
That's not ever going to happen, whether or not it should.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:02:14 PM
That's not ever going to happen, whether or not it should.
Because it worked so well?
No, politics.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:06:38 PM
No, politics.
So it wasn't anything about the functionality of the Volstead Act, then? Or any unintended consequences?
I tell you what, next time there is a hearing for any kind of bill to do with alcohol policy in your state, go check it out. Go up to all of the suits waiting to testify, ask them who they work for. Then, it will be clear as day to you.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:12:24 PM
I tell you what, next time there is a hearing for any kind of bill to do with alcohol policy in your state, go check it out. Go up to all of the suits waiting to testify, ask them who they work for. Then, it will be clear as day to you.
So...No answer.
That's pretty much what I expected.
The answer is there, it does require you to employ some conceptual thinking. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:15:30 PM
The answer is there, it does require you to employ some conceptual thinking. I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:12:24 PM
I tell you what, next time there is a hearing for any kind of bill to do with alcohol policy in your state, go check it out. Go up to all of the suits waiting to testify, ask them who they work for. Then, it will be clear as day to you.
Just use a smidgen of imagination and conceptual thinking and this is pretty easy to interpret. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'L' and ends with a "cha-ching!"
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:12:24 PM
I tell you what, next time there is a hearing for any kind of bill to do with alcohol policy in your state, go check it out. Go up to all of the suits waiting to testify, ask them who they work for. Then, it will be clear as day to you.
Just use a smidgen of imagination and conceptual thinking and this is pretty easy to interpret. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'L' and ends with a "cha-ching!"
:lulz:
You still haven't figured it out yet?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:44:18 PM
You still haven't figured it out yet?
Nope. Why don't you explain it?
Aliens
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
Aliens
Yeah, this pretty much went where I thought it would go.
You have nothing to say.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 12:02:48 AM
Also, clearly you're addled (drunk?) but this isn't the DEA corruption thread.
Second cup of coffee.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 05:53:39 AM
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/everything_you_know_about_drugs_is_wrong/
QuoteI wanted to write this book because I was disturbed by much of what is being said about the effects of drugs and drug policy. Most people engaged in the discussion don't know anything about drugs. Voices from people like me, scientists who have studied drugs and people who came from places I come from, are not included in those discussions. I thought the book would be a way to contribute to the discourse.
SO TRUE!
But RWHN knows all about drugs. He does caffeine once, maybe twice a day. He's addicted.
You know, even Gallagher mixed it up every now and again.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 05:58:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
Aliens
Yeah, this pretty much went where I thought it would go.
You have nothing to say.
Sounds like hobbyists.
America: Ruined by model train enthusiasts! :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:30:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 05:58:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
Aliens
Yeah, this pretty much went where I thought it would go.
You have nothing to say.
Sounds like hobbyists.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:12:24 PM
I tell you what, next time there is a hearing for any kind of bill to do with alcohol policy in your state, go check it out. Go up to all of the suits waiting to testify, ask them who they work for. Then, it will be clear as day to you.
Just use a smidgen of imagination and conceptual thinking and this is pretty easy to interpret. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'L' and ends with a "cha-ching!"
Are you near a gas leak or something?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:30:02 PM
You know, even Gallagher mixed it up every now and again.
Gallagher?
Holder just said "diversion" on the TV and made me :argh!:
Thanks, RWHN!
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:37:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:30:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 05:58:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:56:57 PM
Aliens
Yeah, this pretty much went where I thought it would go.
You have nothing to say.
Sounds like hobbyists.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:28:21 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 05:12:24 PM
I tell you what, next time there is a hearing for any kind of bill to do with alcohol policy in your state, go check it out. Go up to all of the suits waiting to testify, ask them who they work for. Then, it will be clear as day to you.
Just use a smidgen of imagination and conceptual thinking and this is pretty easy to interpret. I'll give you a hint, it starts with an 'L' and ends with a "cha-ching!"
Are you near a gas leak or something?
Hobbyists?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 06:38:25 PM
Holder just said "diversion" on the TV and made me :argh!:
Thanks, RWHN!
Well, if you're going to fuck people over for life, you should probably re-brand it.
Sort of like we're doing with NSA "reform".
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:37:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:30:02 PM
You know, even Gallagher mixed it up every now and again.
Gallagher?
The watermelon guy. No, not Noel or Liam, though I suppose it could apply to them too.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 06:38:25 PM
Holder just said "diversion" on the TV and made me :argh!:
Thanks, RWHN!
Funny, I heard it and it made me :banana:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
Hobbyists get in the way. If it's not the model train assholes, it's those crochet spags.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:54:49 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 12, 2013, 06:38:25 PM
Holder just said "diversion" on the TV and made me :argh!:
Thanks, RWHN!
Funny, I heard it and it made me :banana:
Yep. Now we can fuck people over for life and pretend we didn't.
No, that's not how diversion works.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:58:07 PM
No, that's not how diversion works.
So, no records are kept?
Yeah, Dok, no one uses the threat of a felony conviction and life-long discrimination to make kids SHUT UP and toe the line!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:58:07 PM
No, that's not how diversion works.
So, no records are kept?
Silly Discordians. You keep assuming an imaginary distinction between "theory" and "practice," and another one between "rhetoric" and "meaning." If you'd just Wise Up, you'd have a lot less to worry about.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Hobbyists fucked everything up. :(
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:58:07 PM
No, that's not how diversion works.
So, no records are kept?
Records are kept when you get your teeth cleaned.
Yeah, obviously if you are diverted to a treatment program, that program is going to have records on your services there.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:58:07 PM
No, that's not how diversion works.
So, no records are kept?
Records are kept when you get your teeth cleaned.
Yeah, obviously if you are diverted to a treatment program, that program is going to have records on your services there.
Will the courts? Will they show up on a background check?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Depends on who and how you are defining "work".
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:10:28 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Depends on who and how you are defining "work".
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:09:34 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:58:07 PM
No, that's not how diversion works.
So, no records are kept?
Records are kept when you get your teeth cleaned.
Yeah, obviously if you are diverted to a treatment program, that program is going to have records on your services there.
Will the courts? Will they show up on a background check?
It's going to depend on the crime, and will certainly vary from state to state. Here in Maine youth who are arrested for a non-violent, simple possession drug crime will not have anything on their record if they successfully complete a diversion program.
Let's see...
Mafia rises to new heights of power: Check.
Americans go to jail for something that's really their own business: Check.
The entire law enforcement system in America becomes a joke: Check.
Yes, by some standards, prohibition of alcohol was fucking BRILLIANT.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:09:34 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:08:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 06:58:30 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:58:07 PM
No, that's not how diversion works.
So, no records are kept?
Records are kept when you get your teeth cleaned.
Yeah, obviously if you are diverted to a treatment program, that program is going to have records on your services there.
Will the courts? Will they show up on a background check?
It's going to depend on the crime, and will certainly vary from state to state. Here in Maine youth who are arrested for a non-violent, simple possession drug crime will not have anything on their record if they successfully complete a diversion program.
What about an adult?
Same answer.
Both assume a prosecutor actually takes up the case and doesn't just throw it out from the beginning.
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
If you live in an at-will state an employer can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
See, but now you and Vex are advocating forcing your "drugs are no big deal" ideals on others. There are private organizations and firms who very much don't want to hire someone who uses mind altering substances. What right do you have to force your opinions on them?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:32:03 PM
If you live in an at-will state an employer can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.
Translation:
QuoteJunkies deserve what they get. If they happen to be living check to check and get fired for legal problems and become destitute, well, they should have thought about that before they crossed me.
Check thread
26 pages in.
See the word "drugs"
NOPE.
Enjoy your 100 pages of bullshit.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 12, 2013, 07:37:21 PM
Check thread
26 pages in.
See the word "drugs"
NOPE.
Enjoy your 100 pages of bullshit.
This is the correct answer.
But I'm
so weak.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316655-holder-to-revamp-sentencing-guidelines-for-non-violent-drug-offenses
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:35:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
See, but now you and Vex are advocating forcing your "drugs are no big deal" ideals on others. There are private organizations and firms who very much don't want to hire someone who uses mind altering substances. What right do you have to force your opinions on them?
So there ARE records.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:35:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
See, but now you and Vex are advocating forcing your "drugs are no big deal" ideals on others. There are private organizations and firms who very much don't want to hire someone who uses mind altering substances. What right do you have to force your opinions on them?
So there ARE records.
There's no reason to force your false "exists/doesn't exist" dichotomy on innocent fascists, Dok.
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:39:24 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:35:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
See, but now you and Vex are advocating forcing your "drugs are no big deal" ideals on others. There are private organizations and firms who very much don't want to hire someone who uses mind altering substances. What right do you have to force your opinions on them?
So there ARE records.
There's no reason to force your false "exists/doesn't exist" dichotomy on innocent fascists, Dok.
Yep. It's a good thing the corporations have RWHN there to watch out for them.
:lulz:
So, basically, "diversion" is just a re-brand for "FUCKED FOREVER".
I mean, what happened to "what you do on your own time is your thing, just don't show up at work plastered to the wall trying to operate the forklift" ?
Since when did it become my employer's business what the fuck I do when they're not paying me for my time?
Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not a person, I'm a revenue machine. I exist solely to serve the will of the assholes behind the desks in City Hall and the Executive Floor.
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
I mean, what happened to "what you do on your own time is your thing, just don't show up at work plastered to the wall trying to operate the forklift" ?
Since when did it become my employer's business what the fuck I do when they're not paying me for my time?
Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not a person, I'm a revenue machine. I exist solely to serve the will of the assholes behind the desks in City Hall and the Executive Floor.
And to fill the pockets of CCA if you don't like it.
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
I mean, what happened to "what you do on your own time is your thing, just don't show up at work plastered to the wall trying to operate the forklift" ?
Since when did it become my employer's business what the fuck I do when they're not paying me for my time?
Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not a person, I'm a revenue machine. I exist solely to serve the will of the assholes behind the desks in City Hall and the Executive Floor.
I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate my forklift if they have a history of driving impaired. That's a huge ass liability in the making.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
I mean, what happened to "what you do on your own time is your thing, just don't show up at work plastered to the wall trying to operate the forklift" ?
Since when did it become my employer's business what the fuck I do when they're not paying me for my time?
Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not a person, I'm a revenue machine. I exist solely to serve the will of the assholes behind the desks in City Hall and the Executive Floor.
I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate my forklift if they have a history of driving impaired. That's a huge ass liability in the making.
Even if they're never impaired at work?
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
I mean, what happened to "what you do on your own time is your thing, just don't show up at work plastered to the wall trying to operate the forklift" ?
Since when did it become my employer's business what the fuck I do when they're not paying me for my time?
Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not a person, I'm a revenue machine. I exist solely to serve the will of the assholes behind the desks in City Hall and the Executive Floor.
I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate my forklift if they have a history of driving impaired. That's a huge ass liability in the making.
Even if they're never impaired at work?
Yes, because what you do outside of work, in every single case, ALWAYS equates to what you do AT work. I can't tell you how many times I've had to fire people for throwing bachelor and bachelorette parties at work, having sex with their spouses under their desks, attending baseball games at work, rebuilding engines in the conference room, etc. People just have no capacity to compartmentalize their lives.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
Who said they had a history of driving impaired?
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 08:02:09 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:45:29 PM
I mean, what happened to "what you do on your own time is your thing, just don't show up at work plastered to the wall trying to operate the forklift" ?
Since when did it become my employer's business what the fuck I do when they're not paying me for my time?
Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not a person, I'm a revenue machine. I exist solely to serve the will of the assholes behind the desks in City Hall and the Executive Floor.
I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate my forklift if they have a history of driving impaired. That's a huge ass liability in the making.
Even if they're never impaired at work?
Yes, because what you do outside of work, in every single case, ALWAYS equates to what you do AT work. I can't tell you how many times I've had to fire people for throwing bachelor and bachelorette parties at work, having sex with their spouses under their desks, attending baseball games at work, rebuilding engines in the conference room, etc. People just have no capacity to compartmentalize their lives.
You have to remember that RWHN stopped thinking 4 years ago. If you offer him a scenario that doesn't agree with his worldview, he will just build a strawman and argue with it.
But getting him to admit that records ARE kept was priceless.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
Based on that, you should be fired because you drink beer now and again.
The risk is simply too high.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
I know people who had problems because of juvenile records, which are theoretically "sealed".
I've also seen letters saying that said records can be expunged in court, for a (not cheap) price.
Quote from: stelz on August 12, 2013, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
I know people who had problems because of juvenile records, which are theoretically "sealed".
I've also seen letters saying that said records can be expunged in court, for a (not cheap) price.
Again, the funny part was getting RWHN to admit that records are in fact kept. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Hobbyists fucked everything up. :(
I keep telling people, it's those shitnecks on Etsy with their creative repurposed reclaimed upcycled fabric arts who "just want to cover their costs" who are ruining everything for everyone else.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:24:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Hobbyists fucked everything up. :(
I keep telling people, it's those shitnecks on Etsy with their creative repurposed reclaimed upcycled fabric arts who "just want to cover their costs" who are ruining everything for everyone else.
Upcycled? What's that?
And I understand you don't like the implications of that, but, it is reality. Most organizations are going to be risk averse, and hiring someone IS an investment. It takes resources; time, money, materials, to hire and train an employee. Businesses want to minimize these costs. So they don't only want the most qualified, they want someone who's going to stick around AND not cost them additionally throu on-the-job incidents. Let's be real, when hiring a forklift operator, all things being equal, the person who makes choices to drive impaired is a riskier choice than someone who doesn't.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:23:49 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 12, 2013, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:29:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on August 12, 2013, 07:28:30 PM
Will identifying fingerprint (or DNA) information about the subject collected during this legal non-event be retained and accessible against future investigations? Will the subject be compensated for lost work or emotional distress? Will there be a law in place prohibiting employers or schools from taking punitive action against the subject for missing time?
See, I'm calling bullshit on "no records kept".
Let's see the little stoner get a security clearance 10 years later. Ain't happening.
I know people who had problems because of juvenile records, which are theoretically "sealed".
I've also seen letters saying that said records can be expunged in court, for a (not cheap) price.
Again, the funny part was getting RWHN to admit that records are in fact kept. :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:25:03 PM
And I understand you don't like the implications of that, but, it is reality. Most organizations are going to be risk averse, and hiring someone IS an investment. It takes resources; time, money, materials, to hire and train an employee. Businesses want to minimize these costs. So they don't only want the most qualified, they want someone who's going to stick around AND not cost them additionally throu on-the-job incidents. Let's be real, when hiring a forklift operator, all things being equal, the person who makes choices to drive impaired is a riskier choice than someone who doesn't.
So, Diversion = Fucked For Life.
Thanks for confirming that, RWHN.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
:lulz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
This conversation has nothing to do with diversion anymore, it's about the idea of forcing your ideals on others, limiting their hiring processes.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:24:52 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:24:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Hobbyists fucked everything up. :(
I keep telling people, it's those shitnecks on Etsy with their creative repurposed reclaimed upcycled fabric arts who "just want to cover their costs" who are ruining everything for everyone else.
Upcycled? What's that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upcycling
QuoteUpcycling is the process of converting waste materials or useless products into new materials or products of better quality or for better environmental value.
The first recorded use of the term upcycling was by Reiner Pilz of Pilz GmbH in an article by Thornton Kay of Salvo in 1994.[1]
We talked about the impending EU Demolition Waste Streams directive. "Recycling," he said, "I call it downcycling. They smash bricks, they smash everything. What we need is upcycling- where old products are given more value, not less." He despairs of the German situation and recalls the supply of a large quantity of reclaimed woodblock from an English supplier for a contract in Nuremberg while just down the road a load of similar blocks was scrapped. In the road outside his premises, was the result of the Germans' demolition waste recycling. It was a pinky looking aggregate with pieces of handmade brick, old tiles and discernible parts of useful old items mixed with crushed concrete. Is this the future for Europe?
For a hoot, search Etsy using the keyword "upcycled". Some of it's quite interesting, but a very large proportion of it is total lail.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:29:30 PM
This conversation has nothing to do with diversion anymore, it's about the idea of forcing your ideals on others, limiting their hiring processes.
Based on records from "diversion".
Nice try at deflection, cube-monkey.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Sorry, my mistake for assuming everyone understands a fairly basic business concept.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:29:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:24:52 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:24:30 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 07:07:17 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 07:05:53 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 06:41:05 PM
So the only reason that alcohol won't be banned in the US is because of lobbyists, and not because we tried that and found that Prohibition didn't work?
It's the reason a proposal would never make it to a point where you could even discuss the merits of the proposal.
But no one would make the proposal in the first place, because Prohibition didn't work.
Hobbyists fucked everything up. :(
I keep telling people, it's those shitnecks on Etsy with their creative repurposed reclaimed upcycled fabric arts who "just want to cover their costs" who are ruining everything for everyone else.
Upcycled? What's that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upcycling
QuoteUpcycling is the process of converting waste materials or useless products into new materials or products of better quality or for better environmental value.
The first recorded use of the term upcycling was by Reiner Pilz of Pilz GmbH in an article by Thornton Kay of Salvo in 1994.[1]
We talked about the impending EU Demolition Waste Streams directive. "Recycling," he said, "I call it downcycling. They smash bricks, they smash everything. What we need is upcycling- where old products are given more value, not less." He despairs of the German situation and recalls the supply of a large quantity of reclaimed woodblock from an English supplier for a contract in Nuremberg while just down the road a load of similar blocks was scrapped. In the road outside his premises, was the result of the Germans' demolition waste recycling. It was a pinky looking aggregate with pieces of handmade brick, old tiles and discernible parts of useful old items mixed with crushed concrete. Is this the future for Europe?
For a hoot, search Etsy using the keyword "upcycled". Some of it's quite interesting, but a very large proportion of it is total lail.
I plan to. That looks AWESOME.
Dok,
Off to upcycle some used condoms.
It's basically taking an old thing, improving it or using it to make something nice, and then reinjecting it into the consumer cycle upstream of where it came out, rather than downstream. I know several people who make good livings in salvage and restoration, but then, of course, there is the mommy blogger craft version.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:32:03 PM
It's basically taking an old thing, improving it or using it to make something nice, and then reinjecting it into the consumer cycle upstream of where it came out, rather than downstream. I know several people who make good livings in salvage and restoration, but then, of course, there is the mommy blogger craft version.
Or worse. muhaha
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:30:55 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:29:30 PM
This conversation has nothing to do with diversion anymore, it's about the idea of forcing your ideals on others, limiting their hiring processes.
Based on records from "diversion".
Nice try at deflection, cube-monkey.
No. Diversion =\= everyone who gets arrested for something drug-related ever gets off scot-free.
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:33:00 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:30:55 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:29:30 PM
This conversation has nothing to do with diversion anymore, it's about the idea of forcing your ideals on others, limiting their hiring processes.
Based on records from "diversion".
Nice try at deflection, cube-monkey.
No. Diversion =\= everyone who gets arrested for something drug-related ever gets off scot-free.
