Principia Discordia

Being doing a bit of interesting reading lately into drug journalism...

From the economist: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095

QuoteReformers are in a bold mood. Earlier this year a report by ex-presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called for alternatives to prohibition. On November 12th a British think-tank, Transform, launched a report* setting out ideas on how drugs could be legally regulated. For every substance from cannabis to crack, it suggests a form of regulation, via doctors' prescriptions, pharmacy sales or consumption on licensed premises.

...

Elsewhere in the United States, there are many signs of prohibition ebbing away. Some 14 states have decriminalised the possession of marijuana for personal use (medical or otherwise), though most keep the option of a $100 civil penalty. Three states—New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana. Most radically, some states are considering legalising the drug completely. California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright; Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks.

One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California's jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.

Having read the full article, and seeing this picture:
(http://media.economist.com/images/20091114/CIR479.gif)
I remembered someone mentioning a while ago that thanks to portugals lax drug laws, drug problems are going DOWN.
So I checked out what the internet has to say about portugal and its drug problems and found this in Time: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

QuoteUnder Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

So, having looked at this evidence, what do you think PD?
Isn't about time we fucking LEGALISED IT, ALL OF IT, and instead of THROWING GOOD PEOPLE IN JAIL WHO HAVE BAD DRUG PROBLEMS, we instead start helping them, and HELPING the economy at the same time?

This is all "Well, duh" shit to me.

But yeah, definitely should be legal.

Quote from: null & void on November 15, 2009, 06:16:40 AM
This is all "Well, duh" shit to me.

But yeah, definitely should be legal.

Yeah, I know, I doubt anyone here is going to disagree, I just like preachin to the choir.

That and I just want to share these awesome articles with you guys.

But if anyone does disagree, I'd love to hear it.

Here in Mexico its legal - but you get caught by a police officer in a bad mood and you are fucked

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 06:24:41 AM

Here in Mexico its legal - but you get caught by a police officer in a bad mood and you are fucked

What can they do to you if it's legal?? :?

"Plant" on you twice or quadruple the legal ammount, and off you go to the big house - unless you bribe them off possibly, and that also depends on their current mood or how persuasive you are

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 06:28:43 AM

"Plant" on you twice or quadruple the legal ammount, and off you go to the big house - unless you bribe them off possibly, and that also depends on their current mood or how persuasive you are

Wow. This ever happen to anyone you know?

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 06:24:41 AM
Get caught by a police officer in a bad mood and you are fucked

Fixed for universal truth.

All research and successful drug policy shows
That treatment should be increased,
And law enforcement decreased,
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.
-System of a down, Prison Song.

Quote from: Lysergic on November 15, 2009, 06:36:27 AM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 06:28:43 AM

"Plant" on you twice or quadruple the legal ammount, and off you go to the big house - unless you bribe them off possibly, and that also depends on their current mood or how persuasive you are

Wow. This ever happen to anyone you know?

Its been only about half a year that it has been legalized here... but before it was legal ive known half a dozen people that got up to the bribing point... but thats cz they were a bit noobish, walking around at night with a lit joint while drunk... i dont know, maybe in first world countries corruption wouldnt be a factor... (because in the 1st world the corruption seems to run at the higher eschelons and not so much at the basic level... while here its at every level)

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 06:50:55 AM

Quote from: Lysergic on November 15, 2009, 06:36:27 AM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 06:28:43 AM

"Plant" on you twice or quadruple the legal ammount, and off you go to the big house - unless you bribe them off possibly, and that also depends on their current mood or how persuasive you are

Wow. This ever happen to anyone you know?

Its been only about half a year that it has been legalized here... but before it was legal ive known half a dozen people that got up to the bribing point... but thats cz they were a bit noobish, walking around at night with a lit joint while drunk... i dont know, maybe in first world countries corruption wouldnt be a factor... (because in the 1st world the corruption seems to run at the higher eschelons and not so much at the basic level... while here its at every level)

interesting i have heard the same sentiment from people from other 2nd world country's about corruption  being at every level and it only being high up here in the first world

i would say yay for us but corruption sucks at any level..

Getting "shaked down" for $10-50 sucks.

To look on the bright side, ive gotten off from $200 driving violations for $15.  :lulz:

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 07:00:22 AM

Getting "shaked down" for $10-50 sucks.

To look on the bright side, ive gotten off from $200 driving violations for $15.  :lulz:

Lol, I suppose it's all about knowing how to make corruption work for you, eh?

I am strongly against the legalization of recreational marijuana use.

not because I think it's bad or anything, but because when I'm in a financial pinch I can always count on being able to weasel a few grand for myself out of the illegality of cannabis products.

Some cops in a town about 60 miles from here got caught planting drugs on a guy by their own camera!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2IDrsDC7gg

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 07:59:12 AM
I am strongly against the legalization of recreational marijuana use.

not because I think it's bad or anything, but because when I'm in a financial pinch I can always count on being able to weasel a few grand for myself out of the illegality of cannabis products.

This, and also because if the shit was legal, most stoners would have no idea that the system was broken.

it should be legal but it never will be. even with not a single death attributed directly to marijuana and the many potentials for medical use, the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.
but i still lol knowing that all this anti-marijuana paranoia started from someone who was afraid of hemp taking over the paper industry.

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

depends if its legalized AND regulated like tabacco.
legalization of weed like it is now would be untaxable. Legalization and regulation is when it'd be taxed.

Yeah they should legalize it because it'd make it alot safer - i mean i've had bad batches before and had really bad experiences on it. It's not too fun.

If they legalise pot I'll be forced to steal shit or kill people or something. Have to break the law as a matter of principle. Prohibition keeps it nice and victimless

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 15, 2009, 09:36:16 AM
If they legalise pot I'll be forced to steal shit or kill people or something. Have to break the law as a matter of principle. Prohibition keeps it nice and victimless

you haven't seen scarface have you? he was one principled man.

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AMi wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MEXICAN+DRUG+CARTELS+SAID+TO+EARN+AS+MUCH+AS+US$40+BILLION.-a0209242572

Between $25-$40 billion per annum, according to this.  Personally, if we're looking at all the cartels, I would place it somewhat higher.  You have to remember groups like Los Zetas also engage in kidnapping, contract killing and human trafficking, and have earnings coming in from places as far away as Italy.  Not to mention the money-laundering that goes on at places like Wachovia and (allegedly) Goldman Sachs.

Also, wow, I am amazingly out of the loop on the Cartel situation.  I only just found out that the Beltrán-Leyva brothers flipped from the Sinaloa Cartel and hooked up with the Gulf Cartel by way of Los Zetas.  And took most of Los Negros, the Sinaloan paramilitary unit formed to fight against Los Zetas, with them.  And then whacked the son of the Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquin Guzmán, for good measure.

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Yeah they should legalize it because it'd make it alot safer - i mean i've had bad batches before and had really bad experiences on it. It's not too fun.

wut?

you had a bad weed trip?

:lulz:

have you ever actually smoked pot before? there's no such thing as a "bad batch".

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

That shit grows everywhere. Or rather, it can. And while they might be able to track and find the source of high-quality strains, there would be so much backyard, ditch and amatuer bathtub/closet shit they won't have time to comb through those who have a script/licenses vs those who don't. And they don't like that. Plus, the govt. already gets money from the well-targeted busts they do, not to mention the stabilization that large piece of the black market does for our economy. It's literally money you can grow that just pumps into the economy.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:05:09 PM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Yeah they should legalize it because it'd make it alot safer - i mean i've had bad batches before and had really bad experiences on it. It's not too fun.

wut?

you had a bad weed trip?

:lulz:

have you ever actually smoked pot before? there's no such thing as a "bad batch".

it is when the cunts spray it with fibreglass and other unknown powders to give the impression of moar crystally buds. And sugar as well, toffee throat bad, fibreglass will kill.

legalisation would stop shit like this going down yanno.

funny...they legalized automobiles and yet, Ford still sold the Pinto for years.

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).

also, if inhaling a little bit of fiberglass fumes was deadly, there wouldn't be any boatbuilders left.

also also, what kind of moron would fall for a trick like that? who can't tell the difference between some kind bud and goddamned fiberglass?

and how much of a markup would you have to add to your bag of pot to cover the cost of having a fiberglass spraying machine? those aren't cheap, you know.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:32:23 PM
funny...they legalized automobiles and yet, Ford still sold the Pinto for years.

True. But then, growing cars has always provided a challenge.

Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2009, 04:37:31 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:32:23 PM
funny...they legalized automobiles and yet, Ford still sold the Pinto for years.

True. But then, growing cars has always provided a challenge.

whoops. Misread teh thread. And on my 50th post too.

Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

is aw good Alty.

you dont seem an epic douche, you should be fine, there are some that will yell "fuck you" just because the can, but hey, they're over 50 posts too...

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 04:59:55 PM
Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

actually, no.

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 04:59:55 PM
Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

Um, no?

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 04:59:55 PM
Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

nope

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 05:00:57 PM

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 04:59:55 PM
Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

actually, no.

How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

Nothing? I guess it's just me then.

Presumably at one point they did, but for as long as I've been alive its all been about deconstructing the Satanic, bigoted roots of The Simpsons (and giving it a title with lots of words like "Resistance" and "Discourse" and "Hermeneutics" in it) and lamenting about how terribly uncouth the working classes are.

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 05:11:00 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 05:00:57 PM

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 04:59:55 PM
Remember when left-wing types cared about things that actually mattered?

actually, no.

How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

Nothing? I guess it's just me then.

My bad.

I wasn't around to remember 1923.

also...

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

1. Overrated

2. I'm in favor of it

3. As long as it doesn't apply to exploitable illegals, I'm OK with it for now

4. Thank god they're around to save us from corruption and look out for our best interests. Oh, wait...

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 05:20:35 PM

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

1. Overrated

2. I'm in favor of it

3. As long as it doesn't apply to exploitable illegals, I'm OK with it for now

4. Thank god they're around to save us from corruption and look out for our best interests. Oh, wait...

How edgy.

Quote from: Lysergic on November 15, 2009, 06:13:22 AM
Being doing a bit of interesting reading lately into drug journalism...

From the economist: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845095

QuoteReformers are in a bold mood. Earlier this year a report by ex-presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico called for alternatives to prohibition. On November 12th a British think-tank, Transform, launched a report* setting out ideas on how drugs could be legally regulated. For every substance from cannabis to crack, it suggests a form of regulation, via doctors' prescriptions, pharmacy sales or consumption on licensed premises.

...

Elsewhere in the United States, there are many signs of prohibition ebbing away. Some 14 states have decriminalised the possession of marijuana for personal use (medical or otherwise), though most keep the option of a $100 civil penalty. Three states—New Mexico, Rhode Island and Massachusetts—license non-profit corporations to grow medical marijuana. Most radically, some states are considering legalising the drug completely. California and Massachusetts are holding committee hearings on bills to legalise pot outright; Oregon is expected to introduce such a bill within the next couple of weeks.

One reason for the sudden popularity of cannabis is financial. Tom Ammiano, the California assemblyman who introduced the bill to legalise marijuana earlier this year, points out that were it taxed it could raise some $1.3 billion a year for state coffers, based on a $50 per ounce levy on sales. As an added benefit to the public purse, lots of police time and prison space would be freed up. California's jails heave with 170,000 inmates, almost a fifth of them inside for drug-related crimes, albeit mostly worse than just possessing a spliff.

The problem with this argument is it is creating a false dichotomy.  That the only solution to current issues with law enforcement is to just legalize the drug.  But that isn't the solution.  The solution is to reform law enforcement policy.  Someone caught with a minor amount of marijuana should not go to jail, period.  Just keep jacking up the fee scale for each offense.  Now, when you catch a guy who is trafficking it and selling it, yeah, that guy probably should end up in the clink.  Especially if those drugs are reaching minors.  And the reality is that people like me are working with law enforcement to find creative ways to help people who need help without throwing them in jail.  That's why we have drug courts that work out a path to work on their drug problem that doesn't involve jail time.  There are even policies where a person can have the offense expunged from their record. 

QuoteSo, having looked at this evidence, what do you think PD?
Isn't about time we fucking LEGALISED IT, ALL OF IT, and instead of THROWING GOOD PEOPLE IN JAIL WHO HAVE BAD DRUG PROBLEMS, we instead start helping them, and HELPING the economy at the same time?

Well, here in the U.S., particularly my state of Maine, we ARE helping them.  We've been helping them for years.  We don't throw a guy caught with a joint in jail for a bunch of years.  He has the option to pay a fine, or depending on if it is a repeat offense, he can go through the adult drug court system.  Anyone who wants help can get hooked up with help.  The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, which would increase the access to minors, the solution is to continue to working on enforcement policies and not throw people who need help into jail and to make sure they are all getting help in EVERY state. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 05:26:58 PM
Well, here in the U.S., particularly my state of Maine, we ARE helping them.  We've been helping them for years.  We don't throw a guy caught with a joint in jail for a bunch of years.  He has the option to pay a fine,

why does a guy with a joint need to pay a fine?

Quoteor depending on if it is a repeat offense, he can go through the adult drug court system.  Anyone who wants help can get hooked up with help.  The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, which would increase the access to minors, the solution is to continue to working on enforcement policies and not throw people who need help

why does a guy with a joint need help?

Quoteinto jail and to make sure they are all getting help in EVERY state. 

much respect for the work you do rwhn and no disagreement with regards to kids on drugs, but a grown man is not a criminal unless the gov makes him one or he harms others, and he doesn't need help unless his actions are harming himself

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 05:40:03 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 05:26:58 PM
Well, here in the U.S., particularly my state of Maine, we ARE helping them.  We've been helping them for years.  We don't throw a guy caught with a joint in jail for a bunch of years.  He has the option to pay a fine,

why does a guy with a joint need to pay a fine?

Because it is illegal.  That said I would be open to decriminalizing the possession of a small amount of marijuana.  Enough for personal use.  But if it is a distributable amount, no dice.  

Quote

Quoteor depending on if it is a repeat offense, he can go through the adult drug court system.  Anyone who wants help can get hooked up with help.  The solution isn't to legalize the drugs, which would increase the access to minors, the solution is to continue to working on enforcement policies and not throw people who need help

why does a guy with a joint need help?

He may, he may not.  It wouldn't be a bad idea for him, or her, to have an assessment however.  And that can be a pretty quick and painless process.  If no drug issue is identified, then they shouldn't be required to get help.  I would refer back to my earlier bit.  If the amount is for personal use only, then let the person off.  If it is a distributable amount, then fines should be in place.  

Quotemuch respect for the work you do rwhn and no disagreement with regards to kids on drugs, but a grown man is not a criminal unless the gov makes him one or he harms others, and he doesn't need help unless his actions are harming himself

Well, I don't look at it that way.  I would look at it the same way that someone who does 85 in a 65 is not a criminal, per se.  But it is a behavior that could have detrimental effects to others in society, like if I crash into someone going 85, or the guy with just one or two joints starts sharing with minors.  And trust me, minors ARE getting their pot from adults, adults they know.  In fact it is far less likely they will get their marijuana from some stranger on the corner these days.  It's about prevention.  

we seem to be basically in agreement then,

i wouldn't require a guy to get an assessment

if he is selling (w/o a license or paying tax) or selling to kids busting him is fair

i don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

i think the highway comparison doesn't work well, rules of the road and laws about what you can and cant do with drugs are different than making drugs or driving illegal.... the drug laws we have would be more like saying it is illegal to drive a car because you might speed.

i have no problem with laws about what you can and cant do with drugs or under there influence (driving under the influence of selling to kids etc ) or strict penalty's for breaking them...

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 06:12:00 PM
we seem to be basically in agreement then,

i wouldn't require a guy to get an assessment

Why not?  What harm does it do? 

Quotei don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

Yes, it is already quite rampant, but the laws actually do provide a barrier for some kids.  There are some kids who don't use because it is illegal.  Granted, they may be a small number, but in my opinion they are worth protecting.  Drug abuse prevention isn't about preventing EVERYONE from using drugs.  That is an unrealistic goal.  It is preventing where we can prevent.  Legalizing marijuana would make it that much more difficult to protect the youth. 

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:34:19 PM
also, if inhaling a little bit of fiberglass fumes was deadly, there wouldn't be any boatbuilders left.

also also, what kind of moron would fall for a trick like that? who can't tell the difference between some kind bud and goddamned fiberglass?

and how much of a markup would you have to add to your bag of pot to cover the cost of having a fiberglass spraying machine? those aren't cheap, you know.

Your naivety makes me laugh.

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 06:24:44 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 06:12:00 PM
we seem to be basically in agreement then,

i wouldn't require a guy to get an assessment

Why not?  What harm does it do? 

Quotei don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

Yes, it is already quite rampant, but the laws actually do provide a barrier for some kids.  There are some kids who don't use because it is illegal.  Granted, they may be a small number, but in my opinion they are worth protecting.  Drug abuse prevention isn't about preventing EVERYONE from using drugs.  That is an unrealistic goal.  It is preventing where we can prevent.  Legalizing marijuana would make it that much more difficult to protect the youth. 

Start with alcohol, it is much more damaging to a developing brain.

Quote from: Regret on November 15, 2009, 07:27:13 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 06:24:44 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 06:12:00 PM
we seem to be basically in agreement then,

i wouldn't require a guy to get an assessment

Why not?  What harm does it do? 

Quotei don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

Yes, it is already quite rampant, but the laws actually do provide a barrier for some kids.  There are some kids who don't use because it is illegal.  Granted, they may be a small number, but in my opinion they are worth protecting.  Drug abuse prevention isn't about preventing EVERYONE from using drugs.  That is an unrealistic goal.  It is preventing where we can prevent.  Legalizing marijuana would make it that much more difficult to protect the youth. 

Start with alcohol, it is much more damaging to a developing brain.

That's the great thing about talented folks like myself in the prevention field.  We're excellent at multitasking!!

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 05:26:36 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 05:20:35 PM

Quote from: Malachite on November 15, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
How do you feel about workers' rights? Child labour? The minimum wage? Trade unions?

1. Overrated

2. I'm in favor of it

3. As long as it doesn't apply to exploitable illegals, I'm OK with it for now

4. Thank god they're around to save us from corruption and look out for our best interests. Oh, wait...

How edgy.

yeah, about as edgy as interrupting a discussion about drug policy with some whinging about some shit that might have been relevant 70 years ago. I have about as much respect for left-wingers as I have for right-wingers or anyone else who can't articulate their personal beliefs without resorting to some arbitrary left-right scale.

that said, I really don't care much for trade unions.

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 07:17:51 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:34:19 PM
also, if inhaling a little bit of fiberglass fumes was deadly, there wouldn't be any boatbuilders left.

also also, what kind of moron would fall for a trick like that? who can't tell the difference between some kind bud and goddamned fiberglass?

and how much of a markup would you have to add to your bag of pot to cover the cost of having a fiberglass spraying machine? those aren't cheap, you know.

Your naivety makes me laugh.

you're either an idiot or sorely misinformed.

or both.

What, exactly, do you think is "naive" about the quoted statement?

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 06:24:44 PM


Why not?  What harm does it do?  

why not require everyone who buys a beer to undergo screening for alcoholism ? and who do you want intruding into peoples lives like this? the gov?

Quote

Quotei don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

Yes, it is already quite rampant, but the laws actually do provide a barrier for some kids.  There are some kids who don't use because it is illegal.  Granted, they may be a small number, but in my opinion they are worth protecting.  Drug abuse prevention isn't about preventing EVERYONE from using drugs.  That is an unrealistic goal.  It is preventing where we can prevent.  Legalizing marijuana would make it that much more difficult to protect the youth.  

i don't think they do, for most kids the barrier is believing it may harm them, i cant imagine a kid who thinks "WOW i wish i could do drugs i would LOVE to do drugs... but they are illegal so i wont.".. it doesn't seem very realistic  (or even common enough to  be a group large enough to measure as a statistic)

if pot is legalized  part of the laws surrounding it need to address preventing its being glamorized (no advertising) and laws for selling to kids should be tightly enforced and carry heavy punishment to prevent the spread of easy access to kids that you worry about, but its hard to say that criminalization is some how better than taking such steps as part of the legalization process would end up being..

Quote from: Cain 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).

So lets assume the "Mexican drug cartels" make 40 billion each year with no tax on them... walmart makes 400 billion revenue and supposedly 13.5 billion net income... thats almost triple what one of the most powerful transnational companies makes.

My point for you, is that i would love to see your take on this factor of "The Game"; i havent read all of your stuff do, so i dont know if i missed it. Although i know its a hard thing to do, for politicians dont make their relations or bribes known in relation to drug cartels...

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:05:09 PM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Yeah they should legalize it because it'd make it alot safer - i mean i've had bad batches before and had really bad experiences on it. It's not too fun.

wut?

you had a bad weed trip?

:lulz:

have you ever actually smoked pot before? there's no such thing as a "bad batch".

i have quite a few times but once i reacted terribly. every other time was awesome, except one time when i just had a massive panic attack. not fun at all. mighta just been my state of mind at the time being amplified who knows.