IE, life ruined, minimum wage for life if they're LUCKY.
Prohibition is AWESOME.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:31:56 PM
I plan to. That looks AWESOME.
Dok,
Off to upcycle some used condoms.
Make them into cat sweaters. People love that sort of thing.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Sorry, my mistake for assuming everyone understands a fairly basic business concept.
Well, sure, but what if the person has never driven impaired either, like what Dok said? You're making a bit of an assumption there.
Maybe all the substance abusers in Maine just happen to love driving under the influence and that's how they get sent to rehab. That's not a given everywhere though.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:34:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:31:56 PM
I plan to. That looks AWESOME.
Dok,
Off to upcycle some used condoms.
Make them into cat sweaters. People love that sort of thing.
I was thinking those toilet seat shaped pillows people use on airplanes. NOW INFLATABLE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:32:03 PM
It's basically taking an old thing, improving it or using it to make something nice, and then reinjecting it into the consumer cycle upstream of where it came out, rather than downstream. I know several people who make good livings in salvage and restoration, but then, of course, there is the mommy blogger craft version.
Or worse. muhaha
I could see you becoming King Crafter on Etsy. :lulz: That would be AMAZING.
DON'T QUESTION MY ART! :argh!:
Also, I don't imagine most substance abusers won't wait until after work to get fucked up.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:32:03 PM
It's basically taking an old thing, improving it or using it to make something nice, and then reinjecting it into the consumer cycle upstream of where it came out, rather than downstream. I know several people who make good livings in salvage and restoration, but then, of course, there is the mommy blogger craft version.
Or worse. muhaha
I could see you becoming King Crafter on Etsy. :lulz: That would be AMAZING.
DON'T QUESTION MY ART! :argh!:
It's not art if nobody suffers. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
YOU GUYS ARE TOTALLY JUST MAKING AN ISSUE WHERE THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE
ALL OF THIS WOULD BE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT IF PEOPLE WOULD JUST DO WHAT RWHN TELLS THEM TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU KNOW.
RWHN is the GOOD GUY here. He's just trying SAVE PEOPLE from the CONSEQUENCES OF NOT DOING AS THEY'RE TOLD.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
It's how bureaucrats ensure a large pool of underemployable serfs, which they largely used to scare the dwindling middle-class and keep the money flowing into the prison system and all the corporations that benefit from the prison system. It's also, largely, where the soldier class comes from; the impoverished but bright children who see the military as a way out of the cycle of crime, discrimination, and imprisonment.
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:39:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
It's how bureaucrats ensure a large pool of underemployable serfs, which they largely used to scare the dwindling middle-class and keep the money flowing into the prison system and all the corporations that benefit from the prison system. It's also, largely, where the soldier class comes from; the impoverished but bright children who see the military as a way out of the cycle of crime, discrimination, and imprisonment.
Yeah, well, after "diversion", they can't even do THAT.
Stuck forever, a ruined life...But it makes RWHN feel all important, and isn't that what really matters?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Sorry, my mistake for assuming everyone understands a fairly basic business concept.
Well, sure, but what if the person has never driven impaired either, like what Dok said? You're making a bit of an assumption there.
Again, it's about the risk. It isn't that they are assuming they WILL operate impaired, it's that one would be more likely to do so. So it's lowering the risk, the potential. When you are responsible for multiple employees, and the success of the business, you have to make these choices.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:42:07 PM
Again, it's about the risk. It isn't that they are assuming they WILL operate impaired, it's that one would be more likely to do so. So it's lowering the risk, the potential. When you are responsible for multiple employees, and the success of the business, you have to make these choices.
It's about a class of unemployable people, who spend their entire lives cycling in and out of the system.
Well done, RWHN. They've been PROTECTED.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:37:00 PM
Also, I don't imagine most substance abusers won't wait until after work to get fucked up.
That depends on how you define "abuse". Do you drink at work? Most pot smokers don't use pot at work. However they are still defined under the law as "drug abusers" simply because it's illegal.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:42:07 PM
When you are responsible for multiple employees, and the success of the business, you have to make these choices.
:lulz:
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:43:50 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:37:00 PM
Also, I don't imagine most substance abusers won't wait until after work to get fucked up.
That depends on how you define "abuse". Do you drink at work? Most pot smokers don't use pot at work. However they are still defined under the law as "drug abusers" simply because it's illegal.
Yes, I wouldn't hire RWHN. He drinks, and it's only a matter of time before he'd come staggering in to work puking up shitty beer and killing someone in the parking lot.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries?
If that's as far as they want to go, I guess. I've known kids who've had trouble, including with the law, and have gone on to become drug counselors. I've known adults who've done that.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:42:07 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Sorry, my mistake for assuming everyone understands a fairly basic business concept.
Well, sure, but what if the person has never driven impaired either, like what Dok said? You're making a bit of an assumption there.
Again, it's about the risk. It isn't that they are assuming they WILL operate impaired, it's that one would be more likely to do so. So it's lowering the risk, the potential. When you are responsible for multiple employees, and the success of the business, you have to make these choices.
Anyone who's going to be that sort of risk will be found out pretty quickly one way or the other. You know, when they punch in smelling of booze. You're automatically going to the worst case scenario, and if they're that bad, previous employers will have already said " no comment."
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
If that's as far as they want to go, I guess.
:lulz:
"Sorry, we cannot accept your application because you have been in the system for drugs" = "not wanting the job."
Quote from: YOUR Social Science Thinkmonkey on August 12, 2013, 08:43:50 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:37:00 PM
Also, I don't imagine most substance abusers won't wait until after work to get fucked up.
That depends on how you define "abuse". Do you drink at work? Most pot smokers don't use pot at work. However they are still defined under the law as "drug abusers" simply because it's illegal.
Only at rare office parties that have alcohol at them. I'm at work. If I want to get drunk instead, I'll punch out and go to the bar.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries?
If that's as far as they want to go, I guess. I've known kids who've had trouble, including with the law, and have gone on to become drug counselors. I've known adults who've done that.
Ah... I see now. It's a self-perpetuating machine.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries?
If that's as far as they want to go, I guess. I've known kids who've had trouble, including with the law, and have gone on to become drug counselors. I've known adults who've done that.
Ah... I see now. It's a self-perpetuating machine.
Do you think he's on the pipe
right now?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:48:56 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:48:22 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries?
If that's as far as they want to go, I guess. I've known kids who've had trouble, including with the law, and have gone on to become drug counselors. I've known adults who've done that.
Ah... I see now. It's a self-perpetuating machine.
Do you think he's on the pipe right now?
Nah, I think he's going for an unprecedented third coffee. Addictions have a tendency to make you want more than you should.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
I walk my talk. Every damned day. I got where I am through skill, yes intelligence, and hard work. I haven't been randomly plucked from the populous to be put in the positions I have. My reputation is one that I've built. So much that I was offered a five-figure increase at a new job which I unfortunately had to decline because it would have created a commute that would have drastically reduced family time. And among everything else, I'm a damned good father and always put my kiddos first.
THEY OFFERED ME A $10K RAISE BUT I SAID NO BECAUSE I WANT TO STAY CLOSE TO LEWISTON WHICH IS CLEARLY THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND A CITY KNOWN FOR PRODUCING IMPORTANT AND EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE!
Cluephone ringing, bub.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Sorry, my mistake for assuming everyone understands a fairly basic business concept.
Well, sure, but what if the person has never driven impaired either, like what Dok said? You're making a bit of an assumption there.
Maybe all the substance abusers in Maine just happen to love driving under the influence and that's how they get sent to rehab. That's not a given everywhere though.
You have to. There's never a Dunkin Donuts within walking distance.
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries?
If that's as far as they want to go, I guess. I've known kids who've had trouble, including with the law, and have gone on to become drug counselors. I've known adults who've done that.
Well THAT'S certainly a benchmark for success!
HEY, I USED TO BE A DRUG ADDICT BUT NOW I MAKE 28,000 A YEAR TO TELL OTHER DRUG ADDICTS HOW THEY TOO CAN STOP USING DRUGS AND GET A SHITTY DEPRESSING JOB THAT PAYS SQUAT AND HAS THE LOWEST JOB SATISFACTION RATING OF ANY CAREER! THANKS RWHN!
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 12, 2013, 10:27:16 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:28:33 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
You mean a word that you totally didn't use?
Sorry, my mistake for assuming everyone understands a fairly basic business concept.
Well, sure, but what if the person has never driven impaired either, like what Dok said? You're making a bit of an assumption there.
Maybe all the substance abusers in Maine just happen to love driving under the influence and that's how they get sent to rehab. That's not a given everywhere though.
You have to. There's never a Dunkin Donuts within walking distance.
:spittake:
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/bbc96440f4e0f1e73c09c2ab5b3090e2/tumblr_mqp6eiTlM71soqenlo1_250.gif)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
Based on that, you should be fired because you drink beer now and again.
The risk is simply too high.
GOD DAMN IT ROGER YOU BEAT ME TO IT!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:38:56 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:37:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:33:43 PM
So, basically, "diversion" means the kid (or adult) doesn't go to jail...YET. The person simply cannot get a decent job ever again, which means poverty, which means prison.
How socially conscious. How protective.
:lulz:
As I explained before, it's going to depend on the crime, and it varies state by state.
Yep. And the ceiling for these kids will be, what, making fries freedom fries?
Remember, you're there
forever!
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 13, 2013, 12:02:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 12, 2013, 08:21:15 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 08:19:04 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 12, 2013, 08:06:52 PM
Quote from: The End on August 12, 2013, 07:59:03 PM
All other qualifications being equal between two candidates, I absolutely would want the person without the history of driving impaired.
I mean, think about it, you hire the guy, he comes to work impaired, kills another employee with the forklift. You think the family might scream for your head if they knew you hired a guy with that known history?
You do understand what the word never means right?
Do you understand the meaning of the word risk?
Based on that, you should be fired because you drink beer now and again.
The risk is simply too high.
GOD DAMN IT ROGER YOU BEAT ME TO IT!
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
Because acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
Now, mind you, I don't doubt that if a serious bill to prohibit alcohol AGAIN were to be considered, "Big Alcohol" would go out of their way to stop it, as would all the hard drinking DC politicians and lawyers, and, well, practically everyone.
You know, because Prohibition doesn't work, because the people want what they want. If they want to smoke something that is less addictive, and less damaging healthwise and communitywise overall, then why should it be any more illegal than alcohol or nicotine?
But that makes too much sense. Marijuana is damaging to communities. Has nothing to do with the fact that it's illegal and there's a market for it, thus bringing in unsavory types who will sell it.
I've known people whose lives were destroyed by marijuana getting caught with marijuana.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Speaking of things that don't make sense.
Drink more coffee! The world makes much more sense when it is vibrating all around you.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 01:46:41 PM
Drink more coffee! The world makes much more sense when it is vibrating all around you.
First cup's free, huh?
It's all free for me, thanks to YOUR hard earned federal tax dollars. Thank you for being a Good American!
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 01:56:53 PM
It's all free for me, thanks to YOUR hard earned federal tax dollars. Thank you for being a Good American!
Free at my work too for the same reason. So, I guess it balances out. Difference is you don't see me being smug about it.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Could I get you to elaborate on this point?
You guys realize that you're basically giving RWHN a handjob, right?
That's what these threads are. Handjobs for RWHN.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
You guys realize that you're basically giving RWHN a handjob, right?
That's what these threads are. Handjobs for RWHN.
What's wrong with giving handjobs if you enjoy it?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 04:36:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
You guys realize that you're basically giving RWHN a handjob, right?
That's what these threads are. Handjobs for RWHN.
What's wrong with giving handjobs if you enjoy it?
Not a thing. Carry on.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Could I get you to elaborate on this point?
On which point? You need to be more specific.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
You guys realize that you're basically giving RWHN a handjob, right?
That's what these threads are. Handjobs for RWHN.
So is THAT what Dok was going for when he started it?
Ew.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 05:15:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 13, 2013, 04:35:38 PM
You guys realize that you're basically giving RWHN a handjob, right?
That's what these threads are. Handjobs for RWHN.
So is THAT what Dok was going for when he started it?
Ew.
You seemed to enjoy it regardless.
I dunno, I feel kinda dirty now. I need to go get some more coffee.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Could I get you to elaborate on this point?
On which point? You need to be more specific.
That tiny little nugget of content there seems like it contains most of the shit I don't understand about your logic. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that alcohol is more addictive, more toxic, and leads to more aggressive and dangerous behaviors than pot. If you accept that alcohol can be used in moderation by adults in safe settings (which you do, because you drink in moderation yourself), then why is pot magically in another category simply because of legislation? If the law is the only determining factor in what you will and will not do (as you have implied by saying you would stop drinking entirely if it became illegal) why would pot still be evil if it were legalized? How can you sit there saying pot is bad and beer is okay in moderation when you have literally no science to back that up and tons of science that says clearly that alcohol is worse for you than an illegal substance that was most likely improperly categorized? It's not like we've never made mistakes before in categorizing things.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 05:29:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Could I get you to elaborate on this point?
On which point? You need to be more specific.
That tiny little nugget of content there seems like it contains most of the shit I don't understand about your logic. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that alcohol is more addictive, more toxic, and leads to more aggressive and dangerous behaviors than pot. If you accept that alcohol can be used in moderation by adults in safe settings (which you do, because you drink in moderation yourself), then why is pot magically in another category simply because of legislation? If the law is the only determining factor in what you will and will not do (as you have implied by saying you would stop drinking entirely if it became illegal) why would pot still be evil if it were legalized? How can you sit there saying pot is bad and beer is okay in moderation when you have literally no science to back that up and tons of science that says clearly that alcohol is worse for you than an illegal substance that was most likely improperly categorized? It's not like we've never made mistakes before in categorizing things.
I was going to try to type out a sarcastic explanation of RWHN's "logic" here, but I realize now that it's futile to try. There's nothing I can say that would be more comically illogical or morally perverse than RWHN's actual position on the subject.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 05:29:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Could I get you to elaborate on this point?
On which point? You need to be more specific.
That tiny little nugget of content there seems like it contains most of the shit I don't understand about your logic. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that alcohol is more addictive, more toxic, and leads to more aggressive and dangerous behaviors than pot. If you accept that alcohol can be used in moderation by adults in safe settings (which you do, because you drink in moderation yourself), then why is pot magically in another category simply because of legislation? If the law is the only determining factor in what you will and will not do (as you have implied by saying you would stop drinking entirely if it became illegal) why would pot still be evil if it were legalized? How can you sit there saying pot is bad and beer is okay in moderation when you have literally no science to back that up and tons of science that says clearly that alcohol is worse for you than an illegal substance that was most likely improperly categorized? It's not like we've never made mistakes before in categorizing things.
Read the Principia Discordia again. The answer lies within.
So, RWHN, next time I give you shit about not responding to me? This is why. You smarmy fuck.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 05:54:12 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 05:29:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 05:14:08 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 04:20:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
Could I get you to elaborate on this point?
On which point? You need to be more specific.
That tiny little nugget of content there seems like it contains most of the shit I don't understand about your logic. You cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that alcohol is more addictive, more toxic, and leads to more aggressive and dangerous behaviors than pot. If you accept that alcohol can be used in moderation by adults in safe settings (which you do, because you drink in moderation yourself), then why is pot magically in another category simply because of legislation? If the law is the only determining factor in what you will and will not do (as you have implied by saying you would stop drinking entirely if it became illegal) why would pot still be evil if it were legalized? How can you sit there saying pot is bad and beer is okay in moderation when you have literally no science to back that up and tons of science that says clearly that alcohol is worse for you than an illegal substance that was most likely improperly categorized? It's not like we've never made mistakes before in categorizing things.
Read the Principia Discordia again. The answer lies within.
In other words, "You got me there, but rather admit to it, go read this book that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand."
That's what this fucker does. Refuses to acknowledge questions as long as he can and then refuses to answer. Because he can't admit that he's just fucking wrong.
No, the answer is actually there. Pages 49 and 50 might shed some light.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 06:23:37 PM
No, the answer is actually there. Pages 49 and 50 might shed some light.
You could just fucking tell us yourself.
Sorry, I have a speech to write and a retirement party to repare for. Maybe tomorrow.
Uh-huh.
P 49
Quote...spake the Bhudda "I'm a dull fucker, why do you people keep wasting my time"
P50
Quote... And the decree went forth that it was much more important to slap the village idiot than to bother with someone who is actually capable of communication
Shit, he's right this time.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 13, 2013, 07:18:10 PM
P 49
Quote...spake the Bhudda "I'm a dull fucker, why do you people keep wasting my time"
P50
Quote... And the decree went forth that it was much more important to slap the village idiot than to bother with someone who is actually capable of communication
Shit, he's right this time.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 06:34:55 PM
Sorry, I have a speech to write and a retirement party to repare for. Maybe tomorrow.
Finally decided to do the only honorable thing, huh?
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 13, 2013, 06:04:21 PM
So, RWHN, next time I give you shit about not responding to me? This is why. You smarmy fuck.
Don't feel too bad, Gogira. I haven't been able to get a clear answer from him on that point since I started here on the forum, and was all "WOW, a Discordian in Abuse Prevention, that's RAD!" and then a week later disagreed with a single point in his reality-tunnel.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 06:34:55 PM
Sorry, I have a speech to write and a retirement party to repare for. Maybe tomorrow.
Finally decided to do the only honorable thing, huh?
Ha ha ha ha.... no. Sorry, it's not mine.
The reality isn' "it's illegal"... the reality of the situation is much closer to the below.
Quote from: Carlos Danger on November 15, 2009, 04:33:56 PM
Reason #1 why drugs will never get legalized:
It's a carefully controlled ogliopoly. Laws allow for idiots like you (the dear readers of this thread) to be busted, while other, Very Important and Special People do not get busted because they are friends of other Special People (read: SIS, CIA, ASIS, etc) and pass them along bits of gossip and shares of the profit, the latter of which are then diverted into off-the-book operations which are used to Safetify Democracy and Protecticate Freedom, which we all agree is Regrettable But Necessary.
If just anyone could go into the drugs business, profits would drop from both from legalisation itself, and also the increase in competitors. And then puppies would cry, because puppies love freedom and you are undermining it with your selfish and insolent attitude towards the drug trade.
Pro-legalization means pro-upsetting puppies.
(Note: none of this applies if you have your own guerrilla army, like FARC. But you don't. So it does).
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
QuoteSome of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time.
Or as we used to call it, "exam shits".
Living in a building full of chemistry students meant caffeine abuse was inevitable. The pro-plus/red bull slammers certainly had a hell of a kick to them...I thought I was having a heart attack when I tried some.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
And the major forces behind legalization aren't people from the personal freedom crowd. It is people who want to legalize it to make money, to make profit. And when you legalize an addictive substance, and it becomes fueled by making profits, it means you need to constantly grow your user base. You need to get them hooked.
And then you have Joe Camel and alcopops.
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
And the major forces behind legalization aren't people from the personal freedom crowd. It is people who want to legalize it to make money, to make profit. And when you legalize an addictive substance, and it becomes fueled by making profits, it means you need to constantly grow your user base. You need to get them hooked.
And then you have Joe Camel and alcopops.
/
(http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/2102980267_1371488959.jpg)
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
So it's not the principle of the matter, then. It's just how YOU feel about it.
Can't say I'm surprised since it's been obvious for awhile that you don't have any principles.
Sure I do. One of them is to not get worked up about stuff that doesn't matter.
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:41:28 PM
Sure I do. One of them is to not get worked up about stuff that doesn't matter.
/
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6t4cyT0fd1rnseozo1_500.jpg)
People in jail? Lives Ruined? Irrelevant!
You really are a waste of skin.
Drug abuse ruins lives.
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:53:55 PM
Drug abuse ruins lives.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:53:55 PM
Drug abuse ruins lives.
So do prisons.
I just remembered why I'm actually this frustrated with you. It's because you used to be capable of shit like this:
Quote from: The End on May 07, 2012, 10:59:51 AM
Nobody in this thread was "defending" BH, you should probably read the thread more thoroughly before you accuse somebody of something like that. I do think a couple of people, and I'll be a third, were making a point that was essentially, "If BH annoys you/pisses you off/creeps you out, just ignore the fucker"
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, it is remarkably easy to avoid people you don't like or people who rub you the wrong way. That is, if you want to avoid all of that. Though, as is PD tradition, I suspect that maybe subconsciously there is some attraction to the drama. And, in a way, that makes this place remarkably easy to troll. I kind of suspect that the original intent of this thread was an honest interest in discussing the topic, and not trolling half of PD. Yet, it happened anyway, and BH didn't really have to do a whole lot to make it happen.
And trust me, I get it. When Rev. Uncle BadTouch was here, that fucker really creeped me the fuck out. And I think I was extra sensitive to it because I have two young children. And I have to admit, sometimes I did go out of my way to find a way for whatever he posted to offend me so I could get all butthurt and start having a go at him. But, that really was a counterproductive use of my time. The best thing to do, the thing I do now with people I don't like, is just ignore them. If they are following you around that's different, but if they are just posting threads, posting comments in other occassional threads, just put them on the ignore list and just forget about them.
But now YOU are actively trying to attract drama to yourself. YOU are being deliberately obtuse and it's fucking old.
Get your shit together, grow some balls and honestly examine this shit you purport to believe.
I'll get you guys a towel.
It's alright. I'll be licked clean shortly.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 14, 2013, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:53:55 PM
Drug abuse ruins lives.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans)
You don't have to be dead to have your life ruined.
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 08:06:46 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 14, 2013, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:53:55 PM
Drug abuse ruins lives.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans)
You don't have to be dead to have your life ruined.
Yeah, prison and being an ex-con fucking sucks.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 14, 2013, 08:05:25 PM
It's alright. I'll be licked clean shortly.
Yeah, well, you're arguing with middle America. Just saying.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 14, 2013, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 08:06:46 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on August 14, 2013, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:53:55 PM
Drug abuse ruins lives.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/which-drugs-actually-kill-americans)
You don't have to be dead to have your life ruined.
Yeah, prison and being an ex-con fucking sucks.
So does permanently altered brain chemistry. Losing friendships. Having a parent that stopped being a parent because they got lost in drugs.
So those things can only be caused by drugs? Must we regulate everything that could lead to these circumstances? Can you say any of this with a straight face?
Now I've got your attention:
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/988714_614437708589936_1549393573_n.jpg)
Is this still causing undue levels of butthurt?
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 14, 2013, 08:14:45 PM
So those things can only be caused by drugs? Must we regulate everything that could lead to these circumstances? Can you say any of this with a straight face?
Your terminology is incorrect. If we were regulating marijuana it would be legal. I don't want it to be legal.
Everyone should just sit in a room eating saltines until they die. It's the only way to make sure they never get hurt. Actually never mind, salt is also harmful. We should just cryogenically freeze the human race until some aliens find us and save us from ourselves with cleansuits and labotomies.
Quote from: Wolfgang Absolutus on August 14, 2013, 08:35:51 PM
Everyone should just sit in a room eating saltines until they die. It's the only way to make sure they never get hurt. Actually never mind, salt is also harmful. We should just cryogenically freeze the human race until some aliens find us and save us from ourselves with cleansuits and labotomies.
This thread is now perfect.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2013, 08:24:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 14, 2013, 08:08:52 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 14, 2013, 08:05:25 PM
It's alright. I'll be licked clean shortly.
Yeah, well, you're arguing with middle America. Just saying.
Yeah, I'm done here again. I could point out that I'm using the same terminolgy as he is and he's wrong by his own idiot logic, but the only thing I really care about here is the butthurt this seems to cause.
(http://i524.photobucket.com/albums/cc322/fennario99/988714_614437708589936_1549393573_n.jpg)
If anyone can shoop a jester's hat on to that we can call the thread done.
Promise?
Huh, well, nevermind, imgur is not my friend today.
http://www.imgur.com/n5oZHhU.jpeg
That workin'?
Quote from: Alty on August 14, 2013, 09:54:16 PM
Promise?
Huh, well, nevermind, imgur is not my friend today.
http://www.imgur.com/n5oZHhU.jpeg
That workin'?
Workin', yes.
Throw Nixon in there someplace and it'll be PERFECT. :lol:
Quote from: Alty on August 14, 2013, 09:54:16 PM
Promise?
Huh, well, nevermind, imgur is not my friend today.
http://www.imgur.com/n5oZHhU.jpeg
That workin'?
Pretty much sums it up.
THREAD OVER, I WIN, STFU, ALL NIGELS.
ESPECIALLY YOU RWHNIGEL.
Quote from: Alty on August 14, 2013, 10:30:03 PM
THREAD OVER, I WIN, STFU, ALL NIGELS.
ESPECIALLY YOU RWHNIGEL.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
But if their parents can legally purchase them then they are still easily available. You haven't really reduced access by much.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
But if their parents can legally purchase them then they are still easily available. You haven't really reduced access by much.
There's really only one thing left to do. For the children.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
But if their parents can legally purchase them then they are still easily available. You haven't really reduced access by much.
Hmm, you seem to be saying that when parents and adults purchase legal substances then it creates easy access for kids. That is an interesting concept, it's almost like I've heard it before. I think it was a rather dashing spag from here who might have put forth that concept.... Hmm.....
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:25:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
But if their parents can legally purchase them then they are still easily available. You haven't really reduced access by much.
Hmm, you seem to be saying that when parents and adults purchase legal substances then it creates easy access for kids. That is an interesting concept, it's almost like I've heard it before. I think it was a rather dashing spag from here who might have put forth that concept.... Hmm.....
Sooo...You want your children to be alcoholics.
How nice. :lulz:
Look at TGRR dodge and weave.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:40:31 AM
Look at TGRR dodge and weave.
No, you make alcohol more accessible to them.
You want your children to be drunks.
You are a bad father.
So nimble and graceful.
Somehow, RWHN doesn't believe he should be held to his own standard.
I wonder why that is? What makes HIM different?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 01:52:37 AM
Somehow, RWHN doesn't believe he should be held to his own standard.
I wonder why that is? What makes HIM different?
He's a Decision-Maker™.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 01:54:58 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 01:52:37 AM
Somehow, RWHN doesn't believe he should be held to his own standard.
I wonder why that is? What makes HIM different?
He's a Decision-Maker™.
Nooooo...that's not it...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 01:52:37 AM
Somehow, RWHN doesn't believe he should be held to his own standard.
I wonder why that is? What makes HIM different?
This statement is nonsensical.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:57:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 01:52:37 AM
Somehow, RWHN doesn't believe he should be held to his own standard.
I wonder why that is? What makes HIM different?
This statement is nonsensical.
Bullshit. I am applying your standard to you with no hyperbole.
You are a bad parent.
All this butt-hurt because his ex-wife wouldn't let him watch her get plowed by her new boy toy.
Ban BF's for the children.
It's because alcohol is legal!
If pot had always been legal, RWHN would be yelling about how dangerous (insert other drug here) is and how you can't compare it to pot because that's completely irrelevant.
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
Actually, it's all about punishing poor people.
You know, decry the event in the OP, while supporting the mechanism which allowed it to happen.
But he makes alcohol more accessible to his kids. That's somehow
different.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Ergo, you are a bad parent.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 02:21:30 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
Actually, it's all about punishing poor people.
You know, decry the event in the OP, while supporting the mechanism which allowed it to happen.
But he makes alcohol more accessible to his kids. That's somehow different.
Well, HIS kids are middle-class and white. If they got into alcohol it would just be youthful hijinks, not like the diversion and jail time those other kids deserve.
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 02:12:06 AM
All this butt-hurt because his ex-wife wouldn't let him watch her get plowed by her new boy toy.
Ban BF's for the children.
:vom:
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
That's the only conclusion I can come to, based on his "alcohol is okay and also demonstrably more harmful" stance.
Just to point out the logical conclusion that Roger hit upon-
Because of both of my parents there was never any lack of alcohol in the house. I never imbibed alcohol until I was 17 and out of state. I never imbibed any of dad's or mom's alcohol. Mom shared a bottle of wine with me on my 18th birthday (since 18 was the legal age when she was 18, and figured if I can die for my country and vote for politicians, I can drink in her house), but that was more or less it. My parents didn't increase my access. Matter of fact, almost all of my alcohol and drug consumption between 17 and 21 was entirely away from them. Cause, you know, I figured if I drank their shit they would notice.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 02:24:50 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Ergo, you are a bad parent.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
My kids are at absolutely no risk, ergo, you are incorrect good sir.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:55:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 02:24:50 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Ergo, you are a bad parent.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
My kids are at absolutely no risk, ergo, you are incorrect good sir.
Right, because you're Superdad, as you like to point out every time you're not mentioning that you have sex with whomever you're dating at the moment or pointing out that somehow our tax dollars are making you more comfortable.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:55:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 02:24:50 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Ergo, you are a bad parent.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
My kids are at absolutely no risk, ergo, you are incorrect good sir.
So your position is that alcohol isn't harmful?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:00:29 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:55:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 02:24:50 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Ergo, you are a bad parent.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
My kids are at absolutely no risk, ergo, you are incorrect good sir.
So your position is that alcohol isn't harmful?
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 06:23:37 PM
No, the answer is actually there. Pages 49 and 50 might shed some light.
Also, I feel that the irony needs to be pointed out here.
RWHN follows a book written by two drug users, and uses that book to excuse his Aneristic Illusion as to why Prohibition is essential, and why he would be willing to give up something that he enjoys, albeit monthly, if The Man tells him to.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:25:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
But if their parents can legally purchase them then they are still easily available. You haven't really reduced access by much.
Hmm, you seem to be saying that when parents and adults purchase legal substances then it creates easy access for kids. That is an interesting concept, it's almost like I've heard it before. I think it was a rather dashing spag from here who might have put forth that concept.... Hmm.....
Gee, am I really trying to use your own arguements against you? No, I wouldn't possibly get up to such devilish rhetorical tricks, and I am sure you wouldn't get so caught up in someone using one of your arguements that you miss the actual point...well, maybe, depending on if you've had your coffee yet.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 04:31:09 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:25:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 14, 2013, 11:13:12 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 12:57:26 AM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 13, 2013, 10:16:58 PM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 12:32:41 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 13, 2013, 12:24:04 AM
Well, he won't state whether or not he feels that alcohol should be banned, only that the lobbyists (rather than history) make that an unlikely scenario.
The word is impossible. It's a non-starter, not even worth consideration for discussion.
QuoteBecause acknowledging that would force him to say that either his once a month beer night is illegal or conversely that marijuana should be legalized. His one, maybe two, coffee a day addiction might be lost in some legal limbo there.
That doesn't make any sense. Alcohol is legal. If in some magical universe it became illegal again I'd just stop using it, no big deal really. Marijuana should never be legalized.
So if your government decided to criminalize something that you enjoy responsibly you'd just be OK with that?
Wow, you're a real piece of work.
For me personally, alcohol wouldn't be worth a fight. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fight he criminalization of other things. Not drinking alcohol on the rare occassions that I do really wouldn't be a big deal.
Like coffee, presumably.
I have known kids who abused caffeine, in a much more abusey way than the coffee addict with bad kidneys who can't sleep right. They'd chow no doze and get something similar to a speed buzz. Some of them went overboard and experienced explosive diorhea, vomiting, and hallucinations, all at the same time. The grounds to prohibit it are certainly more reasonable than marijuana if we are assuming that prohibition reduces use and we want to keep it away from kids.
I'm all in favor of banning the sales of energy drinks and other high-caffeine products to minors.
But if their parents can legally purchase them then they are still easily available. You haven't really reduced access by much.
Hmm, you seem to be saying that when parents and adults purchase legal substances then it creates easy access for kids. That is an interesting concept, it's almost like I've heard it before. I think it was a rather dashing spag from here who might have put forth that concept.... Hmm.....
Gee, am I really trying to use your own arguements against you? No, I wouldn't possibly get up to such devilish rhetorical tricks, and I am sure you wouldn't get so caught up in someone using one of your arguements that you miss the actual point...well, maybe, depending on if you've had your coffee yet.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
That isn't the question because you know the answer completely undermines who you are—an unquestioning conformist who has based his moral identity around the Controlled Substances Act (which is fundamentally about comparing how dangerous different substances are).
If you seriously entertained that question you might have to admit that the policies you've helped defend have actually led to more harm to society and you'd have to rethink your entire sense of self, your entire sense of worth. Easier to keep pulling the wool over your own eyes, eh?
If this little prohibition song and dance that you do isn't to convince us, perhaps it's to convince yourself?
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2013, 09:59:32 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
That isn't the question because you know the answer completely undermines who you are—an unquestioning conformist who has based his moral identity around the Controlled Substances Act (which is fundamentally about comparing how dangerous different substances are).
If you seriously entertained that question you might have to admit that the policies you've helped defend have actually led to more harm to society and you'd have to rethink your entire sense of self, your entire sense of worth. Easier to keep pulling the wool over your own eyes, eh?
If this little prohibition song and dance that you do isn't to convince us, perhaps it's to convince yourself?
Might have hit upon something there.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:00:29 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:55:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 02:24:50 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 02:23:03 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 02:15:47 AM
So what I'm seeing from RWHN is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "harm", it's entirely about legality.
No, it is about the harm.
Ergo, you are a bad parent.
I fail to see why this is so hard to grasp.
My kids are at absolutely no risk, ergo, you are incorrect good sir.
So your position is that alcohol isn't harmful?
Nope.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:19:17 AM
Quote from: The End on August 13, 2013, 06:23:37 PM
No, the answer is actually there. Pages 49 and 50 might shed some light.
Also, I feel that the irony needs to be pointed out here.
RWHN follows a book written by two drug users, and uses that book to excuse his Aneristic Illusion as to why Prohibition is essential, and why he would be willing to give up something that he enjoys, albeit monthly, if The Man tells him to.
They wrote about concepts that are true whether or not THEY were the ones to describe them, so their personal back stories are irrelevant to the subject matter they described.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 04:31:09 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:25:32 AM
Hmm, you seem to be saying that when parents and adults purchase legal substances then it creates easy access for kids. That is an interesting concept, it's almost like I've heard it before. I think it was a rather dashing spag from here who might have put forth that concept.... Hmm.....
Gee, am I really trying to use your own arguements against you?
Trying was an appropriate word choice because what you described actually backs up what I've been saying all along which is legal drugs in the home create easy access for youth. So you tried, and of course, failed.
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2013, 09:59:32 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
That isn't the question because you know the answer completely undermines who you are—an unquestioning conformist who has based his moral identity around the Controlled Substances Act (which is fundamentally about comparing how dangerous different substances are).
No. That is fundamentally incorrect. There are protocols for determining what schedule an individual drug will fall under, and it is independent of how other drugs are scheduled. A drug is scheduled accordingly to how it meets, or doesn't meet the established guidelines, on the individual merits and characteristics of that drug.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Bad things DO happen.
But not to your or your kids, because you're
special, you're "on top of things" and the Smartest Guy in the Room.
So none of this applies to you. You making alcohol accessible to your kids is okay, because you're "vigilant" and "on top of things", unlike all those stupid people.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:56:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Bad things DO happen.
But not to your or your kids, because you're special, you're "on top of things" and the Smartest Guy in the Room.
So none of this applies to you. You making alcohol accessible to your kids is okay, because you're "vigilant" and "on top of things", unlike all those stupid people.
Also, "marijuana poisoning". :lol: :lol: :lol:
Good thing there's no such thing as ALCOHOL POISONING, right?
You are a bad parent who has convinced himself that he's not a bad parent, because these sorts of things don't apply to him.
Way to go.
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Yep. Special pleading, at the expense of your own children.
Your kids should be taken by CPS. You are clearly an unfit parent.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Shame, cos you're the only fucking person who's listening :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2013, 04:25:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Shame, cos you're the only fucking person who's listening :lulz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
:lulz::potd::lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2013, 04:25:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Shame, cos you're the only fucking person who's listening :lulz:
You do realize you posted this on the 38th page of this thread right?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zing
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2013, 04:25:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Shame, cos you're the only fucking person who's listening :lulz:
You do realize you posted this on the 38th page of this thread right?
But we aren't
listening to you, mostly because everything you say is bullshit that you can't even adhere to.
You have become a sound board for mockery and ridicule.
Congratulations.
You can't respond without listening.
I see that the fine points of "communication" have escaped the Smartest Guy in the Room.
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2013, 09:59:32 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
That isn't the question because you know the answer completely undermines who you are—an unquestioning conformist who has based his moral identity around the Controlled Substances Act (which is fundamentally about comparing how dangerous different substances are).
If you seriously entertained that question you might have to admit that the policies you've helped defend have actually led to more harm to society and you'd have to rethink your entire sense of self, your entire sense of worth. Easier to keep pulling the wool over your own eyes, eh?
If this little prohibition song and dance that you do isn't to convince us, perhaps it's to convince yourself?
I think that's all it's about at this point. He ignores absolutely everything that doesn't fit into his Black Iron Prison.
This seems like a good time to remind the gentle reader that I was supportive of his viewpoint right up until the point where I asked him whether both perspectives might be based in valid evidence, and he unequivocally denied that the decriminalization perspective could have a valid basis.
I mean, how many people have you convinced, RWHN? Let me be clearer on that: How many people have you sold on prohibition on PD, as opposed to how many people you have convinced that prevention is utter crap, and just another way for fanatical punishment freaks to destroy peoples' lives?
Way to go. :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 15, 2013, 04:25:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:20:36 PM
"I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
Shame, cos you're the only fucking person who's listening :lulz:
:lulz:
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:46:55 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:45:58 PM
You can't respond without listening.