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 09:39:26 PMSo lets assume the "Mexican drug cartels" make 40 billion each year with no tax on them... walmart makes 400 billion revenue and supposedly 13.5 billion net income... thats almost triple what one of the most powerful transnational companies makes.

My point for you, is that i would love to see your take on this factor of "The Game"; i havent read all of your stuff do, so i dont know if i missed it. Although i know its a hard thing to do, for politicians dont make their relations or bribes known in relation to drug cartels...

OK, tomorrow I'll delve into this a bit tomorrow.  It's such a broad topic though, so I'm going to have to make several major generalizations to cover everything.

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 08:23:55 PM

Quote from: Regret on November 15, 2009, 07:27:13 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 06:24:44 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 06:12:00 PM
we seem to be basically in agreement then,

i wouldn't require a guy to get an assessment

Why not?  What harm does it do? 

Quotei don't think the amount of access kids have would increase, if they want to they can score any time any where already, hard to make it worse than it is, there will always be some dumb grownups who sell to kids just like with alcohol and they can and should be busted just like with alcohol..

Yes, it is already quite rampant, but the laws actually do provide a barrier for some kids.  There are some kids who don't use because it is illegal.  Granted, they may be a small number, but in my opinion they are worth protecting.  Drug abuse prevention isn't about preventing EVERYONE from using drugs.  That is an unrealistic goal.  It is preventing where we can prevent.  Legalizing marijuana would make it that much more difficult to protect the youth. 

Start with alcohol, it is much more damaging to a developing brain.

That's the great thing about talented folks like myself in the prevention field.  We're excellent at multitasking!!

Heh.
Despite disagreeing with you on the merits of criminalising plants i am happy that you are doing the job you do.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 08:25:18 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 07:17:51 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:34:19 PM
also, if inhaling a little bit of fiberglass fumes was deadly, there wouldn't be any boatbuilders left.

also also, what kind of moron would fall for a trick like that? who can't tell the difference between some kind bud and goddamned fiberglass?

and how much of a markup would you have to add to your bag of pot to cover the cost of having a fiberglass spraying machine? those aren't cheap, you know.

Your naivety makes me laugh.

you're either an idiot or sorely misinformed.

or both.

What, exactly, do you think is "naive" about the quoted statement?

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Call what you will, but when you deal with these people you see what they will do to get an extra buck from shitty weed they get. They do just about anything to make it more potent without having potency in the beginning. Call it what you will but from what I have seen they do just about anything to get that extra amount for it without using up all their stash. 

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:05:09 PM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Yeah they should legalize it because it'd make it alot safer - i mean i've had bad batches before and had really bad experiences on it. It's not too fun.

wut?

you had a bad weed trip?

:lulz:

have you ever actually smoked pot before? there's no such thing as a "bad batch".

The times I've been in contact with pot it's caused paranoia, and I'm guessing higher dosages would only increase that feeling. That's not a "bad batch" reaction but a poor reaction to C. sativa overall, though.

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:57:33 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Call what you will, but when you deal with these people you see what they will do to get an extra buck from shitty weed they get. They do just about anything to make it more potent without having potency in the beginning. Call it what you will but from what I have seen they do just about anything to get that extra amount for it without using up all their stash. 

sounds like tweekers more than pot heads,
its been a long time since i was around those circles, but pot dealers lived off repeat business and regular customers way back then, and i seriously doubt it has changed, anyone that fucked with shit would loose far more in business than they could ever make adding shit and trying to pass it off, i just don't buy that anything you can add would make it seem that much better and actually fool someone, and that someone would kill the chance of regular customers.... again i think BS

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 12:16:16 AM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:57:33 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Call what you will, but when you deal with these people you see what they will do to get an extra buck from shitty weed they get. They do just about anything to make it more potent without having potency in the beginning. Call it what you will but from what I have seen they do just about anything to get that extra amount for it without using up all their stash. 

sounds like tweekers more than pot heads,
its been a long time since i was around those circles, but pot dealers lived off repeat business and regular customers way back then, and i seriously doubt it has changed, anyone that fucked with shit would loose far more in business than they could ever make adding shit and trying to pass it off, i just don't buy that anything you can add would make it seem that much better and actually fool someone, and that someone would kill the chance of regular customers.... again i think BS

You make a good point, maybe the experience I've dealt with was from tweekers. They just want it for the quick buck for their next fix. But as I stated earlier this is from experience. They prey on the stupid high school kids and college students wanting to try it for the first time. There are alot of trustworthy dealers I've dealt with but mainly its just people trying to make a quick buck. There is no lack of people willing to sell. I suppose it goes to the "Know your dealer" thing.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 08:24:08 PM
yeah, about as edgy as interrupting a discussion about drug policy with some whinging about some shit that might have been relevant 70 years ago

Heh, okay. I'll be sure to PM you and ask for permission before posting from now on.

The thing is though, I was only saying how irrelevant I find the cannabis legalisation movement in comparison to more important things that are pretty much ignored. And it is mostly a left-wing thing, in my country at least. You were the one who decided to give your bullshit political opinions (hurr legalise child labour) you probably came to after an hour on Wikipedia. The only possible thread derailment would have come from me taking you seriously.

Here in San Diego, the right-wingers were very very happy with the Bush Administration's take on legalizing marijuana.  They shut down California-legal medical mj sites countywide for years, even sued the Feds over it so they could shut down some more.  But when Obama came into the WH, his Justice Dept said it wouldn't pursue medical marijuana cases where the states have made it legal, so San Diego is boo-hooing big time as the medical marijuana distributers are back in business and how.

I dunno, I think bringing the politics into it was apt seeing as how it was started as a political thread.  And Dave's not in the US, last I heard.  His notion of left-wingers will differ from us US-Spags, I reckon.

up here in northern CA the news is reporting legalization statistics.. i wonder if Arnold is preparing to make a push for full legalization? not just the medical we already have??

It was rumored he was looking into taxing it to up state revenues.  Dude is trying everything BUT what he needs to do (raise taxes on the rich) to get our finances going again.  He's going to instead try legalizing pot (har!), get a federal indictment against him for lack of prison reform (YES!) and cutting/slashing/burning state funding on any programs for the poor, the young and the sick (fuckoffahnold).

none of the parasites want their budget slashed or their perks cut ...just this week i saw (on TV) cal-trans employees hanging out at palm-springs golf resorts and riding go carts on the public's tax dollar... some other gov blood suckers were just caught washing there personal vehicles and that's just the small shit when it comes to government waste... i am beginning to think this stuff is the norm in this state.
as much as i tend to agree with legalization this is going to end up being an ass raping of the public some how, i just know it..

Quote from: BAI on November 16, 2009, 02:26:01 AM
he'll get shot by the cartels if he legalises it.

fact.

Thats what i would call a WIN-WIN scenario

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 12:16:16 AM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:57:33 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Call what you will, but when you deal with these people you see what they will do to get an extra buck from shitty weed they get. They do just about anything to make it more potent without having potency in the beginning. Call it what you will but from what I have seen they do just about anything to get that extra amount for it without using up all their stash. 

sounds like tweekers more than pot heads,
its been a long time since i was around those circles, but pot dealers lived off repeat business and regular customers way back then, and i seriously doubt it has changed, anyone that fucked with shit would loose far more in business than they could ever make adding shit and trying to pass it off, i just don't buy that anything you can add would make it seem that much better and actually fool someone, and that someone would kill the chance of regular customers.... again i think BS

Yes, kids, you can trust your dealers.  No, really.  The whole industry is stuffed full of honest people who think ahead.

Nobody has ever cut a drug.  Ever.

its been a long time since i hung with the pot heads... i suppose those those crazy kids these days could be firing up bowls of baby laxative thinking its green bud.... what do i know

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:57:33 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Call what you will, but when you deal with these people you see what they will do to get an extra buck from shitty weed they get. They do just about anything to make it more potent without having potency in the beginning. Call it what you will but from what I have seen they do just about anything to get that extra amount for it without using up all their stash.  

I AM one of those people, jackass.

and nowhere in any of my previous posts did I say that people wouldn't try to pull shit to increase the value of their pot, I said they probably wouldn't spend thousands of dollars on a fiberglass-spraying machine in order to get an extra 10 bucks for a sack. I also said that in order to be fooled by weed covered in fiberglass, you;d have to be so dumb that you wouldn't be able to figure out how to get outside in the first place. I also said that inhaling a little fiberglass smoke would not kill you. These are the statements to which you responded by laughing at my naivete. Tell me, smartguy, how long were YOU in the dope game for?

Quote from: Malachite on November 16, 2009, 12:26:27 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 08:24:08 PM
yeah, about as edgy as interrupting a discussion about drug policy with some whinging about some shit that might have been relevant 70 years ago

Heh, okay. I'll be sure to PM you and ask for permission before posting from now on.

The thing is though, I was only saying how irrelevant I find the cannabis legalisation movement in comparison to more important things that are pretty much ignored. And it is mostly a left-wing thing, in my country at least. You were the one who decided to give your bullshit political opinions (hurr legalise child labour) you probably came to after an hour on Wikipedia. The only possible thread derailment would have come from me taking you seriously.

you took me seriously enough to think I was trying to be "edgy" when I was merely being snarky. And my point about meta-identity politics still stands.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2009, 05:11:05 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 12:16:16 AM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:57:33 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Call what you will, but when you deal with these people you see what they will do to get an extra buck from shitty weed they get. They do just about anything to make it more potent without having potency in the beginning. Call it what you will but from what I have seen they do just about anything to get that extra amount for it without using up all their stash. 

sounds like tweekers more than pot heads,
its been a long time since i was around those circles, but pot dealers lived off repeat business and regular customers way back then, and i seriously doubt it has changed, anyone that fucked with shit would loose far more in business than they could ever make adding shit and trying to pass it off, i just don't buy that anything you can add would make it seem that much better and actually fool someone, and that someone would kill the chance of regular customers.... again i think BS

Yes, kids, you can trust your dealers.  No, really.  The whole industry is stuffed full of honest people who think ahead.

Nobody has ever cut a drug.  Ever.

Speaking from experience on both sides of that sleazy, sleazy coin, there is a HUGE difference between a drug dealer and a pot dealer.

Quote from: Kai on November 16, 2009, 12:10:43 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 15, 2009, 04:05:09 PM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:35:42 AM
Yeah they should legalize it because it'd make it alot safer - i mean i've had bad batches before and had really bad experiences on it. It's not too fun.

wut?

you had a bad weed trip?

:lulz:

have you ever actually smoked pot before? there's no such thing as a "bad batch".

The times I've been in contact with pot it's caused paranoia, and I'm guessing higher dosages would only increase that feeling. That's not a "bad batch" reaction but a poor reaction to C. sativa overall, though.

this.

5 POSTS IN A ROW.

LOLPINEALFNORD!

GO FOR 23 !!111!

EVEN THO NOW THAT I POSETD ITS RESET TO ZERO

HAHUHAUHUAUHAUHAHUAHUA

If weed were legal, enough people would still grow their own that it'd be pretty awesome.
I'd like to legally buy weed at the farmers market.

that would be OK, but it would never happen like that.

Big cotton is why you can't smoke weed legally.  They fund the research because commercially grown fiber hemp is indistinguishable from recreational marijuana and as such a functional product it would jeopardize their hold on the fabric industry.  Open your eyes, man!   :tinfoilhat:

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 06:15:31 AM
that would be OK, but it would never happen like that.

I'm sure people would still grow, it might not be as widely available in that format, but people would.
If there are recreational brewers, there would be recreational growers.

Quote from: Z³ on November 16, 2009, 06:43:54 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 06:15:31 AM
that would be OK, but it would never happen like that.

I'm sure people would still grow, it might not be as widely available in that format, but people would.
If there are recreational brewers, there would be recreational growers.

I'm not seeing much(read: any) "recreational brews" being sold at farmers markets.

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 16, 2009, 06:47:27 AM

Quote from: Z³ on November 16, 2009, 06:43:54 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 06:15:31 AM
that would be OK, but it would never happen like that.

I'm sure people would still grow, it might not be as widely available in that format, but people would.
If there are recreational brewers, there would be recreational growers.

I'm not seeing much(read: any) "recreational brews" being sold at farmers markets.

Well, not necessarily at a farmers market, but none-the-less my point is that even if it were legalized... it wouldn't completely stop people from growing their own. on the other hand, I can see how the price for home grown weed would skyrocket as the supply decreased.

So yeah, that, I guess.

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 08:26:45 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 06:24:44 PM


Why not?  What harm does it do?  

why not require everyone who buys a beer to undergo screening for alcoholism ? and who do you want intruding into peoples lives like this? the gov?

Alcohol is legal, marijuana is not.  Is it arbitrary?  Sure.  But show me human-made laws that aren't arbitrary.  But a simple screening is harmless and would take an hour, max, of a person's time.  And if the person really does have a problem they would reap huge benefits from being referred to treatment.  I look at it in the same way that a person has to take a defensive driving course for certain driving violations.  It's a formality one has to go through when they violate a certain law.  If they don't want to go through it, either don't violate the law, or become a lot better at violating it without being caught. 

Quotei don't think they do, for most kids the barrier is believing it may harm them, i cant imagine a kid who thinks "WOW i wish i could do drugs i would LOVE to do drugs... but they are illegal so i wont.".. it doesn't seem very realistic  (or even common enough to  be a group large enough to measure as a statistic)

Sure it is.  It's kids who have healthy relationships with their parents and who are very concerned about not being "failures" in their eyes.  (yes please note the quotations, I'm not saying someone who uses pot is a failure)  There are plenty of kids with similar motivations.  Teens by their natures are risk takers.  That's why it is important there are barriers both policy wise, and those created by parents through their parenting. 

Quoteif pot is legalized  part of the laws surrounding it need to address preventing its being glamorized (no advertising) and laws for selling to kids should be tightly enforced and carry heavy punishment to prevent the spread of easy access to kids that you worry about, but its hard to say that criminalization is some how better than taking such steps as part of the legalization process would end up being..

It's not hard for me to say.  One of the biggest access points for alcohol is relatives and known adults.  If you have more of these access points with legal marijuana, it's really a no-brainer that it will be more accessible.  And again, I know it is already quite accessible, but I firmly belief the needle needs to move down.  Any measure that it moves up is unacceptable in my view. 

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.  Some already use this to color their product by adding food coloring.  It may not be very common, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. 

I think, if you take the time to look, you will find for every negative research done on marijuana, you will find a positive one.  

Many things that adults do are not good for them, but as adults they have that option.  Alcohol has a legal age limit.  Cigarettes have a legal age limit.  Do teenagers drink and smoke?  Oh we all know they do.  So if the government did legalize marijuana, then they would have a legal age limit.  Would kids still do it.  Of course.  

That being said, we all know there are different grades of marijuana.  Different strains and these have different levels of THC.  Those of us who smoke have all had some bad weed, good weed and awesome weed.  Depending on the time of the year you may have more seeds or less.  There is always those couple of times a year when everyone you know is dry.  It's the market of weed.  

So we come to, who profits if it is legalized?  The government of course.  Do I want to pay a boatload of taxes on my weed?  Do I want to have to go to the liquor/weed store to get it?  Not really, but it would certainly make life easier if I could.  I do think what was purchased legally would have THC limits and such, so the quality of marijuana purchased legally is up for debate.

Legal or illegal, some kids are still going to try weed, alcohol and cigarettes.  Thinking that keeping it illegal will keep the kids off weed is not going to happen.  It is illegal for them to drink alcohol, yet according to MADD over 5000 kids die each year because of drinking and driving. And I do not know how accurate that really is.  Again, I say, for every study done on marijuana that ends up with the "It is a terrible thing" there is also one which is the complete opposite.  

The economy could certainly use the boost, but considering a pack of cigarettes is over $5 now I can only imagine what the government would charge for weed.....  Would I still smoke if the price was insane?  I really don't know.  

I don't have anything to add, but I will say that I enjoy reading these threads due to the spectrum of viewpoints and backgrounds everybody's coming from.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 11:00:37 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.  Some already use this to color their product by adding food coloring.  It may not be very common, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. 

:argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:

No No No No No!

Now look, I'm fine with everyone having their oppinion. I approve of RWHN's concerns about kids and their interactin with drugs... I've never seen a kid on pot that has ended well and I've seen a number of kids that smoked pot as teenagers that fucked their life. So you get no argument there.

HOWEVER, this shit about laced pot and secret chemicals in hydro... its not only false Drug War BS, its not SCIENCE.

In hydroponics, you can add some things which will slightly modify your marijuana's growth and production, fertilizer. You can also, add something with a high glucose content toward the end to 'sweeten' the flavor of the bud. However, having played in that world, having seen more hydro setups that I can count right offhand, and from having had many, many, many years worth of discussions about growing pot...

There is no evidence that anyone has discovered a way to put harmful stuff into pot via hydroponics. In fact, such an act would likely kill your plants. People that are growing hydro are growing prime weed. You don't grow middies in hydro, you grow beautiful rich flowers with no seed in perfect growth environments. So you get the best that genetic strain has to offer... you don't NEED OR WANT to fuck that up.

Let me break it down on the money side:

Grow pot $
Sell Grown Pot $$
Grow Hydro $$
Sell Hydro $$$
Grow Hydro with Evil Chemicals $$$
Sel Hydro $$$

Note that its more expensive to grow hydro with evil sooper skeret chemicals in it... but no one is gonna pay you more than the going rate for Hydro. Hydro is your top seller, adding shit to it doesn't make it a topity-top seller, it makes you lose customers.

I have seen instances where someone has sold joints laced with bad drugs... but thats why no one in their right mind buys prerolled joints. I also recall some news stories about an incident in England where people were sticking small bits of glass in the bags, however, it was quickly obvious, and the glass beads were not medically harmful.

We can discusss subjective stuff like legalization... but let's not bring up boogy men that are as believable as Stony Claus the merry old elf in green that leaves you a 10-sack in your stocking.

what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

Well, food coloring is possible, though its not really gonna fetch a higher price. There are lots of pot strains which have strong non-green coloration, but that has a lot to do with the genetics, not chemicals. The difference between a legit strain color and food coloring would be pretty obvious.

However, its certainly possible that someone would try that. But food coloring isn't gonna make you trip or get sick. Hell, its not likely to even increase the value of your pot...

Quote from: BAI on November 16, 2009, 02:48:15 AMhehe.

I'm all for legalisation, but my argument against it being, the medical marajuana we purchase is THREE times the price of the kind you get from a guy in a bar.

Then there's the sales tax on top of that also.

I think it would be cool, but ultimately too expensive. Like the coffee shops in Holland.

our medical pot is more like three times as shitty as the regular pot. but I think the costs are covered by healthcare (otherwise I'd assume they would just as well go to a coffeeshop instead, much nicer atmosphere too :-P)

It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

I have a "friend" who did a lot of hydroponic growing in the 90's.  One year for Halloween they tried to do a black strain and an orange strain of some really good stuff.  It took like a gallon of food coloring to get the black to a really dark green and the orange turned the other this gross brown color.  Taste and potency wasn't affected but.....  It didn't do what we thought it would.

I've also known people add red food coloring thinking it would make the hairs redder.  That didn't work well either.  

Not sure what green would do other than make it an unnatural color of green.....  

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 03:28:32 PM

Quote from: RWHNActually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.  Some already use this to color their product by adding food coloring.  It may not be very common, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities.

In hydroponics, you can add some things which will slightly modify your marijuana's growth and production, fertilizer. You can also, add something with a high glucose content toward the end to 'sweeten' the flavor of the bud. However, having played in that world, having seen more hydro setups that I can count right offhand, and from having had many, many, many years worth of discussions about growing pot...

There is no evidence that anyone has discovered a way to put harmful stuff into pot via hydroponics. In fact, such an act would likely kill your plants. People that are growing hydro are growing prime weed. You don't grow middies in hydro, you grow beautiful rich flowers with no seed in perfect growth environments. So you get the best that genetic strain has to offer... you don't NEED OR WANT to fuck that up.

BUT CAN YOU COLOUR YOUR WEED BY ADDING FOOD COLOURING TO ITS WATER???

INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AWESOME

(oh I see Cram asked the same thing)

QuoteI have seen instances where someone has sold joints laced with bad drugs... but thats why no one in their right mind buys prerolled joints. I also recall some news stories about an incident in England where people were sticking small bits of glass in the bags, however, it was quickly obvious, and the glass beads were not medically harmful.

only thing I've heard about that I would think slightly probable to be happening sometimes (rarely) (and I'm talking about NL now) is people spraying sugar water or hairspray on the buds so that the pollen stick better to it. I suppose hairspray is less healthy than sugarwater, even though burning sugar isn't really the most healthy thing to inhale either.

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

What I've been told by the DEA.  (Yes, the evil gov't DEA) is that the foodcoloring is like a brand-marker.  There's already a bunch of chemicals in the Marijuana smoke so I don't know if that really adds any measurable amount of medical detriment.  But one has to wonder about the effects of these chemicals used for growing that are being absorbed into the plants.  They may not have short-term, acute effects, but it isn't too far fetched to imagine they aren't exactly honky dory for human lungs.  