:lulz:
That's an extra funny one, because he's been responding to posts he clearly hasn't read at all for YEARS.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:49:11 PM
Quote from: Net on August 15, 2013, 09:59:32 AM
Quote from: The End on August 14, 2013, 07:25:26 PM
See, the deal is, it doesn't matter of thing x is more dangerous, or more addictive, or more whatever than marijuana. Because that isn't the question. Whether or not marijuana should be legal should be based on its own merits as a substance, based on its own qualities. In that respect, for me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to legalize as the impacts of marijuana on youth, on public health, and on society are abundantly clear.
That isn't the question because you know the answer completely undermines who you are—an unquestioning conformist who has based his moral identity around the Controlled Substances Act (which is fundamentally about comparing how dangerous different substances are).
If you seriously entertained that question you might have to admit that the policies you've helped defend have actually led to more harm to society and you'd have to rethink your entire sense of self, your entire sense of worth. Easier to keep pulling the wool over your own eyes, eh?
If this little prohibition song and dance that you do isn't to convince us, perhaps it's to convince yourself?
I think that's all it's about at this point. He ignores absolutely everything that doesn't fit into his Black Iron Prison.
This seems like a good time to remind the gentle reader that I was supportive of his viewpoint right up until the point where I asked him whether both perspectives might be based in valid evidence, and he unequivocally denied that the decriminalization perspective could have a valid basis.
1. Bullshit revisionist history
2. decriminalization =\= legalization (I thought you were supposed to be the smart one)
3. :lulz:
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
Also, "MARIJUANA POISONING!"
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 04:59:09 PM
1. Bullshit revisionist history
AND he's a liar, as can be seen here.
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
I used to think you were a rational thinker immune to bullshit conspiracy theory talking points.
These threads have definitely proved otherwise.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
Also, "MARIJUANA POISONING!"
He's a fart-sniffer... he can't look at or consider any information that comes from outside the "preventionist" (read: authoritarian punishment-freak) community.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:00:34 PM
I used to think you were a rational thinker immune to bullshit conspiracy theory talking points.
What makes THIS particularly funny is that I have based my change of thinking on RHWN's posts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
I'm not, it isn't accessible in my home.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
I'm not, it isn't accessible in my home.
Now you ARE lying. You said, just a week ago or so, that you were having a beer at your house while your children were sleeping.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:00:34 PM
I used to think you were a rational thinker immune to bullshit conspiracy theory talking points.
What makes THIS particularly funny is that I have based my change of thinking on RHWN's posts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Wait, but remember, I'm just a hapless idiot who can barely manage to tie my shoes. So you are saying you are easily swayed in your thinking by morons. You sure you want to go bragging about that?
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:02:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
Also, "MARIJUANA POISONING!"
He's a fart-sniffer... he can't look at or consider any information that comes from outside the "preventionist" (read: authoritarian punishment-freak) community.
We've seen that before. Thinking Garbo, here.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:05:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:00:34 PM
I used to think you were a rational thinker immune to bullshit conspiracy theory talking points.
What makes THIS particularly funny is that I have based my change of thinking on RHWN's posts.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Wait, but remember, I'm just a hapless idiot who can barely manage to tie my shoes. So you are saying you are easily swayed in your thinking by morons. You sure you want to go bragging about that?
Well, if moronic punishment freaks are running prevention, then...YEAH. It's time to scrap the whole damn thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
Mmm, Red Herring is delicious.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
Mmm, Red Herring is delicious.
TRANSLATION: RWHN has no answer.
And he supports a system that results in 2 year olds having their brains bashed out on the floor.
And he does the EXACT SAME THING as the 2 year old's parents were doing.
And he justifies it with THE DAILY MAIL. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
Also, "MARIJUANA POISONING!"
He has made it abundantly clear who "those people" are. They're poor people and single mothers, who "don't care" enough about their children to appropriately monitor them because they're too busy being lazy ne-er-do-wells misprioritizing things like paying rent and buying food. It is perfectly obvious that those kids need to be punished, for their own good, amirite? :lol:
Plus AMERICA, FUCK YEAH because the prison industrial complex won't be profitable without the tireless work of Preventionists™ like RWHN, doing his part to make sure owning or using marijuana plants remains a crime.
4 THA CHILLUNS.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:08:04 PM
He has made it abundantly clear who "those people" are. They're poor people and single mothers, who "don't care" enough about their children to appropriately monitor them because they're too busy being lazy ne-er-do-wells misprioritizing things like paying rent and buying food. It is perfectly obvious that those kids need to be punished, for their own good, amirite? :lol:
Plus AMERICA, FUCK YEAH because the prison industrial complex won't be profitable without the tireless work of Preventionists™ like RWHN, doing his part to make sure owning or using marijuana plants remains a crime.
4 THA CHILLUNS.
Precisely. And what's a few dead children, when you're protecting the children? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
I'm not, it isn't accessible in my home.
Now you ARE lying. You said, just a week ago or so, that you were having a beer at your house while your children were sleeping.
Yes, so unless they started sleepwalking, the alcohol I was consuming was quite inaccessible to them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:07:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:06:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
Mmm, Red Herring is delicious.
TRANSLATION: RWHN has no answer.
There was no question.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:09:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
I'm not, it isn't accessible in my home.
Now you ARE lying. You said, just a week ago or so, that you were having a beer at your house while your children were sleeping.
Yes, so unless they started sleepwalking, the alcohol I was consuming was quite inaccessible to them.
The girl in the article was sleeping when the couple in question were smoking.
BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT.
And having weed in the house AT ALL is "accessible", but you having your beer is not.
You are a bad father.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
Good point.
So, I can't help thinking that since RWHN single-handedly, as he likes to tell us, gave pivotal testimony and engineered the campaign to keep marijuana from being legalized in Maine, from here on out every time a child is removed from parental custody on the basis of their marijuana use is a direct consequence of his actions. Every time each of those children is raped, molested, neglected, or killed in their foster home, the moral responsibility lies directly on his shoulders.
Bet he gets off on it.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
So, I can't help thinking that since RWHN single-handedly, as he likes to tell us, gave pivotal testimony and engineered the campaign to keep marijuana from being legalized in Maine, from here on out every time a child is removed from parental custody on the basis of their marijuana use is a direct consequence of his actions. Every time each of those children is raped, molested, neglected, or killed in their foster home, the moral responsibility lies directly on his shoulders.
Bet he gets off on it.
Those lazy poor people have to LEARN.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:09:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:04:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:03:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:59:52 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
The one thing of value that has come from these threads is this: I used to think that "prevention" was a good use of resources. Now I understand that it's just another way of keeping CCA's pockets nice and full, because "prevention" is just "prohibition in a funny dress". It's the Volstead Act rebranded. Only this, and nothing more.
Yeah, it's just another avenue for getting cops into schools and sending "undesirables" to prison.
Anyone involved in "drug prevention" is a de facto racist, classist piece of shit.
Yep. And the latter is patently obvious from RHWN's claim that HE isn't putting HIS kids at risk by making alcohol accessible, but OTHER people are. And I think I can guess who those other people are.
I'm not, it isn't accessible in my home.
Now you ARE lying. You said, just a week ago or so, that you were having a beer at your house while your children were sleeping.
Yes, so unless they started sleepwalking, the alcohol I was consuming was quite inaccessible to them.
The girl in the article was sleeping when the couple in question were smoking.
BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT.
And having weed in the house AT ALL is "accessible", but you having your beer is not.
You are a bad father.
But the DIFFERENCE IS
THE DIFFERENCE
Is that alcohol is LEGAL.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
Child: Daddy you're hurting me
RWHN: I must kill you, or the marijuana will
*RWHN gets the key to city*
He completely ignored the national stats I posted concerning foster-care abuse, including Maine's numbers.
There's a reason for that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
He completely ignored the national stats I posted concerning foster-care abuse, including Maine's numbers.
There's a reason for that.
It doesn't fit inside his prison, the cell is too small and the bars are too close together.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
When I was back up around Morenci,
every single parent of a child busted for drugs said the same thing.
But your kids are DIFFERENT.
And the other side of that is, you don't mind seeing 2 year olds get murdered, because they aren't your own kids.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
He completely ignored the national stats I posted concerning foster-care abuse, including Maine's numbers.
There's a reason for that.
It doesn't fit inside his prison, the cell is too small and the bars are too close together.
Or he just doesn't care. Which I think is far more likely.
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:18:30 PM
Child: Daddy you're hurting me
RWHN: I must kill you, or the marijuana will
*RWHN gets the key to city*
More like "We have to put you in this one-house rape/murder camp because your parents were BAD."
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
So, I can't help thinking that since RWHN single-handedly, as he likes to tell us, gave pivotal testimony and engineered the campaign to keep marijuana from being legalized in Maine, from here on out every time a child is removed from parental custody on the basis of their marijuana use is a direct consequence of his actions. Every time each of those children is raped, molested, neglected, or killed in their foster home, the moral responsibility lies directly on his shoulders.
Bet he gets off on it.
Do you get off on all of the kids who's lives become irrevocably disrupted because of their drug addiction? By your logic, YOU are morally responsible for that. Which means you are responsible for high drop-out rates and lowered productivity.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
He completely ignored the national stats I posted concerning foster-care abuse, including Maine's numbers.
There's a reason for that.
Now who's lying?
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:22:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
So, I can't help thinking that since RWHN single-handedly, as he likes to tell us, gave pivotal testimony and engineered the campaign to keep marijuana from being legalized in Maine, from here on out every time a child is removed from parental custody on the basis of their marijuana use is a direct consequence of his actions. Every time each of those children is raped, molested, neglected, or killed in their foster home, the moral responsibility lies directly on his shoulders.
Bet he gets off on it.
Do you get off on all of the kids who's lives become irrevocably disrupted because of their drug addiction? By your logic, YOU are morally responsible for that. Which means you are responsible for high drop-out rates and lowered productivity.
You kill kids.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
He completely ignored the national stats I posted concerning foster-care abuse, including Maine's numbers.
There's a reason for that.
Now who's lying?
I posted them. You ignored them. Liar.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Be careful. You're coming dangerously close to actually supplying information. Whatever you do, don't give us a link so we can see where the numbers came from.
I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. Also it's not actually trolling if people are having fun calling you an idiot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:20:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
He completely ignored the national stats I posted concerning foster-care abuse, including Maine's numbers.
There's a reason for that.
It doesn't fit inside his prison, the cell is too small and the bars are too close together.
Or he just doesn't care. Which I think is far more likely.
Yeah, well.
They're just the poor. They need to be taught a lesson or two, by people who know better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:23:03 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:22:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:17:11 PM
So, I can't help thinking that since RWHN single-handedly, as he likes to tell us, gave pivotal testimony and engineered the campaign to keep marijuana from being legalized in Maine, from here on out every time a child is removed from parental custody on the basis of their marijuana use is a direct consequence of his actions. Every time each of those children is raped, molested, neglected, or killed in their foster home, the moral responsibility lies directly on his shoulders.
Bet he gets off on it.
Do you get off on all of the kids who's lives become irrevocably disrupted because of their drug addiction? By your logic, YOU are morally responsible for that. Which means you are responsible for high drop-out rates and lowered productivity.
You kill kids.
I have never actively campaigned, let alone taken responsibility for, any laws either legalizing nor prohibiting marijuana.
RWHN takes credit for keeping marijuana criminal in Maine.
I think everyone but him can see the moral difference there.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
They are way into health and don't see how inhaling and holding hot, carcnogenic smoke is antithetical to heath? So you hang out with morons?
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
They are way into health and don't see how inhaling and holding hot, carcnogenic sm
Sentence ended funny. Are you drunk
right now?
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction.
Yep. It's more along the lines of "to save the children, we must ruin their lives with diversion, which has no records except those accessed by potential employers because of forklifts".
Which is to say, punishment because they didn't LISTEN to RWHN.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
They are way into health and don't see how inhaling and holding hot, carcnogenic sm
Sentence ended funny. Are you drunk right now?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Drunk, or a moron.
If RWHN actually smoked pot he wouldn't be such a unbearable piece of shit, and his wife would have stayed with him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
No, Nigel's friend.
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:44:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
They are way into health and don't see how inhaling and holding hot, carcnogenic sm
Sentence ended funny. Are you drunk right now?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Drunk, or a moron.
Drunk on moronic juice.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
No, Nigel's a friend I wish I had.
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
If RWHN actually smoked pot he wouldn't be such a unbearable piece of shit, and his wife would have stayed with him.
My ex-wife would be a serious down-grade.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
No, Nigel's friend.
Yeah, that's what I said. An MPH, rather than a policy wonk.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
If RWHN actually smoked pot he wouldn't be such a unbearable piece of shit, and his wife would have stayed with him.
My ex-wife would be a serious down-grade.
From your imaginary GF?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
They are way into health and don't see how inhaling and holding hot, carcnogenic sm
Sentence ended funny. Are you drunk right now?
Seltzer doesn't contain alcohol silly.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
If RWHN actually smoked pot he wouldn't be such a unbearable piece of shit, and his wife would have stayed with him.
My ex-wife would be a serious down-grade.
Of course. You're the best Maine has to offer.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
Ahem:
(http://i.imgur.com/n5oZHhU.jpeg)
Carry on.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:40:18 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 05:31:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:18:23 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
The dead girl in the OP was only 2.
And apparently his daughter doesn't count, because, well, in RWHN's world females don't HAVE agency.
You said "kids start smoking". I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of that. I'm not very worried about my daughter. She's a vert strong-minded young lady and is all about making safe and healthy choices. She doesn't even drink soda. She knows what I do for work and understands why I do it. We talk and check-in a lot which automatically puts her in a good position.
I know a lot of people who are way into health and won't touch soda.
Or alcohol.
Most of them do weed, though. :lulz:
They are way into health and don't see how inhaling and holding hot, carcnogenic sm
Sentence ended funny. Are you drunk right now?
Seltzer My butthurt doesn't contain alcohol silly.
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:47:12 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
No, Nigel's a friend I wish I had.
Oh god no. I'd rather hang out with my crazy ex-mother-in-law.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:50:23 PM
Oh god no. I'd rather hang out with my crazy ex-mother-in-law.
Wait. The one that "agreed with you" about your ex-wife?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
No, Nigel's friend.
Yeah, that's what I said. An MPH, rather than a policy wonk.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
It's not like she's dedicated her life to
actual harm reduction starting when she was interning in clinics on Haight 20 years ago, or anything.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
Let's recap:
The Daily Mail is a reputable source.
MPHs have no training.
The NIH doesn't know what it's talking about.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:51:10 PM
It's not like she's dedicated her life to actual harm reduction starting when she was interning in clinics on Haight 20 years ago, or anything.
Well, we have to stack that up against RWHN's favored source.
The Daily Mail.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:47:50 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
No, Nigel's friend.
Yeah, that's what I said. An MPH, rather than a policy wonk.
MPHs are good program coordinators. It's the MPPs that get shit done.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
MPHs are good program coordinators.
Without training? How interesting.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
If RWHN actually smoked pot he wouldn't be such a unbearable piece of shit, and his wife would have stayed with him.
My ex-wife would be a serious down-grade.
From your imaginary GF?
Guess I have a very vivid and sensory-inducing imagination.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
MPHs are good program coordinators.
Without training? How interesting.
Program Coordination is kind of like the assembly floor of this field. You need the big guns to do the higher level planning.
Yeah, looks like bullshit to me: http://www.oregonmph.org/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
Let's recap:
The Daily Mail is a reputable source.
MPHs have no training.
The NIH doesn't know what it's talking about.
Also cancer patients want access to carcinogens for therapeutic reasons.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:58:40 PM
Yeah, looks like bullshit to me: http://www.oregonmph.org/
Yeah, I knew he was talking out of his ass.
It's funny to watch him dig himself a hole, though.
MPH'S HAVE NO TRAINING. :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
MPHs are good program coordinators.
Without training? How interesting.
Program Coordination is kind of like the assembly floor of this field. You need the big guns to do the higher level planning.
MPPs are parasites. You've bragged about it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:55:57 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:55:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:48:10 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:47:42 PM
Quote from: Heavy Metal Jacket Wearing Bear With Mind Lasers on August 15, 2013, 05:45:34 PM
If RWHN actually smoked pot he wouldn't be such a unbearable piece of shit, and his wife would have stayed with him.
My ex-wife would be a serious down-grade.
From your imaginary GF?
Guess I have a very vivid and sensory-inducing imagination.
I guess so.
I think that henceforth, I'll be referring to her as "Casperina".
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?
I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:01:35 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
MPHs are good program coordinators.
Without training? How interesting.
Program Coordination is kind of like the assembly floor of this field. You need the big guns to do the higher level planning.
MPPs are parasites. You've bragged about it.
I guess I'm wondering exactly how he reconciles this:
http://oregonmph.org/content/health-management-policy-psu
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?
I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?
Did you even read it? The article primarily addresses environmental issues but also makes mention of the "claims" that it also reduces drug abuse.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:07:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:01:35 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
MPHs are good program coordinators.
Without training? How interesting.
Program Coordination is kind of like the assembly floor of this field. You need the big guns to do the higher level planning.
MPPs are parasites. You've bragged about it.
I guess I'm wondering exactly how he reconciles this:
http://oregonmph.org/content/health-management-policy-psu
Well contrast this with:
Spending your tax money eating dinner and drinking beer in Austin, lol.Clearly, MPPs are necessary for this sort of thing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:09:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?
I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?
Did you even read it? The article primarily addresses environmental issues but also makes mention of the "claims" that it also reduces drug abuse.
Yes.
Down near the bottom under "save a flush", it says:
QuoteOnly certain drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be flushed down the toilet or drain. These include drugs deemed to be "especially harmful to a child, pet, or anyone else if taken accidentally," according to the agency's "Information for Consumers (Drugs)" webpage.
I find it vastly amusing that RWHN didn't know that.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:09:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?
I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?
Did you even read it? The article primarily addresses environmental issues but also makes mention of the "claims" that it also reduces drug abuse.
I did read it. "makes mention" isn't exactly rigorous study.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The
voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
His own state's program says the really hairy stuff goes down the sink.
He didn't know that.
How interesting.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:12:44 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:09:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?
I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?
Did you even read it? The article primarily addresses environmental issues but also makes mention of the "claims" that it also reduces drug abuse.
Yes.
Down near the bottom under "save a flush", it says:
QuoteOnly certain drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be flushed down the toilet or drain. These include drugs deemed to be "especially harmful to a child, pet, or anyone else if taken accidentally," according to the agency's "Information for Consumers (Drugs)" webpage.
I find it vastly amusing that RWHN didn't know that.
Sorry, when I said "you" I should have said "he". Obviously, YOU read it. HE, equally obviously, didn't.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:07:17 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:05:40 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:56:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:49:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 05:44:23 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
NOTHING about what he preaches is based in harm reduction. NOTHING. Even the take-back programs are of dubious utility.
WOW, did your MPH friend tell you that?
Oh, you mean the person with actual TRAINING?
JESUS FUCK, IT'S RIGHT ON THE NIH WEBPAGE ABOUT TAKE-BACK PROGRAMS
OMG OMG OMG
REALLY?
I smell ownage in the air, here.
Can you link to this, so we can all enjoy RWHN's ignorance, right after he claimed an MPH isn't trained?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866706/
Uh, you DO realize this article is talking about the efficacy as pertains to the impact on the environment right?
You DO realize the program calls for the dangerous (healthwise) drugs to go down the sink, right?
I mean, you HAVE read Maine's plan, haven't you?
Yes. I'm well aware of that. But my concern is the impact on drug abuse. There are other people involved in this looking at the environmental impact. That is not my responsibility.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
I don't think he knows any MPHs.
I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.
Just to reiterate the available evidence, based on actual studies and not "shit the DEA told me":
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Oh.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
I don't think he knows any MPHs.
I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.
I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker. :lulz:
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
I don't think he knows any MPHs.
I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.
I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker. :lulz:
Well, I post a lot, and I work full time.
But this whole thing of referring to himself as a "big gun"...:lol:
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
I don't think he knows any MPHs.
I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.
I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker. :lulz:
I guess TGRR must be a part-time employee too then eh? Brilliant logic Nigel!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:24:33 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
I don't think he knows any MPHs.
I DO love the whole "I HAVE TONS OF STAFF AND I DIRECT MPHs BECAUSE I'M THE BIG GUNS" bit, given that he does in fact work for some dinky county-level nonprofit.
I'm not totally convinced he works full-time, given that he spends all day, every day on PD posting about being a policy-maker. :lulz:
Well, I post a lot, and I work full time.
But this whole thing of referring to himself as a "big gun"...:lol:
You're a maintenance manager. The time you spend posting doesn't detract from the time you spend fixing shit. You're either fixing shit, or you're waiting for shit to break.
He has the type of job that doesn't, or at least shouldn't, have hours and hours of daily downtime. Every post he writes here on work time comes directly out of his productivity. Sort of like how I SHOULD totally be doing homework right now, and every post I make here is time NOT DOING HOMEWORK.
Which, if you think about it, perfectly explains why he knows so little about research in the field he purports to work in. He spends all his time posting here, instead of doing his homework.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
It must be exhausting, managing all those silly MPHs with their frivolous degrees.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.
Silly man.
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
:potd:
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:30:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.
Silly man.
That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.
So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:30:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.
Silly man.
That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.
So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.
Wait, "has been part of it" or "runs it"? :?
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:33:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:30:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.
Silly man.
That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.
So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.
Wait, "has been part of it" or "runs it"? :?
I think he's claiming that his county nonprofit has its own program. Not sure, though. His stories never stay the same.
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
:lulz:
"We have top men working on it."
"Who?"
"Top.....men."
It occurs to me that, knowing where he works, it would be easy to look up exactly how many MPHs he supervises. Not that I care enough to actually do that, but. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:34:25 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:33:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:30:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
He runs "the most successful take-back program in the state". :lulz:
"The most successful" based on a measurement that is of unproven relevance.
And he doesn't even know the state program.
I guess it's from overwork brought on by managing the small army of MPHs that work for a county non-profit.
I know the state program because I've been part of the state task force.
Silly man.
That makes your ignorance of the basic tenets of the program all the more astounding.
So I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.
Wait, "has been part of it" or "runs it"? :?
I think he's claiming that his county nonprofit has its own program. Not sure, though. His stories never stay the same.
I wonder if he means the failing one that he's been "called in to save", or another one.
So, recapping again:
1. The Daily Mail is a reputable source and the NIH isn't.
2. It is not necessary to know the most basic facts about a policy which you claim to have had a hand in.
3. MPPs are more trained in health issues than MPHs.
4. Kids dying in foster homes is okay if they're poor, and that sort of thing only happens in Texas, anyway.
5. Making substances accessible to kids is okay if they're health-conscious.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:36:39 PM
I wonder if he means the failing one that he's been "called in to save", or another one.
:lulz:
You know, you'd expect the arriving hero to have read the file.
I see that he's too busy supervising those unruly MPHs to post any research that indicates that drug take-back programs reduce prescription drug abuse.
It's like herding cats, those MPHs. Leave them alone long enough and they start eating paint chips and legalizing marijuana.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:39:11 PM
I see that he's too busy supervising those unruly MPHs to post any research that indicates that drug take-back programs reduce prescription drug abuse.
IT WAS DOCUMENTED. CAN'T YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL? SHOWING PEOPLE THE DOCUMENTATION IS NOT REQUIRED. THE DOCUMENTS VALIDATE THEMSELVES.
QuoteIt's like herding cats, those MPHs. Leave them alone long enough and they start eating paint chips and legalizing marijuana.
Yep. If only they were trained!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:40:30 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:39:11 PM
I see that he's too busy supervising those unruly MPHs to post any research that indicates that drug take-back programs reduce prescription drug abuse.
IT WAS DOCUMENTED. CAN'T YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL? SHOWING PEOPLE THE DOCUMENTATION IS NOT REQUIRED. THE DOCUMENTS VALIDATE THEMSELVES.
QuoteIt's like herding cats, those MPHs. Leave them alone long enough and they start eating paint chips and legalizing marijuana.
Yep. If only they were trained!
YEP. THIS WORKS. IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE ON THIS MEMO I SENT OUT SAYING THAT IT WORKS. DOCUMENTED, BAM.
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
When he finds some tenuous link, he's going to triumphantly return to post it along with some story about how he had to go to a meeting or was yanked away by some other important Policymaker™ obligation.
Or maybe he's finally realized that spending four hours of productive time each day posting on the internet is basically stealing from the non-profit he's supposed to be working for. Which, given what they do, I am 100% in favor of.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
When he finds some tenuous link, he's going to triumphantly return to post it along with some story about how he had to go to a meeting or was yanked away by some other important Policymaker? obligation.
Or a superparent sex machine.
Incidentally did you know that rwhn has sex? I know im impressed with this information.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 07:00:49 PM
Or maybe he's finally realized that spending four hours of productive time each day posting on the internet is basically stealing from the non-profit he's supposed to be working for. Which, given what they do, I am 100% in favor of.
It's all that managing. One must rest one's weary body and relax by, uh, maintaining a connection to something really important to him, Discordia, by triumpantly being better than us for the whole world to see. It soothes his restless, weighted shoulders.
Like Atlas, our WHN, he wants only a reprieve from his solemn duty to make sure people with comprehensive health educations dont get rowdy.
I can't believe i valued this guy's opinion once. Fooooolish.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
I doubt that. His history of backing up his claims (or rather, not backing up his claims) is pretty consistent. In fact, it's one of the only two consistent things about him. Cognitive dissonance being the other one.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 07:03:25 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
When he finds some tenuous link, he's going to triumphantly return to post it along with some story about how he had to go to a meeting or was yanked away by some other important Policymaker? obligation.
Or a superparent sex machine.
Incidentally did you know that rwhn has sex? I know im impressed with this information.
OH YEAH, THAT
FILE UNDER
(http://blog.financialplannerprogram.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/GoodtoKnow.gif)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
I doubt that. His history of backing up his claims (or rather, not backing up his claims) is pretty consistent. In fact, it's one of the only two consistent things about him. Cognitive dissonance being the other one.
I don't think he experiences cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a precursor to intellectual growth.
I think his dissonancer is broken.
(http://www.imgur.com/qBIr4YG.jpeg)
That working?
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2013, 07:18:50 PM
(http://www.imgur.com/qBIr4YG.jpeg)
That working?
Oh shit. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2013, 07:18:50 PM
(http://www.imgur.com/qBIr4YG.jpeg)
That working?
:lulz:
How about Prometheus, with Big Marijuana eating his liver?
Still wondering how he copes, mentally, with dismissing this as "untrained":
http://oregonmph.org/content/health-management-policy-psu
That being the exact degree my friend has. Said friend having been in the field for many many more years than RWHN. Also, this is the degree he tried to lead the entire board on that he had, and only now has started dismissing it as "untrained" because we found out what his actual degree is.
Pretty sure she earns well more than twice what he does, too. With her "untrained" badass self. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:27:27 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2013, 07:18:50 PM
(http://www.imgur.com/qBIr4YG.jpeg)
That working?
:lulz:
How about Prometheus, with Big Marijuana eating his liver?
(http://www.imgur.com/H5YhKHo.jpeg)
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 07:31:22 PM
Still wondering how he copes, mentally, with dismissing this as "untrained":
http://oregonmph.org/content/health-management-policy-psu
That being the exact degree my friend has. Said friend having been in the field for many many more years than RWHN. Also, this is the degree he tried to lead the entire board on that he had, and only now has started dismissing it as "untrained" because we found out what his actual degree is.
Pretty sure she earns well more than twice what he does, too. With her "untrained" badass self. :lol:
Your friend disagrees with him. Rather than provide evidence to support his argument, he instead has decided that MPHs are untrained or ill-trained lab monkeys
that cannot function without an MPP.See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway_(terminology)
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:52:44 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 04:31:09 AM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:25:32 AM
Hmm, you seem to be saying that when parents and adults purchase legal substances then it creates easy access for kids. That is an interesting concept, it's almost like I've heard it before. I think it was a rather dashing spag from here who might have put forth that concept.... Hmm.....
Gee, am I really trying to use your own arguements against you?
Trying was an appropriate word choice because what you described actually backs up what I've been saying all along which is legal drugs in the home create easy access for youth. So you tried, and of course, failed.
That was the arguement I used yes. You didn't seem interested in exploring the implications as far as caffeine is concerned though. As to whether it's a valid arguement or not, the only indication that it is is that I used it, but I tend to prefer to let other people lay out the assumptions and then see what conclusions can be reached. It is usually easier than trying to debate assumptions especcially with people like you who won't even read linked information that contradicts his assumptions.
So back to what I actually said, according to your asumptions about regulation restricting sale of high caffeine products to adults would not actually keep them out of the hands of children, so why do you support a measure that would not actually help? (or, perhaps more specifically, why do you support that measure as far as caffeine is concerned but not as far as marijuana is)
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Except that nobody has ever been accidentally poisoned by marijuana ever. Leaving out laced weed, which we can assume would be very uncommon when received from a licensed source.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
So it'll probably be at least 10 years...
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Except that nobody has ever been accidentally poisoned by marijuana ever. Leaving out laced weed, which we can assume would be very uncommon when received from a licensed source.
No, but kids become addicted to it, which I would call a bad thing happening.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
So it'll probably be at least 10 years...
Nope. It won't happen at all.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:53:51 PM
No, but kids become addicted to it, which I would call a bad thing happening.
:lulz:
Oh, shit. The kid got into the medicine cabinet while we weren't looking and now he's
ADDICTED TO MARIJUANA!
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:54:37 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 08:31:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 05:02:22 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 05:00:29 PM
I do kind of hope he sticks around for another five years because the inevitable meltdown when his kids start smoking pot is going to be amazing.
Well, my son is only 3, so that seems pretty far-fetched.
So it'll probably be at least 10 years...
Nope. It won't happen at all.
Of course not. Just like preacher's daughters never go haywire. :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
I doubt that. His history of backing up his claims (or rather, not backing up his claims) is pretty consistent. In fact, it's one of the only two consistent things about him. Cognitive dissonance being the other one.
No, I was busy proofreading one of the other staff person's news articles after the MPH she went to told her she'd be better off coming to me.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:56:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
I doubt that. His history of backing up his claims (or rather, not backing up his claims) is pretty consistent. In fact, it's one of the only two consistent things about him. Cognitive dissonance being the other one.
No, I was busy proofreading one of the other staff person's news articles after the MPH she went to told her she'd be better off coming to me.
Well, sure. If you're generating bullshit, go talk to an MPP. They have the time and the inclination.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Except that nobody has ever been accidentally poisoned by marijuana ever. Leaving out laced weed, which we can assume would be very uncommon when received from a licensed source.
No, but kids become addicted to it, which I would call a bad thing happening.
So presumably you are also opposed to adults having unrestricted access to World of Warcraft.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:56:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
I doubt that. His history of backing up his claims (or rather, not backing up his claims) is pretty consistent. In fact, it's one of the only two consistent things about him. Cognitive dissonance being the other one.
No, I was busy proofreading one of the other staff person's news articles after the MPH she went to told her she'd be better off coming to me.
To dive into that a little. Proofreading is correcting for spelling, grammar, and typos. Anyone with a decent grasp of English can do it but it tends to take time and attention to detail. Who better to spend time on something like that, a master of public health, who could be spending their time actually working on health related issues, or a master of public policy, who really doesn't have the skills to do anything more important?
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 09:25:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Except that nobody has ever been accidentally poisoned by marijuana ever. Leaving out laced weed, which we can assume would be very uncommon when received from a licensed source.
No, but kids become addicted to it, which I would call a bad thing happening.
So presumably you are also opposed to adults having unrestricted access to World of Warcraft.
Nope
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 10:56:23 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 09:25:08 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 15, 2013, 08:28:48 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 15, 2013, 03:05:01 AM
His kids would never drink his beer, Roger. It's all those other people's marijuana smoking that puts their kids at risk. Kids know not to drink beer or wine, or fucking 151. That weed though. No, they just can't resist that shit. If parents have weed around, those kids will smoke it down to every last roach.
My daughter won't even drink soda, in fact, other than a few sips when she was really young, she's never had soda. But I also closely monitor what goes on in my home. I rarely have beer in the house when the kids are home with me, but I also know my daughter, who is only 9, knows better. She knows alcohol is not for kids and is only an adult thing, She also knows the harm it causes.
But the thing is, there are many, many parents who aren't as diligent and on top of things as I am. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact that kids will experiment with what is most easily obtainable. It's why Rx abuse is a big issue because they don't need to go to a dealer on the street. They just need to go into their bathroom, or maybe Mom's purse. Same with any unsecured alcohol in the home and it certainly would be the same with legal marijuana. It's already the case with "legal" [size=78%]medical marijuana. There is no denying this.[/size]
Yes, I see. Special pleading. YOUR kids won't be affected by the accessabilty of alcohol, it's all those OTHER kids who are affected by accessability of any given substance. And since not all parents are such paragons of virtue, bad things will happen.
Got it.
You hilarious hypocrite.
Bad things DO happen. According to the CDC, the number one source of accidental poisonings of kids is prescription drugs, more than any other household poison or product. Over 64% of teens who abuse prescription painkillers get them from someone they know, including parents and other adults, often by taking them without permission. There is no legitimate reason to believe that legal marijuana could somehow be immune to this.
Except that nobody has ever been accidentally poisoned by marijuana ever. Leaving out laced weed, which we can assume would be very uncommon when received from a licensed source.
No, but kids become addicted to it, which I would call a bad thing happening.
So presumably you are also opposed to adults having unrestricted access to World of Warcraft.
Nope
But kids become addicted to it...
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2013, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:27:27 PM
Quote from: Alty on August 15, 2013, 07:18:50 PM
(http://www.imgur.com/qBIr4YG.jpeg)
That working?
:lulz:
How about Prometheus, with Big Marijuana eating his liver?
(http://www.imgur.com/H5YhKHo.jpeg)
Quoted because they need to be on this page, too. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:18:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:14:14 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:06:29 PM
Watching an MPP calling an MPH untrained is like watching Donald Rumsfeld tell generals how to run a war.
You're funny. Of course they get training. The grad school I went to just started an MPH program. There are MPHs in my office. I'm only questioning the voracity of Nigel's friends training. Given the ideas she seems to have that are antithetical to evidence-based public health theories.
The voracity of her training? What?
And you have never offered any evidence outside of DEA publications, which are not at all biased and funding-driven.
So I think you're full of shit.
I don't think he's familiar with MPH programs outside of whatever it is that's offered by the Mumford & Sons Maine College of Obscurity or wherever it is he went.
I highly doubt any MPHs move TO Maine to work in whatever twopenny nonprofit he works for.
The Nancy Reagan Just Say No Club?
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
:spittake:
You won't see it of course.
RWHN won't put his money where his mouth is. There's cocaine residue on that shit.
Calling it, 120 pages.
Quote from: The Johnny on August 16, 2013, 07:18:51 AM
Calling it, 120 pages.
And I was working up to another round of coffee addiction mockery. Thanks, Johnny. :evilmad:
Can't we just have a thread where we mock RWHN mercilessly and not actually have it be about drugs but for the pure joy of pointing out what an arsehole he is? I mean, at this point the drug issue is only a facilitator, since that's the most obvious moronic thing he clings to because it's his uniform, so that's obviously going to be the focus but goddammit that's not why I like mocking him. Calling it ruins it. I'm out until the next one.
Why not try giving the piece of shit the one thing he doesn't want? He doesn't come here for thought provoking conversation, or because he likes any of us, he comes back to be a disruption because he's a spiteful child who doesn't just take his ball and go home, he comes back without it and makes everyone miserable, because he hasn't had enough attention. Roger had it right, he's just BH with an obsession over a different method of control.
Just stop giving him that attention. Stop trying to get the last word in. Stop trying to make him feel bad - it might be working, but it might also be giving him vindictive pleasure and all the reason he needs in his own mind to keep this bullshit up. BH eventually went away nd then was banned recently for outing a troll?), this moron will too if you just leave it alone. Don't be all "pledge!", either (see what happened last time), just DO it.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2013, 07:52:01 AM
Why not try giving the piece of shit the one thing he doesn't want? He doesn't come here for thought provoking conversation, or because he likes any of us, he comes back to be a disruption because he's a spiteful child who doesn't just take his ball and go home, he comes back without it and makes everyone miserable, because he hasn't had enough attention. Roger had it right, he's just BH with an obsession over a different method of control.
Just stop giving him that attention. Stop trying to get the last word in. Stop trying to make him feel bad - it might be working, but it might also be giving him vindictive pleasure and all the reason he needs in his own mind to keep this bullshit up. BH eventually went away nd then was banned recently for outing a troll?), this moron will too if you just leave it alone. Don't be all "pledge!", either (see what happened last time), just DO it.
I lifted Pledge because of Delcon. Then it was fun again. But nevermind. It's not about getting the last word in because there's never a last word with this guy, and it's impossible to make him feel bad or even make him acknowledge how goddamn hypocritical it is. Doesn't even matter if he's a troll.
Sometimes it's just fun to hit a punching bag. It's good practice. But when someone points out that you're just hitting a sack of sand it loses its fun.
-shrug- Have fun, then.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2013, 08:01:20 AM
-shrug- Have fun, then.
I'll try. It really is a good exercise in logic. Actually you'll be surprised where your mind goes sometimes if you forget that you're going up against something that won't change. If anything, I've rethought some positions based on some of this.
Arguing against RWHN might seem like racing in the Special Olympics, but it is good self-analysis and reevaluation.
When I argue, it's because I think I'm right and hope to at least have the other party understand where I'm coming from. If I know that the other party is hostile and Will Not Budge, even thinking about arguing gives me a headache if I don't move on, so I don't understand where you're coming from at all.
Then again, I'm not particularly smart or perceptive or something, so I'm not good at arguing anyway. I would rather be wrong and admit it than to be right and argue my position, in fact
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2013, 08:11:34 AM
When I argue, it's because I think I'm right and hope to at least have the other party understand where I'm coming from. If I know that the other party is hostile and Will Not Budge, even thinking about arguing gives me a headache if I don't move on, so I don't understand where you're coming from at all.