YES you can color hydroponically grown marijuana with food coloring, however, in my experience, it takes so much to do so it isn't worth the effort.  You have to remember the water is constantly moving in most hydro set ups...  food coloring filters out quickly so you are constantly adding more.

Also, who the hell knows what smoking food coloring will do to you...  

Quote from: Khara on November 16, 2009, 04:32:35 PM
I have a "friend" who did a lot of hydroponic growing in the 90's.  One year for Halloween they tried to do a black strain and an orange strain of some really good stuff.  It took like a gallon of food coloring to get the black to a really dark green and the orange turned the other this gross brown color.  Taste and potency wasn't affected but.....  It didn't do what we thought it would.

:sad:

fortunately there's already strains of purple and orange weed out there genetically. but that's mostly the hairs and the back of petals.

Quote
Not sure what green would do other than make it an unnatural color of green.....  

we need to figure out how to add that glow-in-the-dark gene to pot.

- trip,
increasing THC content's been done, but there are moar roads to AWESOME :)

You know what's great about my job is I can Google stuff like "glow in the dark pot" and read how-to sites on this stuff, at work, and it is not only okay, but encouraged!  Granted, for obviously different reasons than others, but still....

Now, if I could only somehow combine my job with Hoopla's....

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 10:56:25 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 08:26:45 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 15, 2009, 06:24:44 PM


Why not?  What harm does it do?  

why not require everyone who buys a beer to undergo screening for alcoholism ? and who do you want intruding into peoples lives like this? the gov?

Alcohol is legal, marijuana is not.  Is it arbitrary?  Sure.  But show me human-made laws that aren't arbitrary.  But a simple screening is harmless and would take an hour, max, of a person's time.  And if the person really does have a problem they would reap huge benefits from being referred to treatment.  I look at it in the same way that a person has to take a defensive driving course for certain driving violations.  It's a formality one has to go through when they violate a certain law.  If they don't want to go through it, either don't violate the law, or become a lot better at violating it without being caught. 

we were talking about small amounts for personal use being ok and that it should be legal  which is more comparable to alcoholism tests for buying a beer then driving classes for violations... what happens to someone that has committed a crime that harms no one is often far worse than arbitrary i would rather see them "get help" for there harmless choice than go to jail but only if its still illegal 

Quote

Quoteif pot is legalized  part of the laws surrounding it need to address preventing its being glamorized (no advertising) and laws for selling to kids should be tightly enforced and carry heavy punishment to prevent the spread of easy access to kids that you worry about, but its hard to say that criminalization is some how better than taking such steps as part of the legalization process would end up being..

It's not hard for me to say.  One of the biggest access points for alcohol is relatives and known adults.  If you have more of these access points with legal marijuana, it's really a no-brainer that it will be more accessible.  And again, I know it is already quite accessible, but I firmly belief the needle needs to move down.  Any measure that it moves up is unacceptable in my view. 

i cant come up with any proof for this one.. but after a brief explosion of drug use from the curious trying it (small amount) and the REAL numbers of users becoming apparent (the larger part of any increase) the amount of use will become fairly constant and if the surrounding laws and penalty are done properly (strict enough) the number of known adults and relatives (and strangers willing to buy for kids) would end up being close to the same.

because i don't work in your industry i don't see the harm done by pot "??" as out weighing the harm done by the war on drugs in there pointless and un-winnable effort against it, i doubt we ever will have the same view...

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

As I said before, hydro allows you to give the plant the absolute BEST growing environment. The maximum level of THC present in any marijuana plant is defined in the genetics. If it's grown outside, if the conditions aren't right, you get less THC. In a perfect growing environment, you can coax a lot all the THC that's in the genetics.

It's like saying "Ohhh, those people are growing huge tomatoes and getting a bigger harvest than the outdoor tomato growers". Of course they are... but its still just tomatoes. Pot with more THC just means that you don't have to smoke very much of it.

30 years ago, most pot was being grown outdoors in a remote area where it got random watering and feeding and was prone to seeding (which drastically decreases the THC content), to compare that to weed today and pretend its more dangerous because of some chemical magic is absurd.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:38:16 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

What I've been told by the DEA.  (Yes, the evil gov't DEA) is that the foodcoloring is like a brand-marker.  There's already a bunch of chemicals in the Marijuana smoke so I don't know if that really adds any measurable amount of medical detriment.  But one has to wonder about the effects of these chemicals used for growing that are being absorbed into the plants.  They may not have short-term, acute effects, but it isn't too far fetched to imagine they aren't exactly honky dory for human lungs.  

Are you worried about eating produce from the grocery? Because it likely has exactly the same "chemicals" in it; nitrogen, phosphates, amino acids, potassium... all sorts of strange chemicals...

And if the DEA believes that food coloring is a brand marker... well, I'm not surprised, they seem to believe many things which are entirely absurd. I think, perhaps, they find an instance where some spag tried something stupid, and extrapolate it to be "a trend". I used to believe those people, I used to never touch drugs because the government had so much information about how they were Very Very Bad. Then I tried it, then I started meeting "pot dealers" and then I learned that much that had been told to me was BULLSHIT. And not just slight exaggeration bullshit, but whole cloth fibbing.

If you're telling kids that people are secretly sticking chemicals in their hydro... maybe they will believe you. However, as soon as they meet someone that does Hydro, and as soon as their misconception is cleared up... how would that affect their opinion of other things you've told them?

It seems to me that if the truth isn't enough to stop kids, making shit up to scare them is only a short term fix.

 :lol: after reading this thread, I want to find some of this artifically colored herb

so perhaps it has a market value after all

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

you can turn your bud purple just by overwatering it, or adding a PPK solution that's higher on phosphorus than your plant needs. Since watering and adding PPK are things you do anyway, there's no need to add food coloring.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:00:24 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

you can turn your bud purple just by overwatering it, or adding a PPK solution that's higher on phosphorus than your plant needs. Since watering and adding PPK are things you do anyway, there's no need to add food coloring.

OMGZ!!! H2O and PPK are CHEMICALS!!!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:38:16 PM

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
what about food coloring though? I can see how making the bud kind of reddish or purple would justify a higher street price.

What I've been told by the DEA.  (Yes, the evil gov't DEA) is that the foodcoloring is like a brand-marker.  There's already a bunch of chemicals in the Marijuana smoke so I don't know if that really adds any measurable amount of medical detriment.  But one has to wonder about the effects of these chemicals used for growing that are being absorbed into the plants.  They may not have short-term, acute effects, but it isn't too far fetched to imagine they aren't exactly honky dory for human lungs.  

what you were told by the DEA is an outright lie.

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 04:49:39 PM
we were talking about small amounts for personal use being ok and that it should be legal  which is more comparable to alcoholism tests for buying a beer then driving classes for violations... what happens to someone that has committed a crime that harms no one is often far worse than arbitrary i would rather see them "get help" for there harmless choice than go to jail but only if its still illegal

Well the only way for someone to get appropriate help is to be properly assessed.  You don't want to treat an ASAM 1.0 the same way you treat an ASAM 3.0.  They require very different levels of care.  

Quote
because i don't work in your industry i don't see the harm done by pot "??" as out weighing the harm done by the war on drugs in there pointless and un-winnable effort against it, i doubt we ever will have the same view...

First, I work for a non-profit.  Not an industry.  
Second, as I mentioned before, law enforcement policies should continue to be examined and are as we speak:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/congress-orders-review-of.html

But we can do these things without legalizing the drug.  Because I can assure you that this drug has done considerable harm to individuals and their families.  It's a fight worth fighting, but also, a fight that needs to be fought sensibly.  

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

As I said before, hydro allows you to give the plant the absolute BEST growing environment. The maximum level of THC present in any marijuana plant is defined in the genetics. If it's grown outside, if the conditions aren't right, you get less THC. In a perfect growing environment, you can coax a lot all the THC that's in the genetics.

It's like saying "Ohhh, those people are growing huge tomatoes and getting a bigger harvest than the outdoor tomato growers". Of course they are... but its still just tomatoes. Pot with more THC just means that you don't have to smoke very much of it.

Ah, but this gets us back to the whole issue of minors and brain development.  Sure, a seasoned veteran like yourself may understand this, but do you think the majority of teenagers understand this and will exercise that restraint?  Teenagers and restraint are two words not commonly found in the same sentence. 

Quote30 years ago, most pot was being grown outdoors in a remote area where it got random watering and feeding and was prone to seeding (which drastically decreases the THC content), to compare that to weed today and pretend its more dangerous because of some chemical magic is absurd.

Are fertilizers not chemicals? 

QuoteIf you're telling kids that people are secretly sticking chemicals in their hydro... maybe they will believe you. However, as soon as they meet someone that does Hydro, and as soon as their misconception is cleared up... how would that affect their opinion of other things you've told them?

Let me ask you a question.  How many chemicals do you think are present in inhaled marijuana smoke?  No, not compared to tobacco, just a number relative to marijuana itself. 

QuoteIt seems to me that if the truth isn't enough to stop kids, making shit up to scare them is only a short term fix.

I don't make shit up.  Anything I present to kids or anyone else for that matter in my professional work is researched. 

yes, but some of your sources are far less than truthful.

Mind you, I'm not slagging on the work you do, I think it's valuable and necessary, but I also think it would be MORE valuable if it were based on actual science instead of mixing in boogeyman scare tactics perpetuated by agencies with an agenda and passed on to you as hard science.

You are making assumptions that something I am sharing with you here, on an internet message board, is the same thing I am sharing in my professional settings.  No, a comment from a conversation with a DEA agent is NOT something I am presenting to kids and families.  In those settings I am providing information from credible, peer-reviewed resources.  

I am making that assumption, but only because I hadn't seen you clarify that until now.

In that case, I'm glad you recognize the difference.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 05:02:18 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 04:49:39 PM
we were talking about small amounts for personal use being ok and that it should be legal  which is more comparable to alcoholism tests for buying a beer then driving classes for violations... what happens to someone that has committed a crime that harms no one is often far worse than arbitrary i would rather see them "get help" for there harmless choice than go to jail but only if its still illegal

Well the only way for someone to get appropriate help is to be properly assessed.  You don't want to treat an ASAM 1.0 the same way you treat an ASAM 3.0.  They require very different levels of care.  

Quote
because i don't work in your industry i don't see the harm done by pot "??" as out weighing the harm done by the war on drugs in there pointless and un-winnable effort against it, i doubt we ever will have the same view...

First, I work for a non-profit.  Not an industry.  
Second, as I mentioned before, law enforcement policies should continue to be examined and are as we speak:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/congress-orders-review-of.html

But we can do these things without legalizing the drug.  Because I can assure you that this drug has done considerable harm to individuals and their families.  It's a fight worth fighting, but also, a fight that needs to be fought sensibly.  

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 05:09:43 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

As I said before, hydro allows you to give the plant the absolute BEST growing environment. The maximum level of THC present in any marijuana plant is defined in the genetics. If it's grown outside, if the conditions aren't right, you get less THC. In a perfect growing environment, you can coax a lot all the THC that's in the genetics.

It's like saying "Ohhh, those people are growing huge tomatoes and getting a bigger harvest than the outdoor tomato growers". Of course they are... but its still just tomatoes. Pot with more THC just means that you don't have to smoke very much of it.

Ah, but this gets us back to the whole issue of minors and brain development.  Sure, a seasoned veteran like yourself may understand this, but do you think the majority of teenagers understand this and will exercise that restraint?  Teenagers and restraint are two words not commonly found in the same sentence.  

... are you actually serious?

I don't smoke with kids, but I do talk to kids that smoke. When they get nugget, they hoard it like fucking dragon gold. Nugget tastes better, its less harsh, its a better buzz, it doesn't have seeds so you get more weed for your weight. Now, maybe you have some dumbass kids in Maine, but around here... kids don't seem to be sucking down blunts of Nugget.

Quote

Quote30 years ago, most pot was being grown outdoors in a remote area where it got random watering and feeding and was prone to seeding (which drastically decreases the THC content), to compare that to weed today and pretend its more dangerous because of some chemical magic is absurd.

Are fertilizers not chemicals?  

Yep, so is hydrogen and oxygen and hydro does use water, so I guess you're right.

Quote

QuoteIf you're telling kids that people are secretly sticking chemicals in their hydro... maybe they will believe you. However, as soon as they meet someone that does Hydro, and as soon as their misconception is cleared up... how would that affect their opinion of other things you've told them?

Let me ask you a question.  How many chemicals do you think are present in inhaled marijuana smoke?  No, not compared to tobacco, just a number relative to marijuana itself.  

It depends on the strain. There are over 61 different canabanoids that have been documented which show up in different levels depending on the strain. These are activated at different levels of heat, so often many of them are burned off without ever being sucked into the lungs. Unless you're using a variable heat vaporizer. There are about 300 or 400 compounds in the plant itself. If you use a vaporizer like I do, then what you inhale is 90%+ THC and CBD, if you smoke the stuff via joint or bowl, its about 11% with other crap in the smoke.

Quote

QuoteIt seems to me that if the truth isn't enough to stop kids, making shit up to scare them is only a short term fix.

I don't make shit up.  Anything I present to kids or anyone else for that matter in my professional work is researched.  

I should have said "made up shit" It seems to me that you honestly believe a lot of what professional researchers tell you... but a number of claims you've repeated here sound like... ummm, misinformation.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 05:19:37 PM
You are making assumptions that something I am sharing with you here, on an internet message board, is the same thing I am sharing in my professional settings.  No, a comment from a conversation with a DEA agent is NOT something I am presenting to kids and families.  In those settings I am providing information from credible, peer-reviewed resources. 

Good to know! I only wish the general drug policy of the country was similar.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 05:26:35 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 05:02:18 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 04:49:39 PM
we were talking about small amounts for personal use being ok and that it should be legal  which is more comparable to alcoholism tests for buying a beer then driving classes for violations... what happens to someone that has committed a crime that harms no one is often far worse than arbitrary i would rather see them "get help" for there harmless choice than go to jail but only if its still illegal

Well the only way for someone to get appropriate help is to be properly assessed.  You don't want to treat an ASAM 1.0 the same way you treat an ASAM 3.0.  They require very different levels of care.  

Quote
because i don't work in your industry i don't see the harm done by pot "??" as out weighing the harm done by the war on drugs in there pointless and un-winnable effort against it, i doubt we ever will have the same view...

First, I work for a non-profit.  Not an industry.  
Second, as I mentioned before, law enforcement policies should continue to be examined and are as we speak:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/congress-orders-review-of.html

But we can do these things without legalizing the drug.  Because I can assure you that this drug has done considerable harm to individuals and their families.  It's a fight worth fighting, but also, a fight that needs to be fought sensibly.  

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 05:09:43 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 04:50:12 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

As I said before, hydro allows you to give the plant the absolute BEST growing environment. The maximum level of THC present in any marijuana plant is defined in the genetics. If it's grown outside, if the conditions aren't right, you get less THC. In a perfect growing environment, you can coax a lot all the THC that's in the genetics.

It's like saying "Ohhh, those people are growing huge tomatoes and getting a bigger harvest than the outdoor tomato growers". Of course they are... but its still just tomatoes. Pot with more THC just means that you don't have to smoke very much of it.

Ah, but this gets us back to the whole issue of minors and brain development.  Sure, a seasoned veteran like yourself may understand this, but do you think the majority of teenagers understand this and will exercise that restraint?  Teenagers and restraint are two words not commonly found in the same sentence.  

... are you actually serious?

I don't smoke with kids, but I do talk to kids that smoke. When they get nugget, they hoard it like fucking dragon gold. Nugget tastes better, its less harsh, its a better buzz, it doesn't have seeds so you get more weed for your weight. Now, maybe you have some dumbass kids in Maine, but around here... kids don't seem to be sucking down blunts of Nugget.

How many kids are you talking about, compared to the entire population of your area?  Do you think that qualifies as a representative sample? 

Quote

Quote

Quote30 years ago, most pot was being grown outdoors in a remote area where it got random watering and feeding and was prone to seeding (which drastically decreases the THC content), to compare that to weed today and pretend its more dangerous because of some chemical magic is absurd.

Are fertilizers not chemicals?  

Yep, so is hydrogen and oxygen and hydro does use water, so I guess you're right.

Quote

QuoteIf you're telling kids that people are secretly sticking chemicals in their hydro... maybe they will believe you. However, as soon as they meet someone that does Hydro, and as soon as their misconception is cleared up... how would that affect their opinion of other things you've told them?

Let me ask you a question.  How many chemicals do you think are present in inhaled marijuana smoke?  No, not compared to tobacco, just a number relative to marijuana itself.  

It depends on the strain. There are over 61 different canabanoids that have been documented which show up in different levels depending on the strain. These are activated at different levels of heat, so often many of them are burned off without ever being sucked into the lungs. Unless you're using a variable heat vaporizer. There are about 300 or 400 compounds in the plant itself. If you use a vaporizer like I do, then what you inhale is 90%+ THC and CBD, if you smoke the stuff via joint or bowl, its about 11% with other crap in the smoke.

Do you think all of these chemicals are benign to lungs? 

Quote
I should have said "made up shit" It seems to me that you honestly believe a lot of what professional researchers tell you... but a number of claims you've repeated here sound like... ummm, misinformation.

Umm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right? 

out law camp fires

QuoteWood smoke contains numerous toxic substances, including known carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, and tine organic particles. Based on epidemiological studies in children, wood smoke has implicated in increasing respiratory illnesses. Controlled studies on mice and rats have confirmed such associations. In one study, carried out by EPA (Enviroment Protection Agency scientists, a group of mice was exposed to wood smoke for six hours, a second group was exposed to the emissions from an oil furnace, and a third group (the control group) was not exposed to any type of smoke or emissions. All of the mice were then exposed to an air-borne bacteruim which causes respiratory infections. After sex weeks only 5% of the mice in the control group and in the group exposed to oil emissions had died of the infection, whereas 21% of the mice exposed to the wood smoke had died. Independent studies undertaken at New York University School of Medicine using rats exposed to wood smoke and respiratory pathogens (such as the bacterium staphylococcus aureus) showed similar results. Based on such data, the researchers are convinced of the potential health associated with breathing wood smoke.

RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

2) Do you recognize the validity of experiential evidence, especially experiential evidence gathered over many years?

3) Are you aware that there's way more to the US government's drug policy than just caring about keeping kids off of harmful drugs? Are you aware of the documentable connections between domestic drug policy and foreign policy and that it is frequently not in the government's best interests to disclose the full truth regarding the reasons behind their domestic drug policy, or the hypocrisy in adopting a "tough on drugs" stance for the electorate while simultaneously using drug money to finance proxy armies (mujahideen, Contras, etc.)? And would you agree that, given these things, the US government may not be a very credible source for hard science regarding drugs and drug use?

now, I've got no more respect for the yahoo hippies that think everything would be great if we were all stoned all the time and I recognize that there are people for whom recreational drug use is detrimental and they may even be the majority, but where do you draw the line between legally enforced prohibition and giving people reliable information so they can make their own choices? I absolutely do not believe in preventative legislation of anything, drugs included. If a crackhead robs someone for his fix, then he's guilty of armed robbery and should be dealt with appropriately but I disagree that that means that smoking crack in and of itself should be illegal. Preventative prohibition is absolutely contrary to the ideals that America was founded on.

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 05:55:45 PM
out law camp fires

QuoteWood smoke contains numerous toxic substances, including known carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, aldehydes, carbon monoxide, and tine organic particles. Based on epidemiological studies in children, wood smoke has implicated in increasing respiratory illnesses. Controlled studies on mice and rats have confirmed such associations. In one study, carried out by EPA (Enviroment Protection Agency scientists, a group of mice was exposed to wood smoke for six hours, a second group was exposed to the emissions from an oil furnace, and a third group (the control group) was not exposed to any type of smoke or emissions. All of the mice were then exposed to an air-borne bacteruim which causes respiratory infections. After sex weeks only 5% of the mice in the control group and in the group exposed to oil emissions had died of the infection, whereas 21% of the mice exposed to the wood smoke had died. Independent studies undertaken at New York University School of Medicine using rats exposed to wood smoke and respiratory pathogens (such as the bacterium staphylococcus aureus) showed similar results. Based on such data, the researchers are convinced of the potential health associated with breathing wood smoke.

Sex weeks huh?

Lys, go jerk off or something. We're trying to have an intellectual discussion here, in spite of this being Apple Talk.

QuoteUmm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right?

When I hear claims that make no sense, then YES I call bullshit and misinformation. The fact that the US Drug Czar is legally required to NOT TELL THE TRUTH if the truth conflicts with the drug policy tells me that the government is not exactly a trustworthy source.

You want to talk about kids experiences that you've personally seen, I think thats awesome... you start telling me that hydro has secret evil chemicals that MIGHT BE BAD... uhhh, I'm gonna call Bullshit. Sometimes you say things and they sound like you're naive or misinformed. Maybe not, maybe my experiences are completely atypical and secret cartels of chemically enhanced marijuana are getting innocent teens addicted and ruining their lives.

I admit that might be the case.

It may also be the case that we live in the Matrix.


As for the "chemicals"... Are you seriously debating the health risks of potassium, phosphates etc? I mean, it's in every vegetable you eat. I am far more concerned with the dangerous chemicals in our food that the FDA gives a pass on, to worry about fertilizer in plants. If those chemicals were BAD, then I guess my Dad's hotbed should be illegal and we should not eat anything from it...

I think I would have a lot more respect for your position, if you recognized that there is at least 'some' information you're getting may not be factual.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 06:03:14 PM
Lys, go jerk off or something. We're trying to have an intellectual discussion here, in spite of this being Apple Talk.

Sorry, I realize that, I just couldn't help but notice the typo.
I'm just wondering how that got into such an official sounding report.

Actually, I have a lot I want to say to this all, I just don't have the time yet.

Be back tomorrow with intelligent responses, I promise.

i am with rip city on this one - prohibition laws are contrary to the ideals of the country
i don't doubt that some harm is done by pot but DEA propaganda or DEA jack boots cant be the best way to help those with the problems,

legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 04:29:28 PM
It has also contributed to the markedly increased potency of the drug as is outlined in this article:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1913401,00.html

The THC levels in some of these plants grown via hydroponics are at 25%.  

This is a good thing. It means people have less smoke in their lungs to achieve the same effect.

Which do you think is more harmful? The smoke or the THC? If it's the smoke, which I believe to be the case, then this reduces the harm of smoking pot, which I would think you would be for.

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 09:39:26 PMMy point for you, is that i would love to see your take on this factor of "The Game"; i havent read all of your stuff do, so i dont know if i missed it. Although i know its a hard thing to do, for politicians dont make their relations or bribes known in relation to drug cartels...

OK, the thing is, drugs have two major selling points for people who don't mind getting their hands dirty (which, by definition includes the intelligence services, in that are glorified, domestically based criminal organisations):

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market
2.  They are worth tons of money

The CIA angle of the drug trade is probably the one I know the best, so I'll refer to that.  The CIA's budget is mostly secret, hidden among Pentagon spending, but has Congressional oversight through the Intelligence Sub-Committee, IIRC, which means that the American legislature, in theory, can say "What exactly are you doing with our cash?"

Of course, the CIA doesn't like to have to answer such questions.  Secrecy is an institutional obsession, both for its own sake, and because the CIA's officers frequently use the resources of the agency for agendas other than national security.  Not to mention even some of those programs which are undertaken for national security purposes might be objected to, by, say, high-minded reformers or politically aware and motivated voters.

So, in that sense, drug money is a good way to fund operations that the CIA isn't meant to be doing, or wants kept off the books.  Like Program Phoenix for example, the Vietnam assassination program.  Congress told the CIA to stop Phoenix in December 1972.  They kept up the operation until the fall of South Vietnam 1975.  It was funded in part by heroin sales.  The heroin was collected by ethnic groups in South East Asia allied with the US, processed by certain front organisations (like a Pepsi bottling plant in Laos) and then flown out, via the CIA's Air America airline, or smuggled back to the USA in dead soldier's bodies.

Often this is done with tacit approval from the White House...either they ask for something to be done and don't care how it happens, so long as it stays off the books...or it actively aids and abets these efforts, in the hope that Congress wont ever find out.  In Columbia, it is widely believed that right-wing militias like the AUC get funding and arms from the CIA (or DIA, or somebody) in return for a cut of the cocaine profits, which they help facilitate the entry of into the country. 

Drugs also give an excuse for American politicians to land troops anywhere in South America virtually, at any time.  Noriega is your example here.  The General was a Company man, through and through.  But he fucked up...rumour I heard was he started selling US secrets to Cuba, maybe that's true, and maybe it's not.  Either way, his CIA connections meant shit when the Marines came a-knocking.  If you want to get more influence in a country, building up a guy like Noriega and his opposition, then chucking Noriega once he starts believing his own Glorious Leader bullshit and too difficult to manage is a good way to go about it.

Naturally, profits themselves are also a motive.  I mean, hell, you know roughly what the numbers are for the Mexican Cartels alone.  Even a very small cut of that would do quite nicely.

There are also domestic benefits, too.  Many CIA operatives got axed under Carter the Peanut Farmer, when he tried to de-Nixonfy the Agency.  Some of those went on to found private security firms, especially those specializing in training or intelligence gathering.  And hey, if you have a War on Drugs...well, contracts abound for that sort of things.

Drugs also keep uppity minorities down.  Black radicalism, for example.  Throw drugs, guns and profits into the equation, and it turns into gang warfare very quickly.  Nasty, sure, but they're not spouting the Black Panter party line anymore, are they?

I'm sure there are many more examples I've forgotten, but I've only had five hours sleep, and had to count out £105 in one and two pence pieces at work today, so my brain is a little fried atm.

So remember, kids: the use of drugs is a victimless crime.


[/sarcasm]

Wow that was badly written.  And nonsensical.  Basically drugs = secret money to do stuff no-one will find out about.  Insert your favourite intelligence service, terrorist group or international crime organisation here.

Quote from: LMNO on November 16, 2009, 07:06:20 PM
So remember, kids: the use of drugs is a victimless crime.


[/sarcasm]

ROFL... well as long as we keep the black market as the sole supplier of drugs. Can you imagine how horrible and victim laden the situation would be if you could actually buy it at a State store?!

I for one, am glad the government is looking out for our best interests... as Cain pointed out in his excellent summary above.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.  

Quote2) Do you recognize the validity of experiential evidence, especially experiential evidence gathered over many years?

It can be valid, depends on how the evidence is gathered.  When this experiential evidence is gathered through an empirical process like focus groups, key informant interviews, etc., it can be ONE source of valid information.  However, a finding is more robust when it is triangulated with multiple sources to back it up.  

Quote3) Are you aware that there's way more to the US government's drug policy than just caring about keeping kids off of harmful drugs? Are you aware of the documentable connections between domestic drug policy and foreign policy and that it is frequently not in the government's best interests to disclose the full truth regarding the reasons behind their domestic drug policy, or the hypocrisy in adopting a "tough on drugs" stance for the electorate while simultaneously using drug money to finance proxy armies (mujahideen, Contras, etc.)? And would you agree that, given these things, the US government may not be a very credible source for hard science regarding drugs and drug use?

If someone wants to provide a specific source of information and debunk it with documented evidence of how it is incorrect and how it is linked to a hidden agenda, I'll be happy to discuss it.  

Quotenow, I've got no more respect for the yahoo hippies that think everything would be great if we were all stoned all the time and I recognize that there are people for whom recreational drug use is detrimental and they may even be the majority, but where do you draw the line between legally enforced prohibition and giving people reliable information so they can make their own choices?

Well, I don't work in the government so I'm not in any position to decide what line is drawn where.  I know where the line is currently and I believe it is in the best interest to maintain it.  The reality is that you can't separate the decisions adults make about drugs from the impacts those decisions have on adolescents.  There is no way around that.  

QuoteI absolutely do not believe in preventative legislation of anything, drugs included. If a crackhead robs someone for his fix, then he's guilty of armed robbery and should be dealt with appropriately but I disagree that that means that smoking crack in and of itself should be illegal. Preventative prohibition is absolutely contrary to the ideals that America was founded on.

Well, technically it is the possession of the crack that is illegal, not the smoking of it.  But obviously you can't have one without the other.  And again, if that possession didn't end up being a minor in possession, I'd be all for legalization.  But that world will never exist.  

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2009, 07:06:24 PM
Wow that was badly written.  And nonsensical.  Basically drugs = secret money to do stuff no-one will find out about.  Insert your favourite intelligence service, terrorist group or international crime organisation here.

Wouldn't that depend on the drug though?

I thought that most of the weed in the US was grown in the states (I could well be wrong), which would mean that the CIA has less of a hand in it than other illegal drugs (ie cocaine and heroin).

Also, I'm assuming they have less to do with prescription drug trade too.

that was fascinating reading, Cain. Great post.

Oh absolutely.  But there is the protection racket aspect, too.  CIA assets who happen to be involved in the drugs trade often have immunity from prosecution....just ask the DEA about that little trick.  These guys can be domestic or international, though usually the latter.  With that tool, they can make sure certain dealers who don't have arrangements with, when they get busted, stay busted.  On the other hand, those people they do work with will be protected...in return for some favours, now and again.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:11:39 PM
 And again, if that possession didn't end up being a minor in possession, I'd be all for legalization.  But that world will never exist.  

But, generally minors currently have  better access to supply than we adults do... assuming they're like me and won't buy from a minor. I suppose if the current system appeared to help lots of kids and not hurt lots of adults, I'd be fine with it... but it seems to protect a very small number of kids and is very bad for a large number of adults.

Ah, yeah, I overlooked that Cain, good point.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 06:06:46 PM

QuoteUmm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right?

When I hear claims that make no sense, then YES I call bullshit and misinformation. The fact that the US Drug Czar is legally required to NOT TELL THE TRUTH if the truth conflicts with the drug policy tells me that the government is not exactly a trustworthy source.

And what makes people on the pro-legalization side of things trustworthy?  Why should I believe your side isn't spreading bullshit and misinformation?  

QuoteYou want to talk about kids experiences that you've personally seen, I think thats awesome... you start telling me that hydro has secret evil chemicals that MIGHT BE BAD... uhhh, I'm gonna call Bullshit.

Umm, no.  I said that hydroponics has lead to increased THC levels and that there is evidence that some growers have used hydroponics to dye their products with food coloring.  And I even said I don't know what kind of effects smoking food coloring has.  It may be negligible compared to the chemicals (over 150) that are already in marijuana smoke.  I said nothing about "secret evil chemicals" so cut that shit out right now.  

QuoteSometimes you say things and they sound like you're naive or misinformed.

Sometimes you read things I say the way you want them to read because that seems to be the way you want to combat me.  By making me appear like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.  

QuoteAs for the "chemicals"... Are you seriously debating the health risks of potassium, phosphates etc? I mean, it's in every vegetable you eat. I am far more concerned with the dangerous chemicals in our food that the FDA gives a pass on, to worry about fertilizer in plants. If those chemicals were BAD, then I guess my Dad's hotbed should be illegal and we should not eat anything from it...

Yes, smoking chemicals are probably bad for your lungs.  Is it really that far-fetched?  Oh, and I eat organic vegetables and fruit.  So yeah, I am concerned about the chemicals and do what I can to avoid them.    

QuoteI think I would have a lot more respect for your position, if you recognized that there is at least 'some' information you're getting may not be factual.

I could care less if you respect my position.  You are basing this on your contorted readings of my posts about food coloring and THC levels through hydroponics.  You are turning that into me screaming something I did not scream.  I think the THC levels themselves are enough to be concerned with.  And I do think it is important to consider what kinds of chemicals you are introducing into your body along with the THC.  So you are going to take this one contorted claim and lay that upon the entirety of my professional output?  You are really going to jump to that conclusion based on this scant little information?  

Quote from: Cramulus on November 16, 2009, 07:14:58 PM
that was fascinating reading, Cain. Great post.

It's not that good.  Google "Nugan Hand", "the French Connection", "Gary Webb", how the ISI funded the Afghan mujahideen, Hamid Karzai's brother and a whole bunch of other stuff for a fuller picture.  If you want to really go deep, check out the intersection between the Mafia and the OSS during WWII, and work from there. 

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 06:28:58 PM
legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

Well, it's been fun, but I've gotta prepare for my next brainwashing Retreat training in the woods.  I just got these hawt new brochures from NIDA, complete with talking points about how to best pull the wool over kids eyes.  Gotta make sure I get them all in, because I'm being monitored and I'll only get 100% of my kickbacks from the government if I get them all in.  At this rate I'll have that yacht in no time!

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:24:53 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 06:06:46 PM

QuoteUmm, I AM a professional researcher.  And you are taking a couple of anecdotes I've posted on an internet message board and assumed it represents the entirety of my 40/hour a week job.  But I get it, I get it, anything that comes close to the government is automatically deemed invalid, whether you can actually counter the claim or not.  I'm familiar with how these discussions go.  Everything researched that doesn't support your experience or point of view is automatically "misinformation".  I couldn't possibly have any idea of what I am talking about, right?

When I hear claims that make no sense, then YES I call bullshit and misinformation. The fact that the US Drug Czar is legally required to NOT TELL THE TRUTH if the truth conflicts with the drug policy tells me that the government is not exactly a trustworthy source.

And what makes people on the pro-legalization side of things trustworthy?  Why should I believe your side isn't spreading bullshit and misinformation?  

You shouldn't.

Quote

QuoteYou want to talk about kids experiences that you've personally seen, I think thats awesome... you start telling me that hydro has secret evil chemicals that MIGHT BE BAD... uhhh, I'm gonna call Bullshit.

Umm, no.  I said that hydroponics has lead to increased THC levels and that there is evidence that some growers have used hydroponics to dye their products with food coloring.  And I even said I don't know what kind of effects smoking food coloring has.  It may be negligible compared to the chemicals (over 150) that are already in marijuana smoke.  I said nothing about "secret evil chemicals" so cut that shit out right now.  

Err...  <i>Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.</i> which was in response to comments about cutting pot with something to make it stronger.

Quote

QuoteSometimes you say things and they sound like you're naive or misinformed.

Sometimes you read things I say the way you want them to read because that seems to be the way you want to combat me.  By making me appear like I'm an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.  

I don't want to combat you. When you say things that sound ... uhh... wrong, though I'm not gonna make it sound otherwise.

Quote

QuoteAs for the "chemicals"... Are you seriously debating the health risks of potassium, phosphates etc? I mean, it's in every vegetable you eat. I am far more concerned with the dangerous chemicals in our food that the FDA gives a pass on, to worry about fertilizer in plants. If those chemicals were BAD, then I guess my Dad's hotbed should be illegal and we should not eat anything from it...

Yes, smoking chemicals are probably bad for your lungs.  Is it really that far-fetched?  Oh, and I eat organic vegetables and fruit.  So yeah, I am concerned about the chemicals and do what I can to avoid them.    

And all of that organic fruit and veg... HAS POTASSIUM, PHOSPHATES, HYDROGEN, OXYGEN, and all the same "chemicals" that hydro growers put in their pot. Its natural chemicals found naturally and used for thousands of years as FERTILIZER for the plant. As for the chemicals being bad for your lungs... smoking anything isn't great for your lungs... but I think that biologists might disagree with your argument here... since we talking about feeding a plant what it normally eats... which it breaks down and uses in its normal course of existence.

To equate that to 'people putting chemicals' in your drugs is absurd. Entirely absurd.

Quote

QuoteI think I would have a lot more respect for your position, if you recognized that there is at least 'some' information you're getting may not be factual.

I could care less if you respect my position.  You are basing this on your contorted readings of my posts about food coloring and THC levels through hydroponics.  You are turning that into me screaming something I did not scream.  I think the THC levels themselves are enough to be concerned with.  And I do think it is important to consider what kinds of chemicals you are introducing into your body along with the THC.  So you are going to take this one contorted claim and lay that upon the entirety of my professional output?  You are really going to jump to that conclusion based on this scant little information?  

No, I'm basing it on the many conversations we have had on the subject here. You have used a number of 'facts' from your sources which, to be blunt, are bullshit... or at least look an smell like bullshit.

I think kids should not do drugs and that we should educate kids so that they are smart about drugs... but I do not think its wise, smart, useful or helpful to hold the various other positions you've espoused. Not only do I disagree from a realistic position, but the philosophy that some small number of kids 'maybe not' trying pot justifies the current insane policy is downright idiotic.

Though by all means, don't pay any attention to me. I don't know anything.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 06:28:58 PM
legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

you say your job will be much harder to impossible...
Based upon what evidence?

i cant say with any certainty (i used the words "i suspect" for a reason) -  alcohol is the best example of the benefits of doing away with prohibition the trouble caused by alcohol being illegal (cop raids, smuggling bad quality booze killing people, gang wars, political and police corruption etc etc) all decreased when prohibition was repealed, the problems of alcohol abuse are not impossible to deal with today because of it being repealed, and i suspect (no citation) the fact that its not a crime that gets you thrown in jail makes getting people to admit they have a problem easier than it would be if they were breaking the law to feed their addiction,
after prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:11:39 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.  

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 07:50:54 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 06:28:58 PM
legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

you say your job will be much harder to impossible...
Based upon what evidence?

i cant say with any certainty (i used the words "i suspect" for a reason) -  alcohol is the best example of the benefits of doing away with prohibition the trouble caused by alcohol being illegal (cop raids, smuggling bad quality booze killing people, gang wars, political and police corruption etc etc) all decreased when prohibition was repealed, the problems of alcohol abuse are not impossible to deal with today because of it being repealed, and i suspect (no citation) the fact that its not a crime that gets you thrown in jail makes getting people to admit they have a problem easier than it would be if they were breaking the law to feed their addiction,
after prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

This is a Reasonable Motorcycle

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 07:52:43 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:11:39 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.   

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

I disagree. I don't think you have to be a stoner to say "Hey, your brain is still developing, pot will likely retard your emotional development. You probably shouldn't do it, spags." Though, I think it the naivety probably does figure into the common misunderstandings about what IS and ISN'T reasonable/possible in the drug scene.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 06:28:58 PM
legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

RWHN, I respect you and the work you do. Having said that....


Portugal.
-----
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12266-800000-americans-busted-annually-for-pot.html

"In Portugal, which legalized all drugs in 2001, hard drug use has showed a stunning decline while the numbers of people getting detox aid has soared, Time magazine reported last April 26th. By contrast, USA has the highest rates of drug use in the world."

-----
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-accept-the-facts-ndash-and-end-this-futile-war-on-drugs-1818167.html

Fact Three The drug war doesn't reduce drug use – but the alternatives can. Some people believe these two dark side-effects are a price worth paying if prohibition stops a significant number of people from picking up their first bong or needle. It was an understandable enough argument – until the evidence came in from countries that have experimented with ending the drug war.

On 1 July 2001, Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. You can have and use as much as you like for your own needs, and if you are caught, the police might refer you to a rehab programme, but you will never get a criminal record. (Supplying and selling remains illegal.) The prohibitionists predicted a catastrophic rise in addiction, and even I – an instinctive legaliser – was nervous.

Now we know: overall drug use actually fell a little. As a major study by Glenn Greenwald for The Cato Institute found, among Portuguese teenagers the fall was fastest (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080): 13-year-olds are four per cent less likely to use drugs, and 16-year-olds are six per cent less likely. As the iron law of prohibition predicts, the use of hard drugs has fallen fastest: heroin use has crashed by nearly 50 per cent among the young who were not yet addicted. The Portuguese have switched the billions that used to be spent chasing and jailing addicts to providing them with prescriptions and rehab. The number of people in drug treatment is now up by 147 per cent. Almost nobody in Portugal wants to go back. Indeed, many citizens want to take the next step: legalise supply too, and break the back of the gangs.

Portugal is no fluke. It turns out that wherever the drug laws are relaxed, drug use stays the same, or – where spending is switched to treatment – declines. Between 1972 and 1978, 11 US states decriminalised marijuana possession. The National Research Council found that the number of dope-smokers stayed the same.

-----
Greenwald, Glenn. "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:
Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies." The Cato Institute. April 2, 2009. 16 Nov 2009
< http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 >

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization.

The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states.

The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs, particularly within the EU.

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.

[LINK TO FULL WHITE PAPER] (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf)

-----

And because I don't want to spam the board with the full contents of that, I'll quote another article that has some good numbers cited:

http://www.straight.com/article-265288/canadas-war-drugs-bucks-global-trend

This is in sharp contrast to the experience in Portugal, which the Washington, D.C.–based Cato Institute examined in a detailed report released last April. Since decriminalization in 2001, lifetime prevalence rates, which measure how many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs in their lifetime, have decreased among youth, the think tank noted in Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. For Portuguese aged 13 to 15 years, the rate fell from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006. Among those aged 16 to 18, the rate dropped from 27.6 percent to 21.6 percent.

With the fear of criminal punishment gone, more addicts have availed themselves of drug-substitution treatments. The number of people accessing these services rose from 6,040 in 1999 to 14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147 percent.

Drug-related deaths declined, from about 400 in 1999 to 290 in 2006, while newly reported HIV cases among drug users in Portugal diminished from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 six years later. New AIDS cases among the same group dropped from about 600 in 2000 to approximately 200 in 2006.

The percentage of drug addicts among newly diagnosed HIV and AIDS patients decreased over the same time. In 2001, HIV-positive drug users accounted for more than 50 percent of new HIV cases; this fell to 30 percent in 2006. Addicts diagnosed with AIDS made up almost 60 percent of AIDS patients in 2001; their percentage was cut to less than 40 percent in 2006.

While I'm waiting for my surveys to compile....

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 16, 2009, 07:43:55 PM
Err...  <i>Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.</i> which was in response to comments about cutting pot with something to make it stronger.

Yes, this is my speculation.  Thus the use of the word "would".  Capillary action is liquids being pulled up into plants, yes?  This is different from me saying "78% of pot growers ARE putting chemicals into water, spiking their product, killing kids, etc."  Do I think it is happening?  On some level yes.  Do I think it is widespread?  I don't have the evidence that it is widespread but I don't believe it is far-fetched to think it is happening.  But I am not engaging in the histrionic rhetoric that you seem to want to attribute to me.  

Quote
I don't want to combat you. When you say things that sound ... uhh... wrong, though I'm not gonna make it sound otherwise.

It would be nice if you could do that with facts instead of generalizations.  

Quote
To equate that to 'people putting chemicals' in your drugs is absurd. Entirely absurd.

My only point was introducing chemicals into a product that is being smoked is probably not something that is going to be beneficial to ones health.  

Quote
No, I'm basing it on the many conversations we have had on the subject here. You have used a number of 'facts' from your sources which, to be blunt, are bullshit... or at least look an smell like bullshit.

How about some specifics with specific counterpoints.  

QuoteI think kids should not do drugs and that we should educate kids so that they are smart about drugs... but I do not think its wise, smart, useful or helpful to hold the various other positions you've espoused. Not only do I disagree from a realistic position, but the philosophy that some small number of kids 'maybe not' trying pot justifies the current insane policy is downright idiotic.

Right, so change the policy.  But policies can be changed without legalizing the drug.  Law enforcement policies can be addressed.  Sentencing and punishment policies can be addressed.  The argument you seem to be proposing is all or nothing.  I don't believe that is the correct way to frame the issue.  

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 07:50:54 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:27:41 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 06:28:58 PM
legalizing pot will decrease the problems caused by the jack boots, and possibly alter the problems the drug itself causes but not in a way that makes rwhns job impossible, and while they (drug workers) are understandably convinced by the drug war information they get, that legalization will make there job impossible or much harder i suspect the opposite may be true

Based upon what evidence?  

you say your job will be much harder to impossible...
Based upon what evidence?

Where did I say my job will be impossible? 

Quoteafter prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

Well you can rest assured that if it ever were to come to fruition that marijuana was going to be legalized that I'd be in the thick of it to make sure some very severe penalties were in place for anyone dealing to minors.  And make no mistake that WILL be the case if it is ever legalized.  People will still be going to jail because of marijuana.  It will just be for different crimes.  And that would mean a father supplying his son would be going to jail.  An aunt supplying her niece would be going to jail.  So understand that legalization will have some consequences for users. 

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 07:52:43 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:11:39 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.  

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

So then a brain specialist who has never smoked pot has no credibility when it comes to the impact of marijuana on the brain? 

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 08:13:24 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 16, 2009, 07:50:54 PM

Quoteafter prohibition the amount of under age drinking did not go into a steep climb that didn't stop till all kids became alcoholics, i don't think the increase in availability will create such a steep climb in drug use either and if it does cause an increase there are better and more effective ways to combat it than prohibition (criminalization ) of pot, such as tough penalty's for dealing to kids prohibiting advertising and educating kids for example

Well you can rest assured that if it ever were to come to fruition that marijuana was going to be legalized that I'd be in the thick of it to make sure some very severe penalties were in place for anyone dealing to minors.  And make no mistake that WILL be the case if it is ever legalized.  People will still be going to jail because of marijuana.  It will just be for different crimes.  And that would mean a father supplying his son would be going to jail.  An aunt supplying her niece would be going to jail.  So understand that legalization will have some consequences for users. 

and it absolutely should have some consequences and those laws would (hopefully) be fair and based on real harm being done to others and not on fear and punishing responsible adults for things they do to themselves..

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 08:15:06 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 07:52:43 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:11:39 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.   

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

So then a brain specialist who has never smoked pot has no credibility when it comes to the impact of marijuana on the brain? 

you're not a brain specialist.

however, a social worker or psychiatrist or anyone else whose profession relies on a combination of the hard scientific research done by others and the compilation of anecdotal and experiential evidence given by others would seem to be missing a large part of the picture if they were totally unfamiliar with the subject matter in a firsthand way. I'm not suggesting you should become a stoner and/or a dealer, butI am saying that you have to recognize that you are limited by your lack of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. This applies to anything, not just drugs.

to apply this line of thinking to myself, I don't think that I know jack shit about the physiology or commercial distribution of chickens just because I know how to cook a delicious chicken dinner, and I might well cook an even tastier chicken dinner if I did.

I just want to say, that, as a biologist I find it completely ridiculous that someone thinks you can just stick any molecule in water and a plant will pump it up and integrate it. Plants are not simple capillary tubes, they are living networks of cells, and the vascular system is complex. Root physiology is also equally complex. They "pump up anything you put in the water" no more than a gut epithelial cell absorbs anything in the intestines, and if they do it might very well kill the plant.

The other thing. Chemicals. EVERYTHING is a chemical. Would everyone mind clarifying what they mean by chemicals in this thread? FFS, potatoes contain deadly alkaloids such as solanine and chaconine, which is why you don't fucking eat green potatoes or potato leaves. POTATOES, folks. And you still eat them. If you can't clarify what particular molecular structures you mean then I doubt you know what the fuck you are talking about when you mean chemicals.

And the last thing. Fertilizer. Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Potassium, and sometimes other salts (ions, people). You put these things in the plants water and/or soil because they are limiting resources in the environment. The plant takes these things up selectively, it doesn't take just anything up willy nilly anymore than a human does. It has pathogens, toxins, viruses and other destructive inputs to defend against, it can't afford to let just anything in. Nor can it anyway, since the stuff coming in has to fit through the proteins on the surface of the root cells.


~Kai,

Really hates the way people talk about plants sometimes.

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

1. The argument that drug use leads to a climate of criminality is moot, because if drug use was legal the profits wouldn't be criminal.
    Throughout this thread, I've seen this argument sited several times. I'm not necessarily for the legalization of heroin or crack, given the rate of physical addiction of these things, however given the nature of cannabis I see no reason it shouldn't be legalized, thus eliminating one facet of the illegal drug market.

2. Unlike Alcohol, or Tobacco, no legitimate study has shown marijuana to have any long term harmful effects on the brain.
    IIRC, THC will temporarily bond with fat cells throughout the body, and in the brain. It does effect the brain, by bonding with cells in the brain, however unlike Alcohol these cells do not explode and die. There was a study done during the Reagan administration where they basically suffocated a bunch of monkeys and said, "hey look they're brain cells are all gone". Of course, this is because the conditions of the test. Since the test was obviously rigged, it points to a political agenda.

3. Marijuana is non-carcinogenic, there is not a single case of cancer that has been linked to marijuana.
    Yes, smoking superheated plant-matter might not be the best things for your lungs, but compared to say... tobacco, its practically harmless. Smoke inhalation of any sort isnt the best idea on a regular basis, but if I eat some pot brownies those wont give me cancer (or any other health problems as far as I know) either, whereas if I use snuff or chew, thats just as bad as smoking if not worse.

4. Marijuana is physically non-addictive.
    Sure, a person can develop a habit... but they will suffer no withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. When I cant afford to smoke pot, I dont smoke pot. When I cant afford to smoke cigarettes, I may do some pretty desperate things (like digging through my couch for change, going to the gas station with pennies, etc.) One of these things is an addiction, the other is not.

5. Compare the statistics of crime related to individuals under the influence of Alcohol to those under the influence of THC.
   Stoners aren't likely to do criminal things, they may do stupid things if they're stupid people to begin with, but they're more likely to just sit on the couch and watch bad television or play video games or whatever. Alcoholics, on the other hand, seem to be much more adventurous with their stupidity.

this thing about Portugal is really interesting. I didn't even know they decriminalized all drugs.

weird that, cause I'd be totally against decriminalization of heroin or cocaine, but if the numbers don't lie ... heroin addiction is a horrible thing and if decriminalizing it helps less people become addicted ... hm.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 08:40:58 PM
however, a social worker or psychiatrist or anyone else whose profession relies on a combination of the hard scientific research done by others and the compilation of anecdotal and experiential evidence given by others would seem to be missing a large part of the picture if they were totally unfamiliar with the subject matter in a firsthand way. I'm not suggesting you should become a stoner and/or a dealer, butI am saying that you have to recognize that you are limited by your lack of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. This applies to anything, not just drugs.

This reminds me of the old argument about Mary the neuroscientist, who is kept in a black and white room all her life and never experiences, but nevertheless learns literally everything there is to knows everything there is to know about the effect if color on the brain.  The question is, when she leaves the room and sees red for the first time, is she experiencing something new?

Ok, maybe it's not exactly apt, but I was reminded of it.  Also, I wanted to point out that decriminalization does not equal legalization.  I'm inclined to agree that things like heroin and cocaine possession probably better off being decriminalized but not legalized, addicts should be met with treatment and civil fines rather than jail time.

Quote from: Kai on November 16, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
I just want to say, that, as a biologist I find it completely ridiculous that someone thinks you can just stick any molecule in water and a plant will pump it up and integrate it. Plants are not simple capillary tubes, they are living networks of cells, and the vascular system is complex. Root physiology is also equally complex. They "pump up anything you put in the water" no more than a gut epithelial cell absorbs anything in the intestines, and if they do it might very well kill the plant.

The other thing. Chemicals. EVERYTHING is a chemical. Would everyone mind clarifying what they mean by chemicals in this thread? FFS, potatoes contain deadly alkaloids such as solanine and chaconine, which is why you don't fucking eat green potatoes or potato leaves. POTATOES, folks. And you still eat them. If you can't clarify what particular molecular structures you mean then I doubt you know what the fuck you are talking about when you mean chemicals.

And the last thing. Fertilizer. Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Potassium, and sometimes other salts (ions, people). You put these things in the plants water and/or soil because they are limiting resources in the environment. The plant takes these things up selectively, it doesn't take just anything up willy nilly anymore than a human does. It has pathogens, toxins, viruses and other destructive inputs to defend against, it can't afford to let just anything in. Nor can it anyway, since the stuff coming in has to fit through the proteins on the surface of the root cells.


~Kai,

Really hates the way people talk about plants sometimes.

You said it so much better than I. Thanks!

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 08:40:58 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 08:15:06 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 07:52:43 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 07:11:39 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
RWHN, let me ask you a couple of questions...

1) Have you ever smoked pot? How many times? have you ever been involved with growing it commercially?

If the only way I can be seen to have a legitimate background on the subject matter is to have partaken of the subject matter then I suggest we stop discussing the subject matter.  I sincerely hope that is not the inference being made.   

Allow me, then, to make that not an inference but an outright statement.

to use one of your analogies, it would be sort of like a defensive driving class given by someone who has never driven a car.

So then a brain specialist who has never smoked pot has no credibility when it comes to the impact of marijuana on the brain? 

you're not a brain specialist.

however, a social worker or psychiatrist or anyone else whose profession relies on a combination of the hard scientific research done by others and the compilation of anecdotal and experiential evidence given by others would seem to be missing a large part of the picture if they were totally unfamiliar with the subject matter in a firsthand way. I'm not suggesting you should become a stoner and/or a dealer, butI am saying that you have to recognize that you are limited by your lack of firsthand knowledge of the subject matter. This applies to anything, not just drugs.

to apply this line of thinking to myself, I don't think that I know jack shit about the physiology or commercial distribution of chickens just because I know how to cook a delicious chicken dinner, and I might well cook an even tastier chicken dinner if I did.

Well I do contribute to the knowledge base as well.  But that aside, I think you are completely wrong.  I work very closely with someone in the field who is a recovering addict.  While he certainly has a compelling personal story that I do not, he will be the first to tell you that his experience hasn't given him any special ability to synthesize and present information on the topic compared to someone like myself.  

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return. 

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.   

FWIW, from lurking I've found you to be one of the most interesting people here and I hope you stay.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 10:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return.  

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.    

No need to get hot and bothered, RWHN. We are having a very interesting intellectual debate which I, for one, am glad you are a part of. Nowhere in my post did I say "RWHN is spouting conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit". That comment was directed at all of us at a point where we seem to be losing our objectivity in this discussion.

IOW, don't take this shit so personally. It's just a debate on the internet.

Are people really getting angry about this?

Some of them might be. I just found it to be an insightful discussion, both for the information relevant to the subject matter at hand and for the glimpse into the mindsets of several of our more articulate posters.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 16, 2009, 10:22:33 PM
Are people really getting angry about this?

I'm not... getting mad at the Internets is silly.

I really didn't see any emotionally charged bullshit. I am enjoying reading a very well educated and well argued debate thread.


I'm not really sure where I stand.  I used to be in the Ia! Ia! Legalize fhtagn! camp, and actually RWHN's points have made me a bit more *cough* agnostic on these issues.

I'm still steadfastly against legalization, but only for my own selfish motives.

As soon as I'm independently wealthy I'll be totally in favor of it.

I almost want it legalized for the sole reason that pot-heads would finally have to talk about something else.

I agree that the "legalize it, man...pot is THE BEST!" conversations are pretty annoying. Thankfully, that sort of shit would probably get squashed pretty quick at PD.com.

RCH,
likes pot, not a big fan of potheads

Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

Not to mention how much prohibition exacerbates the problem for adolescents by making drug abuse an alluring taboo.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

-this sums it up very well
           -i am not even remotely angry or emotional i too find it an interesting debate
           -i don't smoke pot or do drugs, in order for it to do me any good the passing of new pot laws need to be transported back in time 10 to 15 years ( which i am in favor of)
           

Quote from: VERBtr on November 16, 2009, 11:16:54 PM
Not to mention how much prohibition exacerbates the problem for adolescents by making drug abuse an alluring taboo.

I don't have an informed opinion on that, I just think it's irrelevant in the context of the greater social harm being done by prohibition.

Not to mention the vast amounts of money being squandered on the "war on drugs".

I dunno, I think you can see with alcohol prohibition, where practice is more varied across different countries, that the more illegal alcohol is for youth, the more they abuse it. That's my impression from my travels thus far and from anecdotal evidence. I've seen the taboo effect in action and I think it's a pretty powerful force.
A society that is open to substance use and does not restrict information on it is a society where youth is far likelier to make responsible decisions regarding substances. IMHO.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

That sums it up from my side.

I think we should converge the Intoxicated driving debate from Suu's Server thread, into this one.
Also, I find this debate to be interesting, and feel that its necessary that the issue be discussed and debated.
I'd like to see marijuana legalized, or at least decriminalized, during my lifetime... this necessitates discussion.

Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2009, 04:15:56 PM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

That shit grows everywhere. Or rather, it can. And while they might be able to track and find the source of high-quality strains, there would be so much backyard, ditch and amatuer bathtub/closet shit they won't have time to comb through those who have a script/licenses vs those who don't. And they don't like that. Plus, the govt. already gets money from the well-targeted busts they do, not to mention the stabilization that large piece of the black market does for our economy. It's literally money you can grow that just pumps into the economy.

Alcohol is way easier to make than weed, and people still buy their beer at the store.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 17, 2009, 03:20:53 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2009, 04:15:56 PM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

That shit grows everywhere. Or rather, it can. And while they might be able to track and find the source of high-quality strains, there would be so much backyard, ditch and amatuer bathtub/closet shit they won't have time to comb through those who have a script/licenses vs those who don't. And they don't like that. Plus, the govt. already gets money from the well-targeted busts they do, not to mention the stabilization that large piece of the black market does for our economy. It's literally money you can grow that just pumps into the economy.

Alcohol is way easier to make than weed, and people still buy their beer at the store.

Oh yeah? I wouldn't really know since I've never brewed/distilled my own booze nor grown pot. But, I'm sure you speak from experience and will take your word for it.

Curiosity compels me: If you throw a beer bottle into a ditch, how long does it take to sprout a 12-pack?

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 11:00:37 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 15, 2009, 11:34:56 PM

Quote from: NiveKRayne on November 15, 2009, 11:19:02 PM

First of all, people try all kinds of tricks with weed to make it seem better than it is, second of all, I'm not sorely misinformed, I agree that its should be legalized. I just love how you jump to conclusions all of a sudden making me out to be the bad guy when I merely state my opinion to you. Thanks for showing me your the idiot. :)

other than adding water to make it weigh more (old trick easy to spot), i have never heard of anything being added to pot, ...its a plant.. either it came from good seed and was grown right or it wasn't there is nothing you can do to change it or make it worth enough more to make fucking with it worth the time..  i call BS

Actually, since a lot of pot is grown using hydroponics, it wouldn't be too difficult to add extra chemicals to the marijuana by simply introducing it to the water.  The capillary action will draw the stuff right up.  Some already use this to color their product by adding food coloring.  It may not be very common, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibilities. 

They do this with flavoring agents too.

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 10:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return. 

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.   

for reals?

I came to PD because of my conversations with you, I was startled to find an Discordian in favor of prohibition, bu you argue well for it.  Of course people are going to come at your arguements with their assumptions in place from arguements with others who are less well informed than you or less reasonable.  And, this being the place it is, things are going to get blown up into a giant troll fest now and then.

I know that what I have seen you contribute to PD has been of value and I know you are a respected member of the community here.  if you leave I know that the board will be poorer for it.

I'll disagree with you all the way about legalization, but that doesn't mean i haven't very much enjoyed our debates on the subject, and it also doesn't mean you haven't made me think in ways I had not thoguh before and made me revealuate some of my assumptions.

Quote from: Alty on November 17, 2009, 03:34:49 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 17, 2009, 03:20:53 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2009, 04:15:56 PM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

That shit grows everywhere. Or rather, it can. And while they might be able to track and find the source of high-quality strains, there would be so much backyard, ditch and amatuer bathtub/closet shit they won't have time to comb through those who have a script/licenses vs those who don't. And they don't like that. Plus, the govt. already gets money from the well-targeted busts they do, not to mention the stabilization that large piece of the black market does for our economy. It's literally money you can grow that just pumps into the economy.

Alcohol is way easier to make than weed, and people still buy their beer at the store.

Oh yeah? I wouldn't really know since I've never brewed/distilled my own booze nor grown pot. But, I'm sure you speak from experience and will take your word for it.

Curiosity compels me: If you throw a beer bottle into a ditch, how long does it take to sprout a 12-pack?

I have done both, although only the brewing was successful.  Weed that is worth smoking is not easy to grow.  Well, depends on how skilled you are as a gardener I suppose, but I'd say it is about as difficult as tomatoes, something else I have had no success growing.  My father, who has been successful at growing both concurs.  Making booze meanwhile is really really easy, you take juice, add yeast, and put it somewhere warm and dark for a few weeks.  It may not be the best, but it is drinkable, and it doesn't get much easier than that.  I know that I would greatly prefer homebrewed cider or concord wine to anything I can get at the corner gas station.

Distilling is a whole different kettle of fish, but also fairly much beside the point because people still buy beer and wine at the store, for considerably more than the cost of making it, partly because it is less work, and partly because they don't have to wait a couple of weeks to consume it.

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2009, 07:01:12 PM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 09:39:26 PMMy point for you, is that i would love to see your take on this factor of "The Game"; i havent read all of your stuff do, so i dont know if i missed it. Although i know its a hard thing to do, for politicians dont make their relations or bribes known in relation to drug cartels...

OK, the thing is, drugs have two major selling points for people who don't mind getting their hands dirty (which, by definition includes the intelligence services, in that are glorified, domestically based criminal organisations):

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market
2.  They are worth tons of money

The CIA angle of the drug trade is probably the one I know the best, so I'll refer to that.  The CIA's budget is mostly secret, hidden among Pentagon spending, but has Congressional oversight through the Intelligence Sub-Committee, IIRC, which means that the American legislature, in theory, can say "What exactly are you doing with our cash?"

Of course, the CIA doesn't like to have to answer such questions.  Secrecy is an institutional obsession, both for its own sake, and because the CIA's officers frequently use the resources of the agency for agendas other than national security.  Not to mention even some of those programs which are undertaken for national security purposes might be objected to, by, say, high-minded reformers or politically aware and motivated voters.

So, in that sense, drug money is a good way to fund operations that the CIA isn't meant to be doing, or wants kept off the books.  Like Program Phoenix for example, the Vietnam assassination program.  Congress told the CIA to stop Phoenix in December 1972.  They kept up the operation until the fall of South Vietnam 1975.  It was funded in part by heroin sales.  The heroin was collected by ethnic groups in South East Asia allied with the US, processed by certain front organisations (like a Pepsi bottling plant in Laos) and then flown out, via the CIA's Air America airline, or smuggled back to the USA in dead soldier's bodies.

Often this is done with tacit approval from the White House...either they ask for something to be done and don't care how it happens, so long as it stays off the books...or it actively aids and abets these efforts, in the hope that Congress wont ever find out.  In Columbia, it is widely believed that right-wing militias like the AUC get funding and arms from the CIA (or DIA, or somebody) in return for a cut of the cocaine profits, which they help facilitate the entry of into the country. 

Drugs also give an excuse for American politicians to land troops anywhere in South America virtually, at any time.  Noriega is your example here.  The General was a Company man, through and through.  But he fucked up...rumour I heard was he started selling US secrets to Cuba, maybe that's true, and maybe it's not.  Either way, his CIA connections meant shit when the Marines came a-knocking.  If you want to get more influence in a country, building up a guy like Noriega and his opposition, then chucking Noriega once he starts believing his own Glorious Leader bullshit and too difficult to manage is a good way to go about it.

Naturally, profits themselves are also a motive.  I mean, hell, you know roughly what the numbers are for the Mexican Cartels alone.  Even a very small cut of that would do quite nicely.

There are also domestic benefits, too.  Many CIA operatives got axed under Carter the Peanut Farmer, when he tried to de-Nixonfy the Agency.  Some of those went on to found private security firms, especially those specializing in training or intelligence gathering.  And hey, if you have a War on Drugs...well, contracts abound for that sort of things.

Drugs also keep uppity minorities down.  Black radicalism, for example.  Throw drugs, guns and profits into the equation, and it turns into gang warfare very quickly.  Nasty, sure, but they're not spouting the Black Panter party line anymore, are they?

I'm sure there are many more examples I've forgotten, but I've only had five hours sleep, and had to count out £105 in one and two pence pieces at work today, so my brain is a little fried atm.

Marked for my own reference, lest my sleeping pill make me forget to read this.sfdxvvvv

Ok, I've been in the background of this whole debate and I must say, it's pretty fucking interesting.

Funnily enough, I know where all the sides are coming from, as I've been on both sides. That's not to say I'm not biased, but I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the whole drug "problem".

Here is what I personally feel in general about drugs and the problems they cause-

First, a bit of my background and why I feel qualified to talk about what I'm talking about, besides the fact I have an alias that does seem very "pro-drug".

I've grown up in a suburb where, when I was growing up, there was a HUGE drug problem, my suburb being one of the Heroin capitals of Melbourne.
I've grown up around drugs, and I've seen the problems they can cause. But I think it's a lie that it's the drugs themselves that are the things actually causing the problems, I'll elaborate more on that later.

Now, I've personally been taking drugs since I was 2 years old. No joke.
"HUH?" Some of you might might be thinking.
Well, thing is, I had my first sips of alcohol when I was 2. I've got a picture of it in the family photo album.
I was first properly drunk when I was 6 years old. I had two bottles of beer.

You must be thinking, "What were your parents thinking, those neglectful and horrible people! They should be thrown in jail!"
Well, you must understand, my father is german, and in germany, it's definitely not unusual for children to have alcohol there. The legal drinking age there is 16 years of age, but it seems to be more of a recommendation there then a law.

My fathers reasoning was that if I were to have the occasional beer or wine, the taboo and mystification of it would disappear, and I'd be a more responsible drinker when I get to my teenage/adult years and hopefully won't become an alcoholic. (And mind you, this wasn't an every day thing or every week or every month thing. I was lucky to have it in my preteen years at a rate of 1 can of beer every 6 months as a special "treat")

As far as I can tell, it worked, I do drink alcohol, but I don't drink to excess, and I don't get stupidly blind drunk when I go out partying, I know my limits and I'm not out to impress anyone with my drinking prowess when I go out, and I don't act like a complete idiot when I do get drunk. Just enough of an idiot to have a fun time, without encroaching on anyone else's fun.

Funnily enough, my father, who was a regular pot smoker, prohibited me to have any pot and did not want me touching it until I had finished school.
That was something I completely ignored, and started smoking pot when I was 15, mainly because it was a taboo thing, and was EASY to get. Like, seriously easy to get. Easier to get then alcohol, which if I wanted, I could just have asked my father for, and as long as I was reasonable about it, he would give to me.

Now, before you go ahead and totally misinterpret what I just said, I'm not advocating that we should be giving alcohol/drugs to young people and that will get rid of any problems, this just happens to be my case, and my personal truth on the matter.

Now the reason my father didn't want me smoking pot was that he was worried it would affect my ability to think properly and perform well in school.
The problem was, I was having trouble with my ability to think and perform well in school, and this was WELL before I had ever started taking any "hard" drugs (and before any of you think that the reason might be that I've been drinking as a toddler, I seriously doubt it, the thing is, I have ADD, which is caused by a lot of psychological things, of which barely anything to do with a young person very occasionally having alcohol.) and so I was very depressed as a teenager.

I hated school, I was a walking contradiction, I was "known and noted" as one of the smartest kids in my highschool, but also as the one with the worst academic grades.
I skipped classes and instead went to the library and read lots of books.
It was funny, I was able to absorb lots of information, and as long as I didn't have to write about it, I could tell you a million things about any subject.
Unfortunately, the way they assess you in school is on your ability to write about the things you learn.

When people asked me for help with their homework, I'd be able to tell them exactly what to do, and tell them heaps of things they wouldn't have been able to think of themselves, I just didn't have the patience to sit and do homework myself.
Teachers used to quiz me all the time in class on things that have nothing to do with the subject we were supposed to be learning, and I could tell them things that would make their jaws drop. Both because they were in such shock that I knew the things I knew, and that I was so terrible when it came to actually writing the stuff they required me to write when they knew that I was quite capable of it.

The teachers didn't know what to do with me, my parents didn't know what to do with me, I didn't know what to do with me, and the doctors never ever bothered to consider that I might be suffering from ADD.

I was depressed, I was an outcast, I had no idea what was wrong with me or where I was going in my life, and yes, that sounds like the average teenager experience, but I really WAS very different from everyone.

Anyway, I knew I had a problem, and I couldn't get ANY help from ANYONE in ANYWAY.
I was sent to counselors, and psychologists, who tested me and questioned me a lot.
All their advice was worthless to me, it didn't do shit all jack to help me with my problems.
They tested my IQ, which was found to be 145 on the general IQ test and on a different IQ test, was found to be "Bordering Genius" level, (The levels of that particular test being, Handicapped (A nicer way of saying, "retarded" I imagine), Below Average, Average, Above Average, Genius and Prodigy, I was in between Above Average and Genius, with apparently having failed a test that I personally believed the answer to be very subjective that would have pushed me into Genius level) which just seemed to further confuse the counselors, teachers and myself.

So having no where else left to turn, I started doing a lot of research into chemicals, feeling that I may be suffering from some sort of neurological disorder or chemical imbalance stopping me from achieving what I knew what I was capable of.

I read lots of books on drugs, both the anti-drug books that were so prevalent in schools, and a lot of non-biased books which gave straight out facts about chemicals and their effects.
I studied them for years, and still continue to study them to this day, I find that no matter how informed I feel about any particular chemical, there's always something new to learn.

When I felt that I had learned enough information from books to take a calculated risk, I started experimenting with drugs.
Let me make this clear: I never started doing "hard/illegal" drugs, until I read heaps and heaps of information on it first.

Now, we had drug-education classes in both my primary school and my high school, but after having done all my own research into the matters, I found them to all be INCREDIBLY lacking in the information department, they were all more or less just scare campaigns, with scant REAL information presented on the REALITY of what drugs can do.

I remember once in one health ed class, we were learning about LSD. Funnily enough, by this time, I had taken LSD, and it had seriously opened my mind to things that I had never even dreamed about.
When the teacher started talking about the "Effects" of LSD, being things like "seeing things that aren't there, like monsters and demons and will make you think you can fly so you'll jump out of a building" I made the mistake of going "What the hell are you talking about?" and suddenly the whole class turning towards me and the teacher going "I know what I'm talking about, it's all in this book here, why are you questioning it?".
I knew I had to keep my fucking mouth shut, and just said, "Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about a different drug, sorry miss", what I wanted to say was- This book we're reading from is provided by the government to give us mis-information on the reality of the drugs effects, I've taken acid, I have at no point ever seen demons or have been  *that* high that I've found myself wanting to jump from buildings thinking I could fly, WE'RE ALL BEING LIED TO AND YOU'RE ALL PERPETUATING THE LIES."

I remember once, there was BIG school assembly where all of the senior school had to go into the assembly hall, to listen to some drug counsellor's talk about why drugs were bad.

I tried to avoid going to it as I had a funny feeling it would be full of shit, and when a teacher caught me wagging the assembly he made me go to it "because it's important you learn about this stuff". (To which I wanted to reply, No, it's important YOU all learn about this stuff, because you guys have NO FUCKING IDEA)

Sure enough, I went, and 70% of the information this supposed drug counselor was spouting was Grade A government propaganda.
Now, I hear some of you say, well, its more important that kids learn about drugs and its negative effects, even if a lot of it isn't true, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Well, let me ask you: If I offered you a sandwich that was 30% ham and 70% shit, and told you it was a ham sandwich, would you- A: Eat it? And B: Call it a ham sandwich or a shit sandwich?
HELL, if I offered you a sandwich that was 90% Ham and 10% shit, would you eat it and call it a ham sandwich?

Well, I don't know about you, but I like my ham sandwich's to be full of HAM and devoid of ALL shit.

Anyway, sure enough, this did not instill any trust of the information I've been learnt about drugs from such "trusted" sources such as teachers, the government and drug counselors.

Anyway, I think I've babbled on long enough about my past, now, here's what I think of the drug situation in general and a TL/DR of all of the above:

I've taken a SHIT load of drugs. Alcohol, Pot, LSD, Mushrooms, DMT, Speed, Ice, MDMA, MDA, Mescaline, DXM, 2-CB, Salvia, Opiates, Benzodiazepines, Valium, Xanex, SNRI's, Tricyclic antidepressants, and there's a few more but I'll stop there cus I think you're starting to get the point.

I personally don't feel they have had a *big* negative impact on my life.
I live a very happy life, I'm no longer as depressed as I used to be before I started taking drugs, in fact, I'm super fucking happy these days.


They haven't fucked up my brain either. My brain was fucked long before I took drugs.
As a matter of fact, my brain has never been BETTER. In fact, it's better then most people I know who have NEVER taken drugs.

Did you know I can recall Pi up to the 50th decimal place, off the top of my head? (I could learn it even higher to, ALMOST ad infinitum, if I could be bothered) How many of you people can do that? I'm willing to wager, NONE.

Did you know, I can remember any 40 digit number you can throw at me? Once again, how many of you lot can do that?

Ok, given, it's a lot HARDER to do when I'm stoned or tripping, but when I'm back to normal, I don't lose this ability, and even when I'm high, I can still remember more then most of you can.

That's not to say that drugs CAN'T and DON'T do damage, because yes, some people will take a drug once and it will fuck them up forever, some people, it will take taking a drug A LOT before it fucks them up.

You know some people will eat a peanut once, and can DIE? You know some people drink waaaay too much fucking Red bull, and DIE?

Not all drugs are for everyone, and not everyone should be taking drugs.

It's up to the individual to figure out what they can and can't handle, and if drugs are having a negative effect on your life, SEEK HELP, stop doing them, find alternatives, there are always OPTIONS.
Use your options, all smart and reasonable people do.

I don't think that the drug problem is a simple one to solve.
Even if we legalize all drugs, and put programs in place to help addicts, it won't make the drug problem go away.

But, one thing I do know is, the system we have in place right now is NOT helping the drug problem AT all.
In fact, it's CAUSING the "drug" "problem".

When you prohibit a drug, you create a black market for it. There is no way to stop this from happening, because there will ALWAYS be a demand for drugs, drugs have been around for as long as humans have been around, if not LONGER, SERIOUSLY, (Why do you think there are tribes that worship and cherish sacraments such as magic mushrooms and magic Cacti?") and will NEVER go away.
With the black market, comes inflated prices, comes a chance for poor people to make a profit, comes the mafia, comes the triads, comes crime, comes all the BAD THINGS that are associated with drugs. (Alcohol Prohibition, anyone?)

Drugs aren't bad, but bad people move drugs and are associated with drugs.

Drugs don't turn people into bad people, bad people do drugs and do stupid things, and those are the people you see in the media giving drugs a bad name.

We shouldn't be throwing people in jail just because they do drugs.
Fuck we shouldn't even be throwing people in jail for DEALING drugs.
Most (I'll admit, not all) my dealers are GOOD people, and I trust them more then I trust the cops or the government or even some doctors I've been to.

People who do drugs, that are not causing any problems to anyone else, should be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE.

People who do drugs that are causing problems for other people should be given HELP, Not thrown in jail, where good people get turned into bad people just to survive.

People who deal drugs should be given jobs in pharmacies or nightclubs, like all the other legal drug dealers.

Legalizing drugs WONT stop kids from getting their hands on them, but I know that having drugs be illegal doesn't stop kids from getting drugs either, in fact, ITS EVEN EASIER to get.
Just last week, LAST WEEK, I was in the city and a bunch of underage kids came up to me, asking me if I could buy them some alcohol.
I told them I was not going to do that and why the fuck are you kids out and about in the city on monday night looking to get drunk?

They got pissed off at me but understood that I wasn't going to buy them alcohol. And you know what they said?
"Oh well, looks like we're just going to have to get stoned then" and left.

Imagine if it were the case with weed, needing to be over 18 in order to buy it, with stiff penalties for those who provide minors with it.

Those kids would instead have to resort to huffing fumes or something, but hey, AT LEAST THEY'RE GOING TO FIND IT MUCH HARDER TO GET THOSE OTHER DRUGS, right? (That was a sort of joke by the way, what I'm trying to say is somewhere between the lines there)

Man, seriously, I have a LOT to say about this all, I could write an essay or a book and I still feel as if I haven't said everything I want to say about it all.
But I feel I've yakked on long enough about my own personal feelings about shit, this post is probably already longer then any other post so far in this thread, but hey, there's my 2c.

Oh yeah, did I mention, I haven't done any hard drugs in several months now?
Hell, I haven't even had joint lately. I've been clean for a while, and I don't feel shitty, nor craving anything, I'm LOVING my life right now.

But I haven't quit drugs, I never will, not because they're addictive, but because I find they help enhance my life when taken IN MODERATION.


In conclusion, I think there is a FUCKLOAD of mis-information on drugs all around the world, and we could be doing so much more in order to help educate people and help them, right now, most governments are just DOING IT WRONG and most likely because they profit too much from having this war on some-drugs.
The prison song by System of a down sums up my arguments nicely-

Following the rights movements
You clamped down with your iron fists,
Drugs became conveniently
Available for all the kids,

I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch,
Right here in Hollywood,

Nearly 2 million Americans are incarcerated
In the Prison system of the U.S.

They're trying to build a prison, (for you and me to live in)
Another prison system.

Minor drug offenders fill your prisons
You don't even flinch
All our taxes paying for your wars
Against the new non-rich.

The percentage of Americans in the prison system,  has doubled since 1985

All research and successful drug policy shows
That treatment should be increased,
And law enforcement decreased,
While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world,
Drugs are now your global policy,
Now you police the globe,

Drug money is used to rig elections,
And train brutal corporate sponsored
Dictators around the world.

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 16, 2009, 09:26:27 PM
this thing about Portugal is really interesting. I didn't even know they decriminalized all drugs.

weird that, cause I'd be totally against decriminalization of heroin or cocaine, but if the numbers don't lie ... heroin addiction is a horrible thing and if decriminalizing it helps less people become addicted ... hm.

I know in the UK that heroin treatment was more effective when it was decriminalized and those addicted could get it from their doctors.  Before the papers started a moral crusade about the 100 or so junkies that actually existed in the UK getting drugs from taxpayers money, causing a new Tory government to criminalize possession or use of the drug....which led to the current day situation.

I don't know if it would work now, given the amount of heroin addicts there are in the country, but Nice Job Breaking It, Moral Crusaders.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 17, 2009, 03:20:53 AM

Quote from: Alty on November 15, 2009, 04:15:56 PM

Quote from: JohNyx on November 15, 2009, 08:08:00 AM

Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on November 15, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
...the governments of most countries will never legalise it as they cannot tax it.

wtf are you talking about? legalization = taxation... because of regulation.

It would not only be a source of income for the government, but also would get rid of the drug cartels.

i wish someone knew how much moeny drug cartels make per year compared to, lets say, Wal Mart or Microsoft. Sometimes i think that the "war on drugs" is kind of the "republican vs. democrat" 2 man con sort of thing.

That shit grows everywhere. Or rather, it can. And while they might be able to track and find the source of high-quality strains, there would be so much backyard, ditch and amatuer bathtub/closet shit they won't have time to comb through those who have a script/licenses vs those who don't. And they don't like that. Plus, the govt. already gets money from the well-targeted busts they do, not to mention the stabilization that large piece of the black market does for our economy. It's literally money you can grow that just pumps into the economy.

Alcohol is way easier to make than weed, and people still buy their beer at the store.

bullshit.

you have to pay a little bit of attention to make beer or wine, even more to distill some hooch, but...

there's a reason they call it "weed".

also, Lys, that post was ridiculously long, but I totally agree with the point you made about people being responsible for the choices they make about drugs as opposed to drugs being responsible for people making fucked-up choices.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:38:21 AM
also, Lys, that post was ridiculously long, but I totally agree with the point you made about people being responsible for the choices they make about drugs as opposed to drugs being responsible for people making fucked-up choices.

I told you I had something intelligent to say about the subject, the problem is, I have TOO much to say about it, I could have easily made that 3-4x longer if I had the patience and the time. (and probably more drugs lol)

yeah, don't get me wrong, I agreed with most of the points you made and I actually don't hate myself for bothering to read all of it.

Lysergic is my new hero.

(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa261/broodwitch/CannibastheCareBear.png)

:wink:

Quote from: Burns on November 17, 2009, 09:05:45 AM
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa261/broodwitch/CannibastheCareBear.png)

:wink:

That scared me, for a moment, I didn't realize who it was lol.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:43:09 AM
yeah, don't get me wrong, I agreed with most of the points you made and I actually don't hate myself for bothering to read all of it.

Cheers man, it was actually a bit of a struggle to write, with my ADD and all, but I felt it was important to get some stuff off my chest so I persevered, and I'm glad I did.

Lys, that was an epic post and you should write a long essay or a book or something.

RE one tiny bit of Lys's post.

I wouldn't expect drugs to have a big adverse effect on you.  You are, as you point out, borderline genius.  There's a principle I came across when I was researching weed called 'cognitive reserve', It's used to explain why drug research tends to get different results with different demographics.

Basically, smart people get a much smaller negative cognitive effect (whether it be from drugs or age or whatever else) than average people.

You also have to factor in that some drugs have a very different effect on ADD and related conditions (they pretty much count on this when they treat ADD and co with drugs).  Obviously this lifestyle works well for *you* but I wouldn't expect that to apply to everyone.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 10:21:19 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 16, 2009, 10:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return.  

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.    

No need to get hot and bothered, RWHN. We are having a very interesting intellectual debate which I, for one, am glad you are a part of. Nowhere in my post did I say "RWHN is spouting conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit". That comment was directed at all of us at a point where we seem to be losing our objectivity in this discussion.

IOW, don't take this shit so personally. It's just a debate on the internet.

The "real scientist" bit irks me a bit as well.  I am a real scientist.  Yes, it is the social sciences, and yes I am NOT a botanist, thus why I articulated that I was speculating.  But I AM a professional.  I've given lectures on evaluation which is an empirical, scientific process.  I am certified by the National Institute of Health.  I know how to do what I do and I do it pretty damned well.  My output has brought results. 

I have no issues with a debate but it really felt like my validity as a professional in my field was being challenged in a way that others here are not challenged in their fields of expertise.  People should disagree with me as I bring up points they feel are incorrect, but it does piss me off when my professionalism is being challenged which I really do feel you and Rat have done in a couple of posts. 

So if you disagree with something bring up some evidence as Telarus did.  But don't tell me I'm naive or that all of my sources of information are bogus or that I don't have proper experience.  I know damn well what I'm doing and I do a damn good job.  But none of y'all are paying me to post here so yeah the quality of information I present here is going to be a little different.  If someone wants to give me a $80,000 grant I'll make sure I research for every post I make. 

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   :wink:

Quote from: Kai on November 17, 2009, 12:28:37 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 11:06:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on November 17, 2009, 12:28:37 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Bullshit.

I wouldn't expect a social scientist to know about plant vascular physiology either, but I WOULD expect a scientist of any sort to not make wild claims about areas of research they have no first hand experience with. In the same way that I don't make wild claims about how kids react to various drugs socially (notice how I haven't said anything about that in this thread), others shouldn't make wild claims about plants taking up anything thats put in their substrate. Peace.

I hope this isnt getting things too off topic, but both Kais and RWHN's titles are making me lol. srsly.

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 17, 2009, 10:41:11 AM
RE one tiny bit of Lys's post.

I wouldn't expect drugs to have a big adverse effect on you.  You are, as you point out, borderline genius.  There's a principle I came across when I was researching weed called 'cognitive reserve', It's used to explain why drug research tends to get different results with different demographics.

Basically, smart people get a much smaller negative cognitive effect (whether it be from drugs or age or whatever else) than average people.

You also have to factor in that some drugs have a very different effect on ADD and related conditions (they pretty much count on this when they treat ADD and co with drugs).  Obviously this lifestyle works well for *you* but I wouldn't expect that to apply to everyone.

That's actually a very fair point, and worth investigating further, thanks for that.

Quote from: Kai on November 17, 2009, 11:36:56 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 11:06:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on November 17, 2009, 12:28:37 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Bullshit.

I wouldn't expect a social scientist to know about plant vascular physiology either, but I WOULD expect a scientist of any sort to not make wild claims about areas of research they have no first hand experience with. In the same way that I don't make wild claims about how kids react to various drugs socially (notice how I haven't said anything about that in this thread), others shouldn't make wild claims about plants taking up anything thats put in their substrate. Peace.

I didn't make a wild claim.  I speculated that it wasn't out of the realm of possibilities that marijuana would soak up chemicals added to the water.  My basis for that was first hand accounts I've heard from DEA agents, particularly around the food coloring and as BabylonH mentions, the flavoring additives.  Yes, I probably should not have used a technical term like capillary action.  It was something I remembered from my botany classes.  But this is a message board, not a botany lecture.  So I described something incorrectly.  So why not politely correct me instead of publicly chastising me?  

By the way, I personally have a LOT of respect for RWHN's profession and what he does and his view points, and while I agree with him on many things, there are many things I do not.

Regardless of the fact that I do not see eye to eye with him, and speaking from the fact that I too study social science, I still think he's better then most of the "qualified" people out there that I've encountered.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 12:02:20 PM

Quote from: Kai on November 17, 2009, 11:36:56 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 11:06:08 AM

Quote from: Kai on November 17, 2009, 12:28:37 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 09:13:47 PM
you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.

Yeah, that's right.  Social scientists aren't actual scientists. 

Bullshit.

I wouldn't expect a social scientist to know about plant vascular physiology either, but I WOULD expect a scientist of any sort to not make wild claims about areas of research they have no first hand experience with. In the same way that I don't make wild claims about how kids react to various drugs socially (notice how I haven't said anything about that in this thread), others shouldn't make wild claims about plants taking up anything thats put in their substrate. Peace.

I didn't make a wild claim.  I speculated that it wasn't out of the realm of possibilities that marijuana would soak up chemicals added to the water.  My basis for that was first hand accounts I've heard from DEA agents, particularly around the food coloring and as BabylonH mentions, the flavoring additives.  Yes, I probably should not have used a technical term like capillary action.  It was something I remembered from my botany classes.  But this is a message board, not a botany lecture.  So I described something incorrectly.  So why not politely correct me instead of publicly chastising me?  

It wasn't just you. Just sayin.

This whole thread has got me pissed off. Bunch of people with excellence in different areas arguing. And the drug lords are still stuffing drugs in infant corpses. And addicts are still addicted. And maximum prison sentences are going to stoners while rapists and murderers are continuing to rape and murder. So it goes.

I'd like to give RWHN some credit; as far as I know he's the only person on this board who works with chemically dependent and at-risk youths.  Because of this, he has very different experiences and opinions about drugs, and has seen far more cases and data regarding their use and effects.

While in my personal experience I have seen people react to drugs in both positive an negative ways, my sample size is extremely small.  Even if I can relate the personal drug histories of 100 people, that's still far too small to be accurate.  That's why anectdotal evidence is generally considered bullshit.

I understand that due to his job, he sees far more negative cases than positive ones; but the point is that these "negative" cases are still fucking humans.  They aren't statistics, and they sure as fuck aren't "acceptable losses" so you can get high whenever you want to.  

You can argue about how "society" is screwed up, and if we ended the War on Drugs and we all were taught and teach "responsibility" to each other, we could eliminate drug abuse and addiction.  And if you believe that world will ever exist, then you probably believe in the model that all people make rational decisions when faced with economic decisions.

RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

What the fuck have any of you done?

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:01:50 PM
I'd like to give RWHN some credit; as far as I know he's the only person on this board who works with chemically dependent and at-risk youths.  Because of this, he has very different experiences and opinions about drugs, and has seen far more cases and data regarding their use and effects.

While in my personal experience I have seen people react to drugs in both positive an negative ways, my sample size is extremely small.  Even if I can relate the personal drug histories of 100 people, that's still far too small to be accurate.  That's why anectdotal evidence is generally considered bullshit.

I understand that due to his job, he sees far more negative cases than positive ones; but the point is that these "negative" cases are still fucking humans.  They aren't statistics, and they sure as fuck aren't "acceptable losses" so you can get high whenever you want to.  

You can argue about how "society" is screwed up, and if we ended the War on Drugs and we all were taught and teach "responsibility" to each other, we could eliminate drug abuse and addiction.  And if you believe that world will ever exist, then you probably believe in the model that all people make rational decisions when faced with economic decisions.

RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

What the fuck have any of you done?

I agree heartily with the above.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:01:50 PM
RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

This.

I took the point of this thread as focussing on what a potential future could look like, and less about how the present is, and even less about how to get from here to there. The two latter points are vitally important, but I think it's an entirely valid form of exploratory thought to scout out new territory and then later fill in the details of how to get from A to B.

We are currently in "A".

"A" sucks.  It contains an authoritarian government, a large percentage of disenfranchised, uneducated, self-destructive youths with little to no means of recourse if they get addicted to drugs; it also contains heavy-handed drug laws that are disproportionatly skewed to punish the lower economic classes, and a repressive social attitude towards the chemically dependent.

The "B" expressed by most people in this thread is a place where all children are raised to respect themselves, and to understand the personal medical, physical, and moral repercussions regarding their choice to use drugs, which the newly elected "Sunshine and Lollipops" political party have legalized, ending the War on Drugs, instead putting the money into education and welfare programs.




Breaking news: "B" will never exist.

I respect RWHN. I'm not saying people who have problems are "acceptable casualties." I'm saying the problem is overstated and illegal weed hurts more than it helps.

For example, I self-medicate with pot. It gets rid of many problems I have almost completely -- and it's not just the high. That wears off in an hour or two, the stabilizing effects last me a good 3 days. Oh, I've tried doctor prescribed drugs, believe me, they don't do shit for me -- in fact, all of them so far just make it worse. And to go without? Kai can tell you what I get like when under stress without any medication, illegal or otherwise. It's not pretty.

To be fair, when I started pot, all my life's problems sort of worked together to push me into a hole where I was drug-dealing to eat and in a truly bad mental state. But here's the important thing -- normally, I would have left that go. I'm a passive person, when shit goes wrong I'm more likely to bear it than try to change it. In this case I fought my way up, and I'm now literally on the doorstep of fulfilling a lifelong dream with game development (thanks to all the PD people helping me do this!). I have actual friends in real life, something I have literally never had before. And consider that if I got busted now, I'd be in jail. I'm literally caught in a decision between living the cliche of basement-dwelling social outcast in a shitty victim "There's nothing I can do" mindset or risking every day going to jail.

Am I an acceptable casualty, LMNO?

Yes.



And what did I say about personal anectdotes?














LMNO
-Can often be a dick at times.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
We are currently in "A".

"A" sucks.  It contains an authoritarian government, a large percentage of disenfranchised, uneducated, self-destructive youths with little to no means of recourse if they get addicted to drugs; it also contains heavy-handed drug laws that are disproportionatly skewed to punish the lower economic classes, and a repressive social attitude towards the chemically dependent.

The "B" expressed by most people in this thread is a place where all children are raised to respect themselves, and to understand the personal medical, physical, and moral repercussions regarding their choice to use drugs, which the newly elected "Sunshine and Lollipops" political party have legalized, ending the War on Drugs, instead putting the money into education and welfare programs.




Breaking news: "B" will never exist.

Then we'll keep redefining "B" until it stops sounding so stupid and has instead turned into a realistic proposition. Is there anything wrong with that?

You may have forgotten the several dozen times this topic has been brought up on PD.com.


Guess what?  The definition for "B" has never changed.  The Utopiates on this board simply gang up on RWHN because they don't want their visions of selfish hedonism destroyed.

Then what am I expected to do, LMNO? Just living my life isn't going to work, I tried that. It could have ruined me for good if I had left it alone.

Am I expected to just keep doing as I am with the knowledge that one day everything I've worked toward will be completely and permanently annulled when the police come knocking?

Okay, because I think legalization would be a good idea, I'm ganging up on RWHN. And I'm lying about how irreparably fucked in the head I am just so I have an excuse to get high.

Fuck you. I was going to try to be reasonable about this, but you just showed you're incapable of reasoning when it comes to this discussion. Oh, and implying I'm a liar (twice, even) is not cool. It's actually pretty fucking shitty.

Like I said: fuck you.

Yes, maybe, no, I'm a dick, no I didn't, whatever.




In that order.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
The "B" expressed by most people in this thread is a place where all children are raised to respect themselves, and to understand the personal medical, physical, and moral repercussions regarding their choice to use drugs, which the newly elected "Sunshine and Lollipops" political party have legalized, ending the War on Drugs, instead putting the money into education and welfare programs.

Breaking news: "B" will never exist.

There just aren't enough genuinely mean Utopians, are there?

Quotenot as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

I don't think I argued that at all.

People are dumb, they do dumb things. Kids are dumb they do dumb things. I don't ever see that changing.

The current drug policy is dumb it wastes money, puts people in jail, creates a black market, funds criminal activity and IT IS STILL EASY FOR KIDS TO GET DRUGS. The government's official position is to lie if the truth doesn't support the policy. The policy was originally based on lies and prejudice, particularly around pot.

I don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.
























*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.
























*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Its hardly radical or unprecedented when its brought up by events that occur in the real world.
Are you suggesting that those in favor of legalization give up, and simply accept the status quo?

Also the A vs B dichotomy you use is an excellent way of portraying the different extremes, and arguing against one extreme while promoting the other. Sure, B may never exist, but it hardly makes A acceptable.

We're all full of shit in our own large ways.

Quote from: Z³ on November 17, 2009, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Its hardly radical or unprecedented when its brought up by events that occur in the real world.
Are you suggesting that those in favor of legalization give up, and simply accept the status quo?

Also the A vs B dichotomy you use is an excellent way of portraying the different extremes, and arguing against one extreme while promoting the other. Sure, B may never exist, but it hardly makes A acceptable.

Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

And I never said that "A" was better than "B": I said that RWHN is the only one doing something to help those trapped in "A".

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

WHAT?

So I suppose we should say the same about Healthcare, the War in Iraq, Gay Marriage, Government oversight of Big Corporations etc etc etc... let's not try to change anything because that's radical! and unprecedented!

So changing the laws about marijuana are unprecedented...  well except that whole repeal of prohibition in the 1930's which is kinda like a precedent. Or *insert one of several nations that have repealed prohibition* that might be precedent as well.

Given that several states have legalized it for medical use, other states and a few cities have done as  much as they legally can to decriminalize the possession and use of the drug, I don't find my position to be at all unreasonable or radical.

Quote
*"pipe dream".  Get it?

:lulz:

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:03:56 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 17, 2009, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Its hardly radical or unprecedented when its brought up by events that occur in the real world.
Are you suggesting that those in favor of legalization give up, and simply accept the status quo?

Also the A vs B dichotomy you use is an excellent way of portraying the different extremes, and arguing against one extreme while promoting the other. Sure, B may never exist, but it hardly makes A acceptable.

Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

*raises his hand*

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
Breaking news: "B" will never exist globally.

Fixed for a modicum of truth.

Cause certain nations or localities are trying real hard to get pretty close and have gotten pretty close at certain points in history. Maybe not in America. Also note that your option B said more than just flat out legalizing everything (the other parts like education are just as important).

Just saying, cause that pessimism in and of itself is no reason to not try. Other reasons, maybe. There are a whole bunch of (local / national) factors that get in the way, and it may take a very long time for some of those to change or disappear. But not everywhere and everywhen is the same.

000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

Not me.  Basically, drugs are a Conspiracy trap.  There is no benefit to using them, save a form of gluttony and the illusion of getting over on The Man™ (and just who do you think provides those drugs?).

You should all live clean, like The Good Reverend.  I am like unto a role model in these things.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some pills to take. 

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

RWHN is dealing with one aspect of what is happening now. ECH and I and others have dealt with other aspects of what is happening now. Some of us are involved in pushes for change. Some of us are involved in the current system in one way or another.

I find your argument wanting.

That's nice.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:23:15 PM
That's nice.

Generally, your arguments tend to stop me in my tracks, just sayin'.

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Not by me.  I think RWHN does good work.

Drugs are a form of slavery, though obviously some exceptions exist (weed isn't on the same level as meth, for example).  I do not believe that weed should be illegal, but I see no valid argument for the legalization of, say, PCP.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 04:51:54 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Not by me.  I think RWHN does good work.

Drugs are a form of slavery, though obviously some exceptions exist (weed isn't on the same level as meth, for example).  I do not believe that weed should be illegal, but I see no valid argument for the legalization of, say, PCP.

Agreement with Roger on all points.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Spurious and utopian? I keep looking through this thread and I find a lot of objections on many different grounds, but I don't really see much in the way of spurious and utopian arguments. Could you provide me with an example, cause I thought ECH was very realistic, as was Lys, Fomenter and several others.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see spurious or utopian arguments in most of this thread.

For me personally, I have respect for RWHN's work. I don't think kids should use drugs, I think they should get useful information about drugs that explain the risks. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his view that an adult needs to pay a fine or go to treatment if they smoke some pot. He seems to argue from the assumption that Drugs ARE bad. I argue from the assumption that drugs are drugs and the good/bad label needs to be applied on a case by case basis... usually aimed far more at the person doing the drugs than the drug itself (with notable exceptions like PCP).

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

his experience has made the debate interesting, with out it it would just be an agreement, i don't think anyone is intentionally disrespectful of what he does, we are debating the conclusion that pot must be illegal, doors kicked in lives wrecked by prohibition because of the bad shit he sees and tries to fix..
-also not all of us arguing on the pro side are having "pipe dreams"..

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 17, 2009, 05:03:49 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

Spurious and utopian? I keep looking through this thread and I find a lot of objections on many different grounds, but I don't really see much in the way of spurious and utopian arguments. Could you provide me with an example, cause I thought ECH was very realistic, as was Lys, Fomenter and several others.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see spurious or utopian arguments in most of this thread.

For me personally, I have respect for RWHN's work. I don't think kids should use drugs, I think they should get useful information about drugs that explain the risks. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his view that an adult needs to pay a fine or go to treatment if they smoke some pot. He seems to argue from the assumption that Drugs ARE bad. I argue from the assumption that drugs are drugs and the good/bad label needs to be applied on a case by case basis... usually aimed far more at the person doing the drugs than the drug itself (with notable exceptions like PCP).

The problem with PCP and LSD and the like are that they remove your moral sense while leaving you with your full physical capacities.  This creates a danger to others, and as such is not a matter of personal liberty.

Weed, on the other hand, is less of a hazard than booze, and leaves its users on the couch eathing Cheetohs, and should thus be a matter of personal choice.

So, yeah.  Legalization of drugs should be considered on a case by case basis.

I agree with Roger...

OH GODS!!!!!! THE LASORS! THEY BURN!!!
:asplode:

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
We are currently in "A".

"A" sucks.  It contains an authoritarian government, a large percentage of disenfranchised, uneducated, self-destructive youths with little to no means of recourse if they get addicted to drugs; it also contains heavy-handed drug laws that are disproportionatly skewed to punish the lower economic classes, and a repressive social attitude towards the chemically dependent.

The "B" expressed by most people in this thread is a place where all children are raised to respect themselves, and to understand the personal medical, physical, and moral repercussions regarding their choice to use drugs, which the newly elected "Sunshine and Lollipops" political party have legalized, ending the War on Drugs, instead putting the money into education and welfare programs.

not at all, at least from my point of view.

my contention is that regardless of how fucked the reality of the situation is, legislatively protecting people from themselves through laws of prohibition is never justified. period.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 05:41:14 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
We are currently in "A".

"A" sucks.  It contains an authoritarian government, a large percentage of disenfranchised, uneducated, self-destructive youths with little to no means of recourse if they get addicted to drugs; it also contains heavy-handed drug laws that are disproportionatly skewed to punish the lower economic classes, and a repressive social attitude towards the chemically dependent.

The "B" expressed by most people in this thread is a place where all children are raised to respect themselves, and to understand the personal medical, physical, and moral repercussions regarding their choice to use drugs, which the newly elected "Sunshine and Lollipops" political party have legalized, ending the War on Drugs, instead putting the money into education and welfare programs.

not at all, at least from my point of view.

my contention is that regardless of how fucked the reality of the situation is, legislatively protecting people from themselves through laws of prohibition is never justified. period.

How about protecting 3rd parties?  I mean, I'm not entirely sure I want PCP freaks running around in public, know what I mean?

PCP parlours.

Strap down and get crazy.

Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2009, 06:07:24 PM
PCP parlours.

Strap down and get crazy.

I was just thinking something along the lines of rubber rooms for rent.

Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2009, 06:07:24 PM
Strap down and get crazy.

I think I should make this my new catchphrase.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 06:05:37 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 05:41:14 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:34:22 PM
We are currently in "A".

"A" sucks.  It contains an authoritarian government, a large percentage of disenfranchised, uneducated, self-destructive youths with little to no means of recourse if they get addicted to drugs; it also contains heavy-handed drug laws that are disproportionatly skewed to punish the lower economic classes, and a repressive social attitude towards the chemically dependent.

The "B" expressed by most people in this thread is a place where all children are raised to respect themselves, and to understand the personal medical, physical, and moral repercussions regarding their choice to use drugs, which the newly elected "Sunshine and Lollipops" political party have legalized, ending the War on Drugs, instead putting the money into education and welfare programs.

not at all, at least from my point of view.

my contention is that regardless of how fucked the reality of the situation is, legislatively protecting people from themselves through laws of prohibition is never justified. period.

How about protecting 3rd parties?  I mean, I'm not entirely sure I want PCP freaks running around in public, know what I mean?

yeah, and as soon as they assault someone or rob someone or murder someone or break someone else's shit, there are laws to deal with that.

there is really no reason for the possession or consumption of a substance, in and of itself, to be a criminal act.

It seems to me that there are many ways to find a sane path between the current FAILED system of prohibition and PCP Freaks running through the streets like so many bulls in Pampalona. Not ones that require a utopia where every monkey doesn't act like a monkey, nor ones that require anyone taking a toke to go get a psych eval.

For some drugs, some kind of restrictions are probably required... not necessarily blanket prohibition, but restrictions about where one can take the drug seem reasonable in some cases (PCP), decriminalization of some drugs might be the best option (LSD for example) and for some drugs like pot... any restrictions greater than those already in place for alcohol and tobacco seems entirely absurd.

However, that doesn't mean we can't debate the issue or look for a B option that is neither Utopian nor authoritarian. If we can debate changing the definition of marriage, if we can debate federally funded health care, then debating the drug war seems like a no-brainer... same-sex marriage and national health care are more socially contentious these days than buying a dime bag.

And as RCH points out... IF a person  breaks the law, then they are a person that broke the law... drugs or no drugs.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:01:50 PM
I'd like to give RWHN some credit; as far as I know he's the only person on this board who works with chemically dependent and at-risk youths.  Because of this, he has very different experiences and opinions about drugs, and has seen far more cases and data regarding their use and effects.

While in my personal experience I have seen people react to drugs in both positive an negative ways, my sample size is extremely small.  Even if I can relate the personal drug histories of 100 people, that's still far too small to be accurate.  That's why anectdotal evidence is generally considered bullshit.

I understand that due to his job, he sees far more negative cases than positive ones; but the point is that these "negative" cases are still fucking humans.  They aren't statistics, and they sure as fuck aren't "acceptable losses" so you can get high whenever you want to.  

You can argue about how "society" is screwed up, and if we ended the War on Drugs and we all were taught and teach "responsibility" to each other, we could eliminate drug abuse and addiction.  And if you believe that world will ever exist, then you probably believe in the model that all people make rational decisions when faced with economic decisions.

RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

What the fuck have any of you done?

Thanks.  And I just want to repeat what I've said several times now.  I DO think there are injustices carried out in the name of combating substance abuse.  Certainly a guy caught with a joint shouldn't be doing time in jail.  People who get in trouble with the law with personal amounts of substances should be hooked up with help, not jail.  And the thing is, we can address that and HAVE been addressing that.  Drug courts are one of those mechanisms.  Fuck, I sit on a committee, headed up by a Sgt in the State Police that is looking for alternatives for dealing with out of control kids.  Yeah, that's law enforcement heading this up.  And nowhere on the list of alternatives are we talking about incarceration.  We are talking about hooking them up with the resources they need to get help and to get clean.  I just sincerely don't see how legalization does anything to fix anything other than make it easier for adults to enjoy their marijuana without harrassment.  And that's fine and dandy if you can magically take kids out of the equation.  But you can't.  Nevermind that more adults will have marijuana making it more available.  You'll have more adults setting examples for their kids.  Parental modeling is already a huge issue in substance abuse.  Legalizing will only serve to further validate the behavior for children as parents are more free to light up. 

Quote from: null & void on November 17, 2009, 02:44:40 PM
I respect RWHN. I'm not saying people who have problems are "acceptable casualties." I'm saying the problem is overstated and illegal weed hurts more than it helps.

Show me the proof. 

QuoteFor example, I self-medicate with pot. It gets rid of many problems I have almost completely -- and it's not just the high. That wears off in an hour or two, the stabilizing effects last me a good 3 days. Oh, I've tried doctor prescribed drugs, believe me, they don't do shit for me -- in fact, all of them so far just make it worse. And to go without? Kai can tell you what I get like when under stress without any medication, illegal or otherwise. It's not pretty.

To be fair, when I started pot, all my life's problems sort of worked together to push me into a hole where I was drug-dealing to eat and in a truly bad mental state. But here's the important thing -- normally, I would have left that go. I'm a passive person, when shit goes wrong I'm more likely to bear it than try to change it. In this case I fought my way up, and I'm now literally on the doorstep of fulfilling a lifelong dream with game development (thanks to all the PD people helping me do this!). I have actual friends in real life, something I have literally never had before. And consider that if I got busted now, I'd be in jail. I'm literally caught in a decision between living the cliche of basement-dwelling social outcast in a shitty victim "There's nothing I can do" mindset or risking every day going to jail.

Am I an acceptable casualty, LMNO?

So you should be advocating for the ability to have medical marijuana in your state.  That is decidedly different than legalization.  I'm not 100% on board with the medical marijuana thing, but I'm much more open to that than I am legalizing it for everyone.  Or move to Maine where we just had a vote to expand the ability to use medical marijuana. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:11:34 PM

Quote from: null & void on November 17, 2009, 02:44:40 PM
I respect RWHN. I'm not saying people who have problems are "acceptable casualties." I'm saying the problem is overstated and illegal weed hurts more than it helps.

Show me the proof. 

QuoteFor example, I self-medicate with pot. It gets rid of many problems I have almost completely -- and it's not just the high. That wears off in an hour or two, the stabilizing effects last me a good 3 days. Oh, I've tried doctor prescribed drugs, believe me, they don't do shit for me -- in fact, all of them so far just make it worse. And to go without? Kai can tell you what I get like when under stress without any medication, illegal or otherwise. It's not pretty.

To be fair, when I started pot, all my life's problems sort of worked together to push me into a hole where I was drug-dealing to eat and in a truly bad mental state. But here's the important thing -- normally, I would have left that go. I'm a passive person, when shit goes wrong I'm more likely to bear it than try to change it. In this case I fought my way up, and I'm now literally on the doorstep of fulfilling a lifelong dream with game development (thanks to all the PD people helping me do this!). I have actual friends in real life, something I have literally never had before. And consider that if I got busted now, I'd be in jail. I'm literally caught in a decision between living the cliche of basement-dwelling social outcast in a shitty victim "There's nothing I can do" mindset or risking every day going to jail.

Am I an acceptable casualty, LMNO?

So you should be advocating for the ability to have medical marijuana in your state.  That is decidedly different than legalization.  I'm not 100% on board with the medical marijuana thing, but I'm much more open to that than I am legalizing it for everyone.  Or move to Maine where we just had a vote to expand the ability to use medical marijuana. 

Luckily, it looks like medical marijuana is going to be legalized here -- but not for psychiatric reasons, which is why I use it. I highly doubt it'll ever be legal for psychiatric reasons unless it's completely legalized, considering what I read about the medical marijuana laws and etc.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM

Quotenot as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

I don't think I argued that at all.

People are dumb, they do dumb things. Kids are dumb they do dumb things. I don't ever see that changing.

The current drug policy is dumb it wastes money, puts people in jail, creates a black market, funds criminal activity and IT IS STILL EASY FOR KIDS TO GET DRUGS. The government's official position is to lie if the truth doesn't support the policy. The policy was originally based on lies and prejudice, particularly around pot.

Please provide evidence that shows where the government expressly mandates ALL gov't employees lie about and make up information about drugs.  Do you know how many governmental entities deal with substance abuse?  Are they all in on this deal?  Can you prove that?  

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

you still haven't addressed Portugal. their kids are doing less drugs now. What to make of that?

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   :wink:

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a false analogy. My lack of having children means I am lacking an insight into the physiology of children, but I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 17, 2009, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:15:54 PM
000, it's fine to try.  Striving to make the world a better place is great.

But again, RWHN is the only person dealing with what's happening right now.

Yes, but I don't think we were exclusively talking about what RWHN is doing, were we? I mean, not everything is related to RWHN's job? (if only for the fact that he focuses on Maine, USA)

You might not have been; I was.  Every time he talks about his job, he gets jumped on by the rest of the board with spurious and utopian objections, which ignore what he actually does, the reasons why he does it, and the information he has gathered in the process.

My biggest beef is people not recognizing and acknowledging the difference between the discussions I have here on pd.com and what I do professionally.  As a professional, if I am not sure about a source of information, no, I don't repeat it in a public venue.  For example my speculation about hydroponics and chemicals.  Since this is something I'm not super familiar with, yeah, I'll think out loud about it here, but I'm NOT going to do that in front of a bunch of kids.  I know better than that.  Now, I can't do anything about Rat and RCH who seem to have determined any data that come's anywhere near the Federal Government is null and void.  Even though a lot of this data is actually collected by non-gov't entities, and the gov't simply puts it together and presents it.  Nevermind the fact there are a lot of honest scientists, statisticians, etc., in these governmental agencies who do follow the evidence, and not concoct it as is being charged.  I mean, when you collect data through surveys, the data is the data.  It says what it says.  Just because some gov't employee is in charge of administering the survey doesn't automatically taint it into obscurity.  

I don't care if people agree with me or not.  Obviously on a site like this I expect a majority to not agree with me.  But what really rubs me the wrong way is being challenged on my professionalism and validity as a social scientist.  I know my responsibility to the kids in Maine and I take that responsibility pretty damned seriously.  I am not out to mislead and brainwash these kids.  I am out to be just one tiny force that hopefully can open their eyes to the consequences of the choices they make and how that will impact their future.  

although i believe i might live to see a day when weed is legal in the united states, it won't really matter (to me at least) because i'm certain employers will still be allowed to drug screen and random test - so, even though it's legal, many (myself included) would still have to risk losing their job.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 17, 2009, 05:03:49 PM
For me personally, I have respect for RWHN's work. I don't think kids should use drugs, I think they should get useful information about drugs that explain the risks. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his view that an adult needs to pay a fine or go to treatment if they smoke some pot. He seems to argue from the assumption that Drugs ARE bad. I argue from the assumption that drugs are drugs and the good/bad label needs to be applied on a case by case basis... usually aimed far more at the person doing the drugs than the drug itself (with notable exceptions like PCP).

You keep saying you have respect for my work but then go on to say how naive I am and how everything I disseminate is false and incorrect.  I'm sorry but those two things are incongruous.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:18:15 PM
you still haven't addressed Portugal. their kids are doing less drugs now. What to make of that?

I would suggest that further information is required.  The thing is you can't simply compare statistics on whether a substance is legal or illegal.  There are other variables in the culture to consider.  What are the parental attitudes around substances?  What are parent-child relationships like?  Parental modeling.  Community norms.  Socio-economic. 

It's not as simple as saying "the drugs were made legal and thus substance abuse went down".  It may have been a factor, but without controlling for other factors you can't say for sure.  In other words, it isn't a universal that is going to have the same effects in every culture.  Remember different cultures have different reality grids and those are going to have huge impacts too.  Remember the BIP.  Different cultures and individuals in those cultures will have different bars exerting their influence. 

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:23:21 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   :wink:

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a false analogy. My lack of having children means I am lacking an insight into the physiology of children, but I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids.

No but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.  so that is where the analogy comes into play.  You don't have the experience of having children so you don't have the experiential background to decide what is justified or not when it comes to protecting kids.

To be clear, I think that line of thinking is invalid and don't agree with it in the way you posited it, nor the way I just posited it. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM

Quotenot as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

I don't think I argued that at all.

People are dumb, they do dumb things. Kids are dumb they do dumb things. I don't ever see that changing.

The current drug policy is dumb it wastes money, puts people in jail, creates a black market, funds criminal activity and IT IS STILL EASY FOR KIDS TO GET DRUGS. The government's official position is to lie if the truth doesn't support the policy. The policy was originally based on lies and prejudice, particularly around pot.

Please provide evidence that shows where the government expressly mandates ALL gov't employees lie about and make up information about drugs.  Do you know how many governmental entities deal with substance abuse?  Are they all in on this deal?  Can you prove that?  

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

According to the General Accounting Office when askled about misleading statements (lies) stated by ONDCP:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/301022.pdf

Quote
Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana.

Quote
ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail.

Would you like direct quotes from the various heads of the ONDCP, past and present where obvious lies have been stated as fact?

Look, I understand you and I don't agree on the issue... but I really think there is a strong body of evidence to indicate that the US government is not particularly truthful or trustworthy, based on their past and present actions/statements.

If an entity makes claims that are known to be false... if they quash reports that do not agree with their claims. Why should I believe anything they say?

As for personally... I don't question the validity of your work. I question things you say here sometimes and since this is the only place I interact with you, I apologize if the RWHN here shades my view of the RWHN there.

QuoteYou keep saying you have respect for my work but then go on to say how naive I am and how everything I disseminate is false and incorrect.  I'm sorry but those two things are incongruous.

I respect your work. However,  things you have said here seem to indicate that either you speculate beyond your level of knowledge, maybe you repeat things you have heard and not confirmed etc. If you don't say that kind of unconfirmed stuff to kids, then that's great... I'll continue to say something when you say things here that appear unlikely... and I'll try to give you good reasons for why I believe them to be unlikely. If you don't stalk about chemicals in hydro around the kids, then my comments have nothing to do with your work... just your post.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:36:24 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:23:21 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 11:05:22 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 16, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

To borrow from your playbook, but neither of you have kids so perhaps you don't have the proper experiential background to judge whether it is justified or not.   :wink:

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a false analogy. My lack of having children means I am lacking an insight into the physiology of children, but I'm not arguing that drugs are good for kids.

No but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.  so that is where the analogy comes into play.  You don't have the experience of having children so you don't have the experiential background to decide what is justified or not when it comes to protecting kids.

To be clear, I think that line of thinking is invalid and don't agree with it in the way you posited it, nor the way I just posited it. 

I think that what you said is true. As a parent you have the experiential background to decide what is justified when it comes to protecting your kids in your life. As soon as you bring society into 'protection' game... we all get a say, kids or not.

i just don't see how increased access for kids = large enough harm or insurmountable problem so large that it somehow outweighs the harm expense and injustice done by prohibition..

rwhn and others in the field would have more money to work with harder laws/penalty's to use against adults selling to kids, the extra resources to fight the increase in access should make the job easier not harder , it just doesn't make math sense.... i still think the benefits of legalization far out way the harm and i haven't seen anything in the debate to sway that impression..

I have 3 kids..... so speaking as a parent, I still believe marijuana should be legalised.  Alcohol is illegal for those under 21.  Kids still drink.  Cigarettes (are dangerous so...) are illegal for those under 18 and I see more kids smoking recently than I have in a long time.

Legal or illegal, kids are going to try stuff.  Presuming the legality of something is what stops kids from trying it, while possible for some, is not something most think of before they try it.  The law doesn't have the stopping power/scare power it once had.  Kids aren't stupid or naive, they know how things really are most of the time.  Sometimes more than the adults do.  

I don't see drugs as the true evil of the youth of today, it's the issues that led them to the drugs that really need to be addressed.  The addictive personalities that need to be addressed.  Because until those issues are dealt with it won't matter what is legal or illegal, the one suffering is going to do whatever they feel they have to in order to deal with it.  

Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:36:24 PMNo but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.

Are you arguing that it is? 

Would you argue for reinstating prohibition on the grounds that preventing alcohol abuse in adolescents is a justification for banning alcohol altogether?

I appreciate the work you do and agree that preventing substance abuse in children and adolescents is something to strive for.  I only question whether prohibition is the way to solve the problem.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 06:10:16 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2009, 06:07:24 PM
Strap on and get crazy.

I think I should make this my new catchphrase.

:lulz:

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 09:09:41 PM
Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Quote from: Khara on November 17, 2009, 09:26:32 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 09:09:41 PM
Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Ditto.

Quote from: null & void on November 17, 2009, 09:27:17 PM

Quote from: Khara on November 17, 2009, 09:26:32 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 09:09:41 PM
Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Ditto.

But that's what America™ is all about.  Punish the guilty.  If there aren't enough guilty people, make more.  Hang 'em all, no need for a trial, some lawyer will just pull tricks and get them off what the fuck is up with that I need my goddamned self-righteousness fix and I need it NOW.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 09:30:21 PM

Quote from: null & void on November 17, 2009, 09:27:17 PM

Quote from: Khara on November 17, 2009, 09:26:32 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 09:09:41 PM
Kids are going to smoke weed no matter what.  Hell, it's part of the American experience.  The current arrangement only means that it will destroy their lives entirely if they're caught.  Not sure I see the sense in that.

EXACTLY! 

Ditto.

But that's what America™ is all about.  Punish the guilty.  If there aren't enough guilty people, make more.  Hang 'em all, no need for a trial, some lawyer will just pull tricks and get them off what the fuck is up with that I need my goddamned self-righteousness fix and I need it NOW.

The Puritans can fix it ALL!

That might be what America's all about, but I never much liked America. It always reminded me of those loud car sales commercials, with the president being the guy in the snazzy suit yelling catchphrases into your ears.

Quote from: null & void on November 17, 2009, 09:32:23 PM
That might be what America's all about, but I never much liked America. It always reminded me of those loud car sales commercials, with the president being the guy in the snazzy suit yelling catchphrases into your ears.

GET OUT YOUR FUCKING CHECKBOOK!

"You never hear a REAL American talking about 'rights'.  Whenever I hear someone talk about rights, I think 'that man is a red, that man is a communist'."
- A former mayor of Boston (1950s era), whose name escapes me.

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2009, 07:01:12 PM

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market...They are worth tons of money

I think (as shittily "oh noes conspiracy" it may sound) that the War On Drugs^tm is merely a way to cut down on the competition from non "sponsoring" cartels. If transnational and "big business" has so much juice and power while only speaking on money terms, imagine how much more "seductive" and "persuasive" groups that wouldnt hessitate to assasinate anyone...

Here in Mexico theres a certain tradition of "jailbreaks" and "captures" that switch each time theres a new president. Theres usually important members of Cartel A or Cartel B in jail at a time, but "coincidentally" never of both at the same time.

Executive Power says: "Who has the highest bid?"

Quote from: JohNyx on November 17, 2009, 09:36:41 PM

Quote from: Cain on November 16, 2009, 07:01:12 PM

1.  They are untraceable, so long as drugs remain part of the black market...They are worth tons of money

I think (as shittily "oh noes conspiracy" it may sound) that the War On Drugs^tm is merely a way to cut down on the competition from non "sponsoring" cartels. If transnational and "big business" has so much juice and power while only speaking on money terms, imagine how much more "seductive" and "persuasive" groups that wouldnt hessitate to assasinate anyone...

Here in Mexico theres a certain tradition of "jailbreaks" and "captures" that switch each time theres a new president. Theres usually important members of Cartel A or Cartel B in jail at a time, but "coincidentally" never of both at the same time.

Executive Power says: "Who has the highest bid?"

We have the same thing, only with banks and oil companies (not that I have to tell a Mexican about oil company shennanigans).

TGRR,
Remembers Huerta. 

RWHN: Hypothetical

How would you feel about legalizing pot if the money currently used to fight pot went into prevention and treatment programs instead?

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 17, 2009, 08:36:48 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM
There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

According to the General Accounting Office when askled about misleading statements (lies) stated by ONDCP:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/301022.pdf

Quote
Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana.

Quote
ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail.

Except that you haven't established, factually, that this particular individual in question actually lied.  You have an opinion that he lied, but it isn't one you've substantiated with facts.  I looked at the particular statements that were being contested and I've read research that would substantiate all of them.  So that isn't lying.  Perhaps you or someone else has conducted studies that have different outcomes.  If so publish them.  But that is fundamentally different then creating information with the expressed intent to mislead.  

IOW, I don't agree with your interpretation of this particular document.  I think you are incorrect.  

QuoteWould you like direct quotes from the various heads of the ONDCP, past and present where obvious lies have been stated as fact?

Yes.  Complete with the evidence that proves, definitively, that the lies were indeed lies.  

QuoteLook, I understand you and I don't agree on the issue... but I really think there is a strong body of evidence to indicate that the US government is not particularly truthful or trustworthy, based on their past and present actions/statements.

Then present it.  Put up or shut up.  So far you've posted a lot of broad generalizations and little fact to prove lies as lies.  

QuoteIf an entity makes claims that are known to be false... if they quash reports that do not agree with their claims. Why should I believe anything they say?

Bearing in mind that I believe you are incorrect with your interpretation of the above document, you do realize there are more players in this than just the ONDCP, right?  There is also SAMHSA, NIDA, the CDC, NIAA, are they all liars too?  Can you prove with documented evidence that they are all liars too?  

QuoteAs for personally... I don't question the validity of your work. I question things you say here sometimes and since this is the only place I interact with you, I apologize if the RWHN here shades my view of the RWHN there.

Bullshit.  You have questioned my validity.  You've claimed that I am naive and misinformed.  

QuoteI respect your work. However,  things you have said here seem to indicate that either you speculate beyond your level of knowledge, maybe you repeat things you have heard and not confirmed etc.

Cut the generalities and give specifics.  

QuoteIf you don't say that kind of unconfirmed stuff to kids, then that's great... I'll continue to say something when you say things here that appear unlikely... and I'll try to give you good reasons for why I believe them to be unlikely. If you don't stalk about chemicals in hydro around the kids, then my comments have nothing to do with your work... just your post.

Yes, believe, believe they are unlikely.  Believe is decidedly different from know.  Yet, how can you evaluate my level of knowledge when you are operating from a belief and an opinion and not hard knowledge and fact.  

Quote from: fomenter on November 17, 2009, 08:44:28 PM
i just don't see how increased access for kids = large enough harm or insurmountable problem so large that it somehow outweighs the harm expense and injustice done by prohibition..

Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to one of these kids talk about how their brother became a completely different person after he started smoking pot, maybe you'd have a different view.  Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to another kid talk about how her Dad completely tuned out after he started smoking and doing drugs.  Maybe, then, you'd at least have more of a window into why increasing access to pot, or any drug, is a bad, bad idea.  These are real people  Real kids whose lives are being turned inside out.  The adults you are all so concerned about had a chance to have a childhood.  And you guys want to accept some casualties so adults can light up?  Really?  Is it that fucking important???  People have choices to make.  They know what laws are there.  If it is THAT important to smoke, if it is THAT important to sell, then they know what consequences await them.  A 14 year old kid doesn't have that decision making capacity.  But fuck, we need to make sure the adults get to have their jollies, unimpeded.  Fuck a few kids!  What the fuck does that matter, right?

Quoterwhn and others in the field would have more money to work with harder laws/penalty's to use against adults selling to kids, the extra resources to fight the increase in access should make the job easier not harder , it just doesn't make math sense.... i still think the benefits of legalization far out way the harm and i haven't seen anything in the debate to sway that impression..

How the fuck would we have more money?  The government would have more money, but that doesn't mean it's coming to us.  My state gets money from the racino to fund gambling treatment.  Guess what, the State is taking that money for something else.  Legalization will NOT get us more money.  It's just more money to go somewhere else. 

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on November 17, 2009, 09:21:10 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:36:24 PMNo but you are arguing that preventing substance abuse in adolescence is not a justification for keeping marijuana illegal.

Are you arguing that it is? 

Yes.  Because I know from my own research that increased access = increased use. If you could magically legalize it and magically keep it from getting into the hands of kids, I'm right there with you.  That world doesn't exist and will never exist.   

QuoteWould you argue for reinstating prohibition on the grounds that preventing alcohol abuse in adolescents is a justification for banning alcohol altogether?

It's irrelevant because prohibition of alcohol doesn't exist today.  Prohibition of marijuana does.  The battle over alcohol was waged 80 odd years ago.  It's not worth my time to fight that fight.  What I would argue for is harsher penalties for parents or any adult who supplies a safe haven for a child to drink, or directly supplies alcohol to minors.  Clearly what we have in place now isn't enough of a deterrent. 

QuoteI appreciate the work you do and agree that preventing substance abuse in children and adolescents is something to strive for.  I only question whether prohibition is the way to solve the problem.

It isn't THE way to solve the problem.  And nowhere have I made that statement.  The way to solve the problem is what I and my colleagues are doing day in and day out.  Educating and working on policy.  Educating kids, educating parents, educating law makers, educating servers, educating teachers, etc., etc.,  It's about envrionmental change, increasing developmental assets in kids, lots of things. 

Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:07:22 PM
Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

This and then some.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:07:22 PM
Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

That's certainly a key point.  And one of the things we talk about with one of my programs is Natural Highs.  Helping kids find things they love to do that offers them emotional rewards.  Because in the long term drugs cannot offer that.  And I know there are several other programs that work to give alternatives.  A buddy of mine runs a non-profit that allows kids to get together and play rock music.  I have another friend who uses theater and dramatic arts.  Another who uses art.  It is a very key part of the equation.  

Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 17, 2009, 09:41:07 PM
RWHN: Hypothetical

How would you feel about legalizing pot if the money currently used to fight pot went into prevention and treatment programs instead?

The same way I'd feel about someone drilling a hole in my boat and handing me a bigger oar. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:16:08 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:07:22 PM
Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

That's certainly a key point.  And one of the things we talk