Then again, I'm not particularly smart or perceptive or something, so I'm not good at arguing anyway. I would rather be wrong and admit it than to be right and argue my position, in fact
I would disagree with the smart and perceptive part.
And I know what I'm getting into with RWHN. I know that he won't yield, or even acknowledge any point. That bit helps me figure out where I stand, because there is some still some grey area with me, and talking to a wall makes me wonder what my walls are. And if RWHN gives me a headache, I'll just stop. I'm cool with admitting that I'm wrong too, and that's part of arguing with him too. Not because he's right, but because I can see, funny enough, where I agree with him.
For example, I think that marijuana prohibition is wrong. How does that extend to other addictions now, and why? Where are my lines?
Believe it or not, asshead has given me a bit to think about, and none of it has to do with weed, since my mind's made up on that.
Well, there's that I guess.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 16, 2013, 07:34:13 AM
Can't we just have a thread where we mock RWHN mercilessly and not actually have it be about drugs but for the pure joy of pointing out what an arsehole he is? I mean, at this point the drug issue is only a facilitator, since that's the most obvious moronic thing he clings to because it's his uniform, so that's obviously going to be the focus but goddammit that's not why I like mocking him. Calling it ruins it. I'm out until the next one.
Hey, knock yourself out, I don't see how my PredictionOfDoom interferes in any way.
Arguing with me on this can be a good exercise, especially if you actually tru to have a semblance of an open mind. Before we had these drug threads, pretty much everyone assumed that if you are a Discordian, it must meant you had a set of pre-defined beliefs when it comes to drugs and drug policy. I broke the mold baby.
And you know what, back then I did budge minds. No one who went in pro-legalization came out anti-legalization, but I would regularly get PMs from people saying, "well I dont completely agree with you, BUT, I had never thought of x before."
In my career, I've read and studies a lot about marijuana and its impacte on kids and communities. I don't think y'all realize just how much that is. It is a huge body of stuff that tells me legalization would be bad for youth in society and society itself. I don't change my mind because to date none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 07:31:22 PM
Still wondering how he copes, mentally, with dismissing this as "untrained":
http://oregonmph.org/content/health-management-policy-psu
That being the exact degree my friend has. Said friend having been in the field for many many more years than RWHN. Also, this is the degree he tried to lead the entire board on that he had, and only now has started dismissing it as "untrained" because we found out what his actual degree is.
Pretty sure she earns well more than twice what he does, too. With her "untrained" badass self. :lol:
Your friend disagrees with him. Rather than provide evidence to support his argument, he instead has decided that MPHs are untrained or ill-trained lab monkeys that cannot function without an MPP.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway_(terminology)
I didn't know that term existed, but it is a perfect match.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2013, 07:52:01 AM
Why not try giving the piece of shit the one thing he doesn't want? He doesn't come here for thought provoking conversation, or because he likes any of us, he comes back to be a disruption because he's a spiteful child who doesn't just take his ball and go home, he comes back without it and makes everyone miserable, because he hasn't had enough attention. Roger had it right, he's just BH with an obsession over a different method of control.
Just stop giving him that attention. Stop trying to get the last word in. Stop trying to make him feel bad - it might be working, but it might also be giving him vindictive pleasure and all the reason he needs in his own mind to keep this bullshit up. BH eventually went away nd then was banned recently for outing a troll?), this moron will too if you just leave it alone. Don't be all "pledge!", either (see what happened last time), just DO it.
For me, it has become all about the fact that he spends an inordinate amount of time here, which means he's not doing anything "productive" for his employer. Well, he did proofread a document yesterday, so I guess that's something. Something that should probably have been an intern's job, but still something.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on August 16, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
It's not only an insane demand, it's also a hypocritical one. He certainly can't provide any evidence that criminalization is completely benign, and if that's the threshold, it should clearly not be criminal.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on August 16, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
Not to mention the hilarious double standard.
Can RWHN bring the data to show that existing policy is completely benign? :lulz:
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
When he finds some tenuous link, he's going to triumphantly return to post it along with some story about how he had to go to a meeting or was yanked away by some other important Policymaker™ obligation.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:56:59 PM
No, I was busy proofreading one of the other staff person's news articles after the MPH she went to told her she'd be better off coming to me.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
The MPH is right, that would have been a waste of her precious time.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/16/20054773-christie-gives-conditional-ok-to-broader-medicinal-marijuana-use?lite
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2013, 09:34:24 PM
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/16/20054773-christie-gives-conditional-ok-to-broader-medicinal-marijuana-use?lite
Pretty awesome. One of the saddest side effects of criminalization has been the severe restrictions on medical research, let alone availability of marijuana for people whom it is an inexpensive and effective treatment. Epileptic children in particular.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on August 16, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
It makes no sense to make a policy change that worsens conditions.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 16, 2013, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2013, 07:52:01 AM
Why not try giving the piece of shit the one thing he doesn't want? He doesn't come here for thought provoking conversation, or because he likes any of us, he comes back to be a disruption because he's a spiteful child who doesn't just take his ball and go home, he comes back without it and makes everyone miserable, because he hasn't had enough attention. Roger had it right, he's just BH with an obsession over a different method of control.
Just stop giving him that attention. Stop trying to get the last word in. Stop trying to make him feel bad - it might be working, but it might also be giving him vindictive pleasure and all the reason he needs in his own mind to keep this bullshit up. BH eventually went away nd then was banned recently for outing a troll?), this moron will too if you just leave it alone. Don't be all "pledge!", either (see what happened last time), just DO it.
For me, it has become all about the fact that he spends an inordinate amount of time here, which means he's not doing anything "productive" for his employer. Well, he did proofread a document yesterday, so I guess that's something. Something that should probably have been an intern's job, but still something.
I'm salaried, which means:
A). My job isn't confined to the normal 8-5 business day. I do a lot of work at night and on weekends as well
B). I'm not confined to a 40 hour work week. I'm usually doing about 50 hours of work a week
C). I'm damn good at my job. I am one of the most productive people in my line of work which is why people come to me for advice on how to get stuff done.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 16, 2013, 03:23:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on August 16, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
It's not only an insane demand, it's also a hypocritical one. He certainly can't provide any evidence that criminalization is completely benign, and if that's the threshold, it should clearly not be criminal.
That isn't the way it works. The law is already the law. We're talking about changing law.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 16, 2013, 03:26:11 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:58:44 PM
He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".
When he finds some tenuous link, he's going to triumphantly return to post it along with some story about how he had to go to a meeting or was yanked away by some other important Policymaker™ obligation.
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 08:56:59 PM
No, I was busy proofreading one of the other staff person's news articles after the MPH she went to told her she'd be better off coming to me.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
The MPH is right, that would have been a waste of her precious time.
I was proofreading for content as well, which was outside of the expertise of the MPH.
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:17:45 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 16, 2013, 03:21:02 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on August 16, 2013, 07:52:01 AM
Why not try giving the piece of shit the one thing he doesn't want? He doesn't come here for thought provoking conversation, or because he likes any of us, he comes back to be a disruption because he's a spiteful child who doesn't just take his ball and go home, he comes back without it and makes everyone miserable, because he hasn't had enough attention. Roger had it right, he's just BH with an obsession over a different method of control.
Just stop giving him that attention. Stop trying to get the last word in. Stop trying to make him feel bad - it might be working, but it might also be giving him vindictive pleasure and all the reason he needs in his own mind to keep this bullshit up. BH eventually went away nd then was banned recently for outing a troll?), this moron will too if you just leave it alone. Don't be all "pledge!", either (see what happened last time), just DO it.
For me, it has become all about the fact that he spends an inordinate amount of time here, which means he's not doing anything "productive" for his employer. Well, he did proofread a document yesterday, so I guess that's something. Something that should probably have been an intern's job, but still something.
I'm salaried, which means:
A). My job isn't confined to the normal 8-5 business day. I do a lot of work at night and on weekends as well
B). I'm not confined to a 40 hour work week. I'm usually doing about 50 hours of work a week
C). I'm damn good at my job. I am one of the most productive people in my line of work which is why people come to me for advice on how to get stuff done.
Wait, so being salaried means that you're good at your job? :lulz:
Hello Requia
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:15:08 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on August 16, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
It makes no sense to make a policy change that worsens conditions.
Stopping prosecutions over marijuana improves conditions. Your stantard is bullshit.
More kids using worsens conditions.
Your standard sucks.
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:48:14 PM
More kids using worsens conditions.
Your standard sucks.
Kids with ruined lives over a bit of pot sucks.
You are a monster.
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
He's damn good at proofreading.
Hmm, 50 hours a week... what's that break down to, about $14/hour?
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 16, 2013, 10:56:41 PM
He's damn good at proofreading.
Hmm, 50 hours a week... what's that break down to, about $14/hour?
Not even close.
Thank you again for paying your taxes.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 16, 2013, 10:56:41 PM
He's damn good at proofreading.
Hmm, 50 hours a week... what's that break down to, about $14/hour?
I bet he's one of those people who describes himself as "making good money for Maine".
Which is what we say in Maine when we know we're not really making shit.
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:35:22 PM
Hello Requia
So you are saying that the bit about being good at your job was a non sequitur that you just threw in because you'd gone 4 or 5 posts without bragging about something? Because I really wouldn't have put it past you to actually believe that attaining a salaried position was a sign of your success and importance. Sort of like how I was when I finally got a salaried position as an assistant manager for Godfather's Pizza when I was 20.
I don't judge people's value by their income, I just love that he's all "I'm such a bigshot and way above all of you plebes because of my big important salaried job" and you know that if we actually use that barometer he isn't going to come up looking very impressive.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:15:08 PM
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on August 16, 2013, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign.
That is the threshold. Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.
You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!
It makes no sense to make a policy change that worsens conditions.
you never said it worsened conditions, you said it was not completely benign. The current situation is far from benign.
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:48:14 PM
More kids using worsens conditions.
Your standard sucks.
And again, why aren't you fighting against easy access to caffeine, which when abused leads to FAR worse reactions than marijuana? It's also more addictive than marijuana, physically and mentally. I'd bet use by teens is higher than marijuana use too. Probably far higher since many high schools have vending machines in the hallways which vend caffeine containing drinks. Of course, it's kind of hard to fight against abuse of a drug that you are yourself addicted to isn't it?
note, by when abused I mean the taking it to vomiting or shitting yourselves levels. Two things that weed cannot make you do.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 17, 2013, 03:12:25 AM
I don't judge people's value by their income, I just love that he's all "I'm such a bigshot and way above all of you plebes because of my big important salaried job" and you know that if we actually use that barometer he isn't going to come up looking very impressive.
:lulz:
I ALSO HAVE A SALARIED JOB.
I ALSO WORK 50+ HOURS PER WEEK.
However, I am under no illusions that this means I am "good" at what I do for a living. I am, but it has nothing to do with the salary. It only means it's easier for the accountants that way, since they don't have to calculate pesky shit like "overtime" or "FMLA benefits".
RWHN has a salaried position at a quasi-government agency. In related news, my professional experience has generally demonstrated that the only organizations more full of ineffective dinosaurs than government agencies, are quasi-government agencies.
RWHN's like that one drunk at the bar that just never shuts up. You know, the one that goes "ARRRAWRAWR HORK SPIT FUCKIN POTHEADS ARRRRAWR HAYBABY I GOT SALRY HORK SPIT ARRR RAWRRR..."
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 17, 2013, 03:12:25 AM
I don't judge people's value by their income, I just love that he's all "I'm such a bigshot and way above all of you plebes because of my big important salaried job" and you know that if we actually use that barometer he isn't going to come up looking very impressive.
:lulz:
I have a big important job that I little pay for and no recognition. RWHN most certainly makes more money than I do, and does more work per week than I do.
But you know, epidemiology. Some poor bastard has to do the grunt work to figure out what makes us sick and die. His job is to keep one fairly benign form of entertainment illegal while indulging in a more harmful and addictive form of entertainment when the moon is full.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 17, 2013, 03:22:57 AM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:48:14 PM
More kids using worsens conditions.
Your standard sucks.
And again, why aren't you fighting against easy access to caffeine, which when abused leads to FAR worse reactions than marijuana? It's also more addictive than marijuana, physically and mentally. I'd bet use by teens is higher than marijuana use too. Probably far higher since many high schools have vending machines in the hallways which vend caffeine containing drinks. Of course, it's kind of hard to fight against abuse of a drug that you are yourself addicted to isn't it?
note, by when abused I mean the taking it to vomiting or shitting yourselves levels. Two things that weed cannot make you do.
He would totally kick his crippling addiction to one maybe two coffees if it were made illegal. He said so himself about his shitty beer indulgence. Because he believes in the correctness of banning substances regardless of addictive effect or lack thereof, and toxicity, or lack thereof. Sure he might have to resort to going to weekly meetings where they masturbate furiously in public because there's no addiction to replace your previous addiction, but that's a small price to pay.
Guess the alkies will have to give up the joe and go back to the bar.
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
I figured out what RWHN really does for a living.
http://clientsfromhell.net/page/2
Quote"The website should essentially be about the negative effects of drugs, the dark side, you know, the horrible truth of addiction and desperation. And, also; I want a picture of Gandalf on there somewhere."
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on August 17, 2013, 06:34:10 AM
I figured out what RWHN really does for a living.
http://clientsfromhell.net/page/2
Quote"The website should essentially be about the negative effects of drugs, the dark side, you know, the horrible truth of addiction and desperation. And, also; I want a picture of Gandalf on there somewhere."
Star Wars reference, but make it LOTR.
Wacky Tobacky bad, Beer good.
Yeah, mismatch seems about right.
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/webfiles/images/journals/jmcp/jmcp_ft88_9_1.pdf
Careful, RWHN. Escalating your coffee "addiction" increases your risk of all-cause mortality until you turn 55.
Twid,
probably fucked.
Well, almost all cause:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15622975.2013.795243
You're currently, with your consumption MORE at risk for committing suicide.
Twid,
Ain't going to do it directly.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 17, 2013, 03:12:25 AM
I don't judge people's value by their income, I just love that he's all "I'm such a bigshot and way above all of you plebes because of my big important salaried job" and you know that if we actually use that barometer he isn't going to come up looking very impressive.
:lulz:
I don't judge peoples' value by their income but I'm perfectly happy to point out to those that DO that it usually doesn't cast them in as positive a light as they think it does. :lulz:
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS link=topic=35161.msg1287958#msg1287958 date=b]1376753984[/b]]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAvpus3.gif)
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 17, 2013, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS link=topic=35161.msg1287958#msg1287958 date=b]1376753984[/b]]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAvpus3.gif)
(http://www.tenebrousmagazine.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skeleton-computer.jpg)
I'm glad you guys are able to keep this thread going without me, as I am currently in a remote part of Maine, on vacation.
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 08:34:12 PM
I'm glad you guys are able to keep this thread going without me, as I am currently in a remote part of Maine, on vacation.
There is no part of Maine that is not remote.
Not so remote than RWHN can't check in on this thread using his phone, though!
Quote from: Cain on August 17, 2013, 08:40:44 PM
Not so remote than RWHN can't check in on this thread using his phone, though!
He lives for this thread. :lulz:
Also, what sort of "remote part" gets cell reception? :lol:
Busy not totally having sex, I see.
Hell, half of the "civilized" parts of Maine don't have cell reception. Definitely none of the actual remote parts do.
He's probably at Sebago or Popham, valiantly fighting off some troublesome seagulls and wondering how people even survive in the wild lands on the other side of the Kennebec River.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 17, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
Hell, half of the "civilized" parts of Maine don't have cell reception. Definitely none of the actual remote parts do.
He's probably at Sebago or Popham, valiantly fighting off some troublesome seagulls and wondering how people even survive in the wild lands on the other side of the Kennebec River.
Roughing it LIKE A BOSS.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 16, 2013, 07:34:13 AM
Can't we just have a thread where
you have to fill out the form first.
Quote from: Cain on August 17, 2013, 08:40:44 PM
Not so remote than RWHN can't check in on this thread using his phone, though!
I knew you would be checking up on me, I left that little nugget for you. ;)
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
Busy not totally having sex, I see.
That post was 3 1/2 hours ago.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 17, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
Hell, half of the "civilized" parts of Maine don't have cell reception. Definitely none of the actual remote parts do.
He's probably at Sebago or Popham, valiantly fighting off some troublesome seagulls and wondering how people even survive in the wild lands on the other side of the Kennebec River.
I'm very far on he other side of the Kennebec, too far away from the ocean for sea gulls.
I'm sure Cain will tell you where I am since he likes to keep tabs on me. :)
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 17, 2013, 10:50:33 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 17, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
Hell, half of the "civilized" parts of Maine don't have cell reception. Definitely none of the actual remote parts do.
He's probably at Sebago or Popham, valiantly fighting off some troublesome seagulls and wondering how people even survive in the wild lands on the other side of the Kennebec River.
Roughing it LIKE A BOSS.
While I am very far north I am staying in a pretty nice hotel. Breakfast was quite yummy.
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:55:25 PM
I'm sure Cain will tell you where I am since he likes to keep tabs on me. :)
Yeah, it's not like I see your IP address
next to your post or anything. :lol:
Like I said, he likes to keep tabs on me.
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2013, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:55:25 PM
I'm sure Cain will tell you where I am since he likes to keep tabs on me. :)
Yeah, it's not like I see your IP address next to your post or anything. :lol:
No, you shut up. Obviously this fiendishly clever (and handsome) devil ensnared you in his trap by leaving just enough information to make you reveal that you're stalking him.
Quote from: Cain on August 18, 2013, 12:14:20 AM
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:55:25 PM
I'm sure Cain will tell you where I am since he likes to keep tabs on me. :)
Yeah, it's not like I see your IP address next to your post or anything. :lol:
You stalker, you! :lol:
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 16, 2013, 10:51:24 PM
Quote from: The End on August 16, 2013, 10:48:14 PM
More kids using worsens conditions.
Your standard sucks.
Kids with ruined lives over a bit of pot sucks.
Doesn't happen
Happens all the time. I have provided linked examples. You then deny that it ever happens.
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:53:34 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
Busy not totally having sex, I see.
That post was 3 1/2 hours ago.
He keeps track of the time since he posted last.
LAME. :lulz:
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
It's really very simple.
Doing drugs = ruined life
Safe from drugs = life not ruined.
TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
Quote from: stelz on August 18, 2013, 02:28:09 AM
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:53:34 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
Busy not totally having sex, I see.
That post was 3 1/2 hours ago.
He keeps track of the time since he posted last.
LAME. :lulz:
Simple math, how does it work?
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 18, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
It's really very simple.
Doing drugs = ruined life
Safe from drugs = life not ruined.
TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
Other exciting things that totally do not ruin lives:
- Decades-long incarceration for minor drug offenses
- Permanent records classifying someone as a DIRTY CRIMINAL
- Inability to gain employment due to said records
- Living life according to oversimplified and unscientific RWHN-brand "Ideals"
It is also worth noting that, every time someone brings up the point that alcohol is perfectly legal yet more harmful in every measurable way than marijuana, RWHN dodges by claiming "well that's the way the law is written, and I'm not trying to make the world perfect, just trying to keep it from getting worse."
HOWEVER, those existing laws which RWHN is not interested in changing are the very laws which lead to the types of "totally not ruining lives" situations I listed above. When THESE are brought up, RWHN's response (if he bothers to give one) is "I advocate for [diversion/therapy/etc], not harsh criminal penalties for young small-time offenders."
Which is it, RWHN? Do you want to preserve the legal status quo, or do you want to improve it? You can't claim both of those things and remain logically consistent.
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 18, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
It's really very simple.
Doing drugs = ruined life
Safe from drugs = life not ruined.
TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
Other exciting things that totally do not ruin lives:
- Decades-long incarceration for minor drug offenses
- Permanent records classifying someone as a DIRTY CRIMINAL
- Inability to gain employment due to said records
- Living life according to oversimplified and unscientific RWHN-brand "Ideals"
It is also worth noting that, every time someone brings up the point that alcohol is perfectly legal yet more harmful in every measurable way than marijuana, RWHN dodges by claiming "well that's the way the law is written, and I'm not trying to make the world perfect, just trying to keep it from getting worse."
HOWEVER, those existing laws which RWHN is not interested in changing are the very laws which lead to the types of "totally not ruining lives" situations I listed above. When THESE are brought up, RWHN's response (if he bothers to give one) is "I advocate for [diversion/therapy/etc], not harsh criminal penalties for young small-time offenders."
Which is it, RWHN? Do you want to preserve the legal status quo, or do you want to improve it? You can't claim both of those things and remain logically consistent.
He doesn't do logical consistency.
I'm trying to think of what a non-ruined life looks like. Does it look like Ther American Dream? Is it basically what RWHN has acheived?
Is it when you've hit rock bottom? What does rock bottom look like? How does rock bottom happOH RIGHT THIS ISN'T A DISCUSSION WITH DIRECTION OR PURPOSE.
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even
music.
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
Smooth jazz is to music what policy makers are to helpful, positive contributing members of society.
They both pretend to be good at what they do, and for some reason people buy into it, but it's just nonsensical fiddle faddle white people do because they don't know any better.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 06:32:17 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
Smooth jazz is to music what policy makers are to helpful, positive contributing members of society.
They both pretend to be good at what they do, and for some reason people buy into it, but it's just nonsensical fiddle faddle white people do because they don't know any better.
:lulz:
Quote from: stelz on August 18, 2013, 02:28:09 AM
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:53:34 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
Busy not totally having sex, I see.
That post was 3 1/2 hours ago.
He keeps track of the time since he posted last.
LAME. :lulz:
Or quite possibly counting the time lapse in between incidences of coitus which is pretty damn weird.
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 18, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
It's really very simple.
Doing drugs = ruined life
Safe from drugs = life not ruined.
TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
Other exciting things that totally do not ruin lives:
- Decades-long incarceration for minor drug offenses
- Permanent records classifying someone as a DIRTY CRIMINAL
- Inability to gain employment due to said records
- Living life according to oversimplified and unscientific RWHN-brand "Ideals"
It is also worth noting that, every time someone brings up the point that alcohol is perfectly legal yet more harmful in every measurable way than marijuana, RWHN dodges by claiming "well that's the way the law is written, and I'm not trying to make the world perfect, just trying to keep it from getting worse."
HOWEVER, those existing laws which RWHN is not interested in changing are the very laws which lead to the types of "totally not ruining lives" situations I listed above. When THESE are brought up, RWHN's response (if he bothers to give one) is "I advocate for [diversion/therapy/etc], not harsh criminal penalties for young small-time offenders."
Which is it, RWHN? Do you want to preserve the legal status quo, or do you want to improve it? You can't claim both of those things and remain logically consistent.
Can you even prove that any of the alternatives you are talking about are completely perfect? If not I don't see how you can consider them "harm reduction".
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
You two are obviously terrorists who are trying to assist Cain in his diabolical stalking plan.
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 18, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
It's really very simple.
Doing drugs = ruined life
Safe from drugs = life not ruined.
TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
Other exciting things that totally do not ruin lives:
- Decades-long incarceration for minor drug offenses
- Permanent records classifying someone as a DIRTY CRIMINAL
- Inability to gain employment due to said records
- Living life according to oversimplified and unscientific RWHN-brand "Ideals"
It is also worth noting that, every time someone brings up the point that alcohol is perfectly legal yet more harmful in every measurable way than marijuana, RWHN dodges by claiming "well that's the way the law is written, and I'm not trying to make the world perfect, just trying to keep it from getting worse."
HOWEVER, those existing laws which RWHN is not interested in changing are the very laws which lead to the types of "totally not ruining lives" situations I listed above. When THESE are brought up, RWHN's response (if he bothers to give one) is "I advocate for [diversion/therapy/etc], not harsh criminal penalties for young small-time offenders."
Which is it, RWHN? Do you want to preserve the legal status quo, or do you want to improve it? You can't claim both of those things and remain logically consistent.
You are, of course, wrong. Legalization will lead to more access to youth and lead to more use and addiction. So that is a non-starter. PLUS, legalization would leave it illegal for minors, so you do nothing to change the issues with financial aid, employability, etc.
However, within the current structure one can advocate for changes in consequences. Diversion, reforming student aid rules and laws, etc., etc.
That is the way to go and is perfectly, logically consistent.
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
Uh, you're an Opeth fan. Which is only marginally better than metalcore and In Flames fans.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 06:32:17 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
Smooth jazz is to music what policy makers are to helpful, positive contributing members of society.
They both pretend to be good at what they do, and for some reason people buy into it, but it's just nonsensical fiddle faddle white people do because they don't know any better.
Oh wow, you might want to actually do a little more research. Smooth Jazz is definitely NOT exclusively a white genre. Not that I would expect you to know any better.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 18, 2013, 07:30:59 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 18, 2013, 02:28:09 AM
Quote from: The End on August 17, 2013, 11:53:34 PM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 09:10:44 PM
Busy not totally having sex, I see.
That post was 3 1/2 hours ago.
He keeps track of the time since he posted last.
LAME. :lulz:
Or quite possibly counting the time lapse in between incidences of coitus which is pretty damn weird.
Almost as weird as people posting and positing about the sex lives of others.
You and Stella have nothing better to do with your lives?
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 17, 2013, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS link=topic=35161.msg1287958#msg1287958 date=b]1376753984[/b]]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAvpus3.gif)
(http://www.tenebrousmagazine.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skeleton-computer.jpg)
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 18, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 17, 2013, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS link=topic=35161.msg1287958#msg1287958 date=b]1376753984[/b]]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAvpus3.gif)
(http://www.tenebrousmagazine.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skeleton-computer.jpg)
:mind ray:
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 11:41:36 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
Uh, you're an Opeth fan. Which is only marginally better than metalcore and In Flames fans.
Coming from a smooth jazz fan who dabbles in being a fluffer for the establishment, this means a lot to me.
ITT: RWHN once again asserts that more children will become addicted to pot with no relevant evidence should it become legal for adults (relevant evidence would be increased youth usage in states where it has been legalized); promotes "diversion" despite the fact that we all bloody well know that means "nice kids get a slap on the wrist and forever have the man over their shoulder preventing them from taking the risks necessary to make the world suck less, brown kids go directly to jail"; and continues to ignore the hypocracy of safely consuming moderate amounts of alcohol while penalizing the safe consumption of moderate amounts of marijuana. Nothing changes, ever.
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 18, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 17, 2013, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS link=topic=35161.msg1287958#msg1287958 date=b]1376753984[/b]]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAvpus3.gif)
(http://www.tenebrousmagazine.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skeleton-computer.jpg)
:mind ray:
(http://www.designofsignage.com/application/symbol/hands/image/600x600/hand-point-up-1.jpg)
RWHN'S "DOCUMENTATION" :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 06:32:17 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:42:05 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 05:21:35 AM
I should have known better than to take WHN seriously once i found out he listens to smooth jazz. I've never known anyone who likes that shit and also isn't a total dick.
SMOOTH JAZZ? Are you fcking shitting me? That isn't even music.
Smooth jazz is to music what policy makers are to helpful, positive contributing members of society.
They both pretend to be good at what they do, and for some reason people buy into it, but it's just nonsensical fiddle faddle white people do because they don't know any better.
Oh wow, you might want to actually do a little more research. Smooth Jazz is definitely NOT exclusively a white genre. Not that I would expect you to know any better.
:butthurt:
I'm sorry, please go on. You were saying how awesome smooth jazz is. How those long, totslly not gay saxaphone solos make lady parts quiver in a 35 mile radius? How it's not just a shamless hackneyed pissed on excuse for a musical genre that white people put on the radio because it's safe and sterile.
You know what smooth jazz musicians aren't doing, though, you know, don't quote me on this, it's not a peer reviewed opinion, they sure arnt smoking ang weed or anything else that might resemble something moderately cool, fun, or exciting.
Apropos of extreme idiocy: one wonders if smooth jazz would exist at all if it werent for, you know, a bunch of pot smoking musicians who gained poularity so fast that they drew the eyes and ears of a whole nation, in part prompting marijuana prohibition?
God can you please stop saying smooth jazz. Those words make me gag. They're like moist cankles.
:lulz:
Ive also heard it referred to as money jazz.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 06:36:49 PM
:lulz:
Ive also heard it referred to as money jazz.
All I can see is this:
(http://kidneycancerchronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/6-fat-man.jpg)
Fuck cankle jazz. Look at this (http://twentytwowords.com/2013/07/29/hillbilly-dancing-to-aretha-franklin-with-a-fat-raccoon/).
The correct terminology is contemporary jazz.
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 06:28:52 PM
I'm sorry, please go on. You were saying how awesome smooth jazz is. How those long, totslly not gay saxaphone solos make lady parts quiver in a 35 mile radius? How it's not just a shamless hackneyed pissed on excuse for a musical genre that white people put on the radio because it's safe and sterile.
You know what smooth jazz musicians aren't doing, though, you know, don't quote me on this, it's not a peer reviewed opinion, they sure arnt smoking ang weed or anything else that might resemble something moderately cool, fun, or exciting.
What is "ang weed"?
"contemporary jazz"?
PROTIP: anytime you find yourself listening to any genre of music with the word "contemporary" in it, just go hang yourself. :lulz:
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
"contemporary jazz"?
PROTIP: anytime you find yourself listening to any genre of music with the word "contemporary" in it, just go hang yourself. :lulz:
Says the In Flames fan.
Not that I would expect anything else from a guy who thinks that My Dying Bride is the height of metal. :lulz:
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
I bet you liked Winger and Extreme when everyone else liked Motley Crue and Guns N Roses.
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:27 PM
I bet you liked Winger and Extreme when everyone else liked Motley Crue and Guns N Roses.
All four were junk. I was into Savatage, Tesla, and Badlands.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
Devin Townsend is way more metal than In Flames could ever hope to be.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.
Dude you bring up how you totally have sex with your girlfriend like some kid who just lost his virginity as if it were somehow relevant to the conversation instead of doing something like providing your documentation. You deserve to be mocked for that.
Actually, I haven't done that at all.
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.
Of course I am.
And, AA, before you go furiously searching through the thread may I remind you of this:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/61.php
Seriously, reactions are so predictable around here. I knew you would see the Pentagon.
Right which is why we know that your girlfriend is quite familiar with the inside of your house.
Also, y'all are wildly inconsistent. You want to mock me for posting about having sex with my GF (which I haven't actually done) AND also say that my GF doesn't exist.
Which of course just goes to show the level of unthinking, knee-jerk butt-hurt at play. Which is what continues to make this thread so amusing and fun for me.
It's an excellent case study in Grey Face-ism.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 18, 2013, 11:50:56 PM
Right which is why we know that your girlfriend is quite familiar with the inside of your house.
Again, you are only choosing to see the Pentagon.
There is another pretty good explanation for how someone could be very familiar with the inside of a home that doesn't involve sex. Let's see who can come up with it.
Ok so youre not getting laid after all and im seeing pentagons instead of the documentation you mentioned.
I also said nothing about not getting laid.
Look past the Pentagons.
I can understand why you might want to change the subject now.
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 11:37:57 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 18, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: Alty on August 18, 2013, 02:01:23 AM
I would like to understand just what a "ruined life" consists of.
I dont know why, but i do.
It's really very simple.
Doing drugs = ruined life
Safe from drugs = life not ruined.
TOTALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, TRY TO FOLLOW ALONG.
Other exciting things that totally do not ruin lives:
- Decades-long incarceration for minor drug offenses
- Permanent records classifying someone as a DIRTY CRIMINAL
- Inability to gain employment due to said records
- Living life according to oversimplified and unscientific RWHN-brand "Ideals"
It is also worth noting that, every time someone brings up the point that alcohol is perfectly legal yet more harmful in every measurable way than marijuana, RWHN dodges by claiming "well that's the way the law is written, and I'm not trying to make the world perfect, just trying to keep it from getting worse."
HOWEVER, those existing laws which RWHN is not interested in changing are the very laws which lead to the types of "totally not ruining lives" situations I listed above. When THESE are brought up, RWHN's response (if he bothers to give one) is "I advocate for [diversion/therapy/etc], not harsh criminal penalties for young small-time offenders."
Which is it, RWHN? Do you want to preserve the legal status quo, or do you want to improve it? You can't claim both of those things and remain logically consistent.
You are, of course, wrong. Legalization will lead to more access to youth and lead to more use and addiction. So that is a non-starter. PLUS, legalization would leave it illegal for minors, so you do nothing to change the issues with financial aid, employability, etc.
However, within the current structure one can advocate for changes in consequences. Diversion, reforming student aid rules and laws, etc., etc.
That is the way to go and is perfectly, logically consistent.
Sort of like you, your kids, and beer.
:lulz:
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Actually im not changing the subject at all since the documentation you refuse to provide was part of the same post about mocking you for alluding to your sex life which may or may not exist.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 12:31:51 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.
Now whos seeing pentagons?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:30:57 AM
Actually im not changing the subject at all since the documentation you refuse to provide was part of the same post about mocking you for alluding to your sex life which may or may not exist.
S t r e t c h
Anyway, I have to say I find it amusing that in pretty much every drug thread I've been in someone decides to somehow work my sex life into the thread. It's a little odd and it kind of creeps me out a bit. I'd be curious as to why you guys feel the need to go there. What does it say about the group?
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 18, 2013, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 06:32:03 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 17, 2013, 05:54:42 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS link=topic=35161.msg1287958#msg1287958 date=b]1376753984[/b]]
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 17, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: stelz on August 17, 2013, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 10:52:13 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 16, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on August 15, 2013, 11:08:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: stelz on August 15, 2013, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:28:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 15, 2013, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: The End on August 15, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 15, 2013, 06:15:06 PM
The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks
Your characterization is incorrect. I run the most successful take back program in the state. Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety. And we know our program works. We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion. We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.
Documented, you say?
Let's see it.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/filepicker%2FBX2cMy0LSsuw1DG6tlpg_tumbleweed.gif)
HE'S SHITTY AT PROOFREADING TOO. HE CAN'T EVEN SEE THIS.
Well, he did call them "drubs" upthread instead of "drugs."
He won't respond to this because the "documentation" he refers to upthread doesn't exist; he's lying. As usual, he's a giant lying liar.
I provided documentation, RWHN; you gonna step up?
Oh yeah. I figured as much. Lying authoritarian punishment freaks don't usually have anything but false "authority" to back up their claims.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAvpus3.gif)
(http://www.tenebrousmagazine.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skeleton-computer.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 12:31:51 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.
Now whos seeing pentagons?
The endless riffing on the bad coffee joke wasn't encouraged by group dynamics?
Texas Police Hit Organic Farm With Massive SWAT Raidhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
QuoteMembers of the local police raiding party had a search warrant for marijuana plants, which they failed to find at the Garden of Eden farm. But farm owners and residents who live on the property told a Dallas-Ft. Worth NBC station that the real reason for the law enforcement exercise appears to have been code enforcement. The police seized "17 blackberry bushes, 15 okra plants, 14 tomatillo plants ... native grasses and sunflowers," after holding residents inside at gunpoint for at least a half-hour, property owner Shellie Smith said in a statement. The raid lasted about 10 hours, she said.
Local authorities had cited the Garden of Eden in recent weeks for code violations, including "grass that was too tall, bushes growing too close to the street, a couch and piano in the yard, chopped wood that was not properly stacked, a piece of siding that was missing from the side of the house, and generally unclean premises," Smith's statement said. She said the police didn't produce a warrant until two hours after the raid began, and officers shielded their name tags so they couldn't be identified. According to ABC affiliate WFAA, resident Quinn Eaker was the only person arrested -- for outstanding traffic violations.
The city of Arlington said in a statement that the code citations were issued to the farm following complaints by neighbors, who were "concerned that the conditions" at the farm "interfere with the useful enjoyment of their properties and are detrimental to property values and community appearance." The police SWAT raid came after "the Arlington Police Department received a number of complaints that the same property owner was cultivating marijuana plants on the premises," the city's statement said. "No cultivated marijuana plants were located on the premises," the statement acknowledged.
Because, you know... Fuck those hippies and their productive organic farm [.."17 blackberry bushes, 15 okra plants, 14 tomatillo plants ... native grasses and sunflowers,"], they have a fucking piano in their yard. They must be high, call in the SWAT.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:09:17 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 12:31:51 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.
Now whos seeing pentagons?
The endless riffing on the bad coffee joke wasn't encouraged by group dynamics?
I was refering more to you assuming that i had called the existence of your girlfriend into question but if youd like to know about the coffee its that i found it utterly ridiculous that your work involves addiction prevention and you classify your one cup of coffee as an addiction. It would go quite a ways to explain why you seem to think marijuana addiction is a real problem. The group had nothing to do with it.
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 02:34:20 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:09:17 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 12:31:51 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.
Now whos seeing pentagons?
The endless riffing on the bad coffee joke wasn't encouraged by group dynamics?
I was refering more to you assuming that i had called the existence of your girlfriend into question but if youd like to know about the coffee its that i found it utterly ridiculous that your work involves addiction prevention and you classify your one cup of coffee as an addiction. It would go quite a ways to explain why you seem to think marijuana addiction is a real problem. The group had nothing to do with it.
NO NO NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
IT'S NOT HIM, IT'S EVERYBODY ELSE. HE'S THE ONLY REAL THINKING HUMAN BEING IN A WORLD OF SHEEPLE.
You see, you aren't capable of thinking, Twid. You're only capable of following the herd, for approval.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 19, 2013, 02:49:16 AM
You see, you aren't capable of thinking, Twid. You're only capable of following the herd, for approval.
He totally nailed it. Im totally doing this to belong which explains why ive only been hostile towards him recently.
I dont know how id think anything if i didnt have peedee to tell of what to think.
So after you start getting time machines, is that it? Does anything else even happen? Do you hit the cookie singularity or anything?
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 19, 2013, 06:19:51 AM
So after you start getting time machines, is that it? Does anything else even happen? Do you hit the cookie singularity or anything?
:lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
It's awesome how all it takes is one tiny little comma to turn a 100% true sentence into RWHN's own-brand dumbfuck bullshit :lulz:
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.
He's a preachy egomaniacal canadian. So basically RWHN but with actual talent. But he's just good, not great. Sort of like RWHN, if RWHN was good at anything.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 19, 2013, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
He's conflating - typing superstitious nonsense into an online forum - with "documentation"
Quote from: McGrupp on August 19, 2013, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
You are new and haven't been in any of the past drug threads so you really don't know what you are talking about.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.
He's a preachy egomaniacal canadian. So basically RWHN but with actual talent. But he's just good, not great. Sort of like RWHN, if RWHN was good at anything.
He's probably the most versatile vocalist in metal. He's a very talented guitarist. Prolific songwriter. Sonic and production wizard. I can't think of a single other individual in metal today who is as all-around talented and skilled as Devin Townsend. I think you just don't like him because he sings about "uncool" things like love and marriage. Which, as someone who has been married, I can tell you can be some very heavy subjects. You'll find out someday perhaps.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 19, 2013, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
Here is some (cited) science for you.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive[/size]
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:26:11 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.
He's a preachy egomaniacal canadian. So basically RWHN but with actual talent. But he's just good, not great. Sort of like RWHN, if RWHN was good at anything.
He's probably the most versatile vocalist in metal. He's a very talented guitarist. Prolific songwriter. Sonic and production wizard. I can't think of a single other individual in metal today who is as all-around talented and skilled as Devin Townsend. I think you just don't like him because he sings about "uncool" things like love and marriage. Which, as someone who has been married, I can tell you can be some very heavy subjects. You'll find out someday perhaps.
A. Devin Townsend can be preachy if he wants to, since he is as close to deity as any sentient being will ever actually get.
B. RWHN, that's just sycophantic.
C. Point A is not sycophantic on account of it's obviously tongue-in-cheek.
D. Point C had to be spelled out, otherwise RWHN would be all "Yeah but YOU said..." and I don't have time for that shit today, since I'm currently doing Very Important Work blocking end-users from Dropbox.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on August 19, 2013, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
Here is some (cited) science for you.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive
[/size]
Still reading. Probably won't be caught up for a little while but one thing struck me at the beginning of the NIH info on marijuana:
QuoteMarijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug (17.4 million past-month users) according to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)1. That year, marijuana was used by 76.8 percent of current illicit drug users (defined as having used the drug at some time in the 30 days before the survey) and was the only drug used by 60.1 percent of them.1
17.4 million illicit drug users. Of those 60.1 percent of them only use marijuana. Doesn't this mean that marijuana prohibition is the difference between 17.4 million criminals and having 6.96 million criminals? That's over 10 million people who are criminals for something less dangerous than alcohol.
Also, and I'm still reading, but I would be curious as to the definition they are using for addiction. Either way, 9 percent strikes me as rather low.
It is my understanding that the psychosis-marijuana connection is a debateable topic. They are correlated but whether they cause each other experts disagree on.
The NIH also has this to say about studies showing correlation with poor grades and school drop outs.
QuoteHowever, a causal relationship is not yet proven between cannabis use by young people and psychosocial harm
Also, couldn't getting a permanent black mark on your record or getting thrown in jail result in lower graduation rates and school grades?
I'm still reading this as well as the studies that are cited in it. Thank you for providing some data.
Legalization does nothing to resolve your last point as it would still be illegal for kids 21 and younger.
I happen to agree that reforms are necessary to eliminate those black marks for non-violent youth offenders. But legalization does not accomplish that without making it also legal for youth to use.
As far as the marijuana-psychosis piece, it isn't debateable at all that there is an interaction there. You can have the chicken/egg debate all you want, but bottom line is that if it isn't causing it, it is exacerbating a pre-existing condition or predisposition. Neither result is good, so to me, that debate is academic.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
Legalization does nothing to resolve your last point as it would still be illegal for kids 21 and younger.
I happen to agree that reforms are necessary to eliminate those black marks for non-violent youth offenders. But legalization does not accomplish that without making it also legal for youth to use.
There will always be a black market as long as kids want to use it and it is illegal. There is no "reform" that will eliminate that black market. But legalization would make that black market look a lot more like the black market for tobacco, which as far as I know, doesn't result in things like getting shot to death for not pushing enough pounds of Marlboros.
Legalization will do nothing to end, nor even curtail, organized crime. Criminal organizations that traffick marijuana are very well diversified today. Not just drugs, but also human trafficking, weapons.
It's a myth that marijuana legalization will have any impact on that.
Quote from: McGrupp on August 19, 2013, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
I keep saying that but nobody believes me. I mean, if even *I* think the guy's trolling...
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:25:49 PM
Legalization will do nothing to end, nor even curtail, organized crime.
The 20s and 30s never happened. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:25:49 PM
Legalization will do nothing to end, nor even curtail, organized crime.
The 20s and 30s never happened. :lulz:
He also seems to be ignoring the fact that while legalization wouldnt stop organized crime it would make marijuana useless to them. Since there is an appetite for it it makes sense to take as much danger out of it as possible. Sure the 15 year old kid is still going to smoke it illegally but hell slip an adult a couple of extra bucks to buy him some at the store rather than from someone who is a career criminal.
Also now that i think about it getting called a greyface by someone who only sees things in black and white terms is a bit of a complement. For all he knows i could shoot rainbows out of my eyes.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 05:57:04 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:25:49 PM
Legalization will do nothing to end, nor even curtail, organized crime.
The 20s and 30s never happened. :lulz:
He also seems to be ignoring the fact that while legalization wouldnt stop organized crime it would make marijuana useless to them. Since there is an appetite for it it makes sense to take as much danger out of it as possible. Sure the 15 year old kid is still going to smoke it illegally but hell slip an adult a couple of extra bucks to buy him some at the store rather than from someone who is a career criminal.
Also now that i think about it getting called a greyface by someone who only sees things in black and white terms is a bit of a complement. For all he knows i could shoot rainbows out of my eyes.
Remember: If an improvement doesn't solve EVERYTHING right away, it is useless.
Also, marijuana accessible to kids is bad, RWHN's beer accessible to his kids is good.
He also has documented proof that his turn-in program was a success, despite NIH documentation that says it was not. He won't show you that documentation, though, because "because". Just trust him. Also, any documentation he disagrees with is the product of shills, and documentation he provides from people who have a vested interest in sending people to prison is clearly unbiased.
That is all. I don't think there's anything left to say.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 06:14:43 PM
That is all. I don't think there's anything left to say.
Groundless optimism, ITT.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:26:11 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 11:41:58 AM
Quote from: V3X on August 18, 2013, 11:06:31 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 18, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: The End on August 18, 2013, 09:53:40 PM
No, that would be Devin Townsend.
Yes, well, once again you make my point for me. :lulz:
FTR, RWHN is actually correct here.
He's a preachy egomaniacal canadian. So basically RWHN but with actual talent. But he's just good, not great. Sort of like RWHN, if RWHN was good at anything.
He's probably the most versatile vocalist in metal. He's a very talented guitarist. Prolific songwriter. Sonic and production wizard. I can't think of a single other individual in metal today who is as all-around talented and skilled as Devin Townsend. I think you just don't like him because he sings about "uncool" things like love and marriage. Which, as someone who has been married, I can tell you can be some very heavy subjects. You'll find out someday perhaps.
Sure, like I said he's OK. I just wanted to see how much of a turd you'd sound like defending your musical tastes. I was not disappointed. :lulz:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.htmlQuote from: Balls Wellington on November 10, 2011, 02:41:51 AM
Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.
After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/1001253_432556733526710_1663148221_n.jpg)
if it wasn't for the phone number I'd think that was one of our O:MF fuckeries ...
It isn't a real phone # :lol:
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 07:57:33 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html
Quote from: Balls Wellington on November 10, 2011, 02:41:51 AM
Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.
After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.
and? :lulz:
I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.
Quote from: TALK TO ME ABOUT YOUR GENITALS on August 19, 2013, 08:17:49 PM
It isn't a real phone # :lol:
:lol: Everyone, please take a note of that for our future projects.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 07:57:33 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html
Quote from: Balls Wellington on November 10, 2011, 02:41:51 AM
Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.
After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.
and? :lulz:
I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.
I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 07:57:33 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html
Quote from: Balls Wellington on November 10, 2011, 02:41:51 AM
Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.
After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.
and? :lulz:
I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.
I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band.
I am so glad to see that smooth jazz dig really got your goat. You always get super passive aggressive when you get your fee fees hurt.
But you were saying something about rubber and glue...
ETA: And pedantic.
Uh, no, I've always taken jabs at ECH for liking In Flames.
I've always worn my love of smooth jazz on my sleeve. And hair metal.
But In Flames really is a shitty band. They weren't even very good when they actually were a death metal band. At The Gates and Dark Tranquility did that style much, much better.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 07:57:33 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html
Quote from: Balls Wellington on November 10, 2011, 02:41:51 AM
Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.
After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.
and? :lulz:
I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.
I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band.
No, the funniest part is you assuming that anyone else would react the way you would to something as trivial as having their musical tastes challenged. :lulz:
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 08:54:16 PM
Uh, no, I've always taken jabs at ECH for liking In Flames.
I've always worn my love of smooth jazz on my sleeve. And hair metal.
But In Flames really is a shitty band. They weren't even very good when they actually were a death metal band. At The Gates and Dark Tranquility did that style much, much better.
Even if I cared what someone else thought of a band I like (and why on earth would I do that?), I'm pretty sure I wouldn't include fans of smooth jazz in the circle of people whose opinions I cared about. :lulz:
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: Balls Wellington on August 19, 2013, 08:40:09 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 07:57:33 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html
Quote from: Balls Wellington on November 10, 2011, 02:41:51 AM
Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.
After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.
and? :lulz:
I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.
I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band.
No, the funniest part is you assuming that anyone else would react the way you would to something as trivial as having their musical tastes challenged. :lulz:
Quickly, to the google-images-mobile! We need an emote. It shall be called :enki: and it shall sum up that dumbass pedantic thing he said that roont whatever joke it was cos of whatever dumbfuck reason he gave. And I shall totally zing RWTF with it and there shall be laughing and mittens and backslapping and we'll share a moment we can all tell our grandkids about. And they'll say to us "Who was ROFFS?" and we'll reply "He's the reason you got flung in sing sing for pilfering grandad's roaches" and then the buzzer will go and we'll still be chuckling as we walk back out through the gate in the chainlink fence.
Well isn't this goddamn interesting.
http://screen.yahoo.com/pot-not-gateway-drug-discovery-130000568.html
I'm sure that RWHN won't watch any of it and yet have a reasonable explanation for everything in it.
There's even a little bit on scientists and policy makers.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 12:35:42 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:30:57 AM
Actually im not changing the subject at all since the documentation you refuse to provide was part of the same post about mocking you for alluding to your sex life which may or may not exist.
S t r e t c h
Anyway, I have to say I find it amusing that in pretty much every drug thread I've been in someone decides to somehow work my sex life into the thread. It's a little odd and it kind of creeps me out a bit. I'd be curious as to why you guys feel the need to go there. What does it say about the group?
sex and drugs and rock and roll...
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:09:17 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 12:31:51 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 19, 2013, 12:25:22 AM
Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.
Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.
Now whos seeing pentagons?
The endless riffing on the bad coffee joke wasn't encouraged by group dynamics?
I wasn't joking. I don't see how you can support unrestricted access to caffeine for adults, and not be strongly opposed to caffeine vending machines in schools while also supporting marijuana prohibition. Caffeine is more addictive than marijuana.
Here's an actual comparison of the two
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/15136/caffeine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-marijuana
I'm trying to find the studies where they compared addictive potential of the two, I know the NIHA rated Caffeine as more addictive. All I am finding is forum posts and blogs though.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
That science that you refuse to link to.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here) is that it is as addictive as gambling or online gaming and as long as you keep being shifty with actual links to hard evidence that's going to keep being the opinion.
Of course addictions to both those things can adversely affect people's lives, as can marijuana addiction, but that doesn't warrant prohibition, nor does science show that prohibition helps to decrease addiction rates (in fact, it seems to show the opposite)
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on August 19, 2013, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 19, 2013, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
But no documentation is available.
Sure it is. I provide it everytime we talk about it. You won't even consider it.
Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.
Here is some (cited) science for you.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive
[/size]
look at that! A link that states that marijuana addiction has the same symptoms as gambling or online gaming addiction!
(not that they mention those two things, you have to actually work that out by looking at the literature on them)
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:52:25 PM
Legalization does nothing to resolve your last point as it would still be illegal for kids 21 and younger.
I happen to agree that reforms are necessary to eliminate those black marks for non-violent youth offenders. But legalization does not accomplish that without making it also legal for youth to use.
It does if it is legalized the same way that Alcohol is. Minor in Posession does not create that sort of black mark.
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 03:25:49 PM
Legalization will do nothing to end, nor even curtail, organized crime. Criminal organizations that traffick marijuana are very well diversified today. Not just drugs, but also human trafficking, weapons.
It's a myth that marijuana legalization will have any impact on that.
Just like if we made it so grocery stores couldn't sell food, that wouldn't hurt their bottom line a bit. Since they sell other things besides food.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:00:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
That science that you refuse to link to.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here) is that it is as addictive as gambling or online gaming and as long as you keep being shifty with actual links to hard evidence that's going to keep being the opinion.
Of course addictions to both those things can adversely affect people's lives, as can marijuana addiction, but that doesn't warrant prohibition, nor does science show that prohibition helps to decrease addiction rates (in fact, it seems to show the opposite)
This is more or less how I see marijuana addiction, incidentally. It's not addiction to the chemical itself, but an addiction to the sensation, or something like that. I don't know, I've never been addicted to marijuana or gambling. Gambling addicts irritate me because they always make me wait in line at the store while they play their scratchies. Potheads don't irritate me because they're usually at home staying out of everyone's way.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:00:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)
I see, so PD.COM = science now eh? I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:00:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)
I see, so PD.COM = science now eh? I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.
My point was more that the people involved in this conversation have a certain understanding of the scienctific consensus. And that you have completely failed to produce any convincing arguements to the contrary, partly due to your attitude toward actual evidence.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:33:02 AM
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:00:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)
I see, so PD.COM = science now eh? I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.
My point was more that the people involved in this conversation have a certain understanding of the scienctific consensus. And that you have completely failed to produce any convincing arguements to the contrary, partly due to your attitude toward actual evidence.
The main problem is is that he is unwilling to objectively evaluate contrary data, which I think is what originally caused the bad blood between him and Nigel. Nigel's got the right of it, scientifically. Some data disagree with other data, and usually, for a scientist, that indicates that something else needs to be looked into to reconcile those two points. RWHN is only interested in acknowledging data that fits in with his assumptions, and also sometimes data that actually conflicts with it but he ended up misinterpreting. But again, we all know his propensity for misinterpreting.
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:33:02 AM
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:00:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)
I see, so PD.COM = science now eh? I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.
My point was more that the people involved in this conversation have a certain understanding of the scienctific consensus. And that you have completely failed to produce any convincing arguements to the contrary, partly due to your attitude toward actual evidence.
No, I've provided a lot of cited and researched evidence across the drug threads. They are summarily ignored.
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:39:39 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:33:02 AM
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on August 20, 2013, 04:00:38 AM
Quote from: The End on August 19, 2013, 02:42:39 AM
No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.
The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)
I see, so PD.COM = science now eh? I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.
My point was more that the people involved in this conversation have a certain understanding of the scienctific consensus. And that you have completely failed to produce any convincing arguements to the contrary, partly due to your attitude toward actual evidence.
No, I've provided a lot of cited and researched evidence across the drug threads. They are summarily ignored.
And why wouldn't they be? You describe all conflicting data as biased and agenda driven.
"Oh well, then, stop"
Or keep dancing. Fine with me either way.
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:42:37 AM
"Oh well, then, stop"
Or keep dancing. Fine with me either way.
You watch that video yet, "Assface"?
Nope.
You might regain a modicum of my previous respect for you if you did. Even if you did brush it off as another shill.
Uh, yeah, I'll get right on that.
Quote from: The End on August 20, 2013, 04:55:07 AM
Uh, yeah, I'll get right on that.
My, how far we've come in less than two months.
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on June 30, 2013, 04:48:15 AM
I dont want another drug thread. This is a thread about appreciating rwhn. So lets find stuff to actually appreciate about him rather than the weird spot hes gone through with his family life and him turning into what seems to be a guy who we mainly know for his job. What was that comic in the end of the bip again?
Right. So rev- i dont believe ive ever heard any of your music. Before my joining. Got a song or two to share?
Hey, while everyone was getting forced handjobs1 from RWHN, the British government ran into the Guardian's offices about 4 hours ago and smashed the computers containing the Snowden stuff.
(See prism thread).
Nothing important. Carry on.
1 Too many of those can kill you.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
Hey, while everyone was getting forced handjobs1 from RWHN, the British government ran into the Guardian's offices about 4 hours ago and smashed the computers containing the Snowden stuff.
(See prism thread).
Nothing important. Carry on.
1 Too many of those can kill you.
Whoa, fucking, seriously?
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 20, 2013, 05:10:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
Hey, while everyone was getting forced handjobs1 from RWHN, the British government ran into the Guardian's offices about 4 hours ago and smashed the computers containing the Snowden stuff.
(See prism thread).
Nothing important. Carry on.
1 Too many of those can kill you.
Whoa, fucking, seriously?
See prism thread.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2013, 05:10:39 AM
Quote from: Aloha Ackbar on August 20, 2013, 05:10:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
Hey, while everyone was getting forced handjobs1 from RWHN, the British government ran into the Guardian's offices about 4 hours ago and smashed the computers containing the Snowden stuff.
(See prism thread).
Nothing important. Carry on.
1 Too many of those can kill you.
Whoa, fucking, seriously?
See prism thread.
I just did. I'm speechless, but at the same time unsurprised.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
Hey, while everyone was getting forced handjobs1 from RWHN, the British government ran into the Guardian's offices about 4 hours ago and smashed the computers containing the Snowden stuff.
(See prism thread).
Nothing important. Carry on.
The actual smashing occured 2 months ago, they decided to break the story last night/this morning/just then.
It's still very jaw-meet-floor, regardless.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 20, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 20, 2013, 05:09:02 AM
Hey, while everyone was getting forced handjobs1 from RWHN, the British government ran into the Guardian's offices about 4 hours ago and smashed the computers containing the Snowden stuff.
(See prism thread).
Nothing important. Carry on.
The actual smashing occured 2 months ago, they decided to break the story last night/this morning/just then.
It's still very jaw-meet-floor, regardless.
Greenwald said he was going to go apeshit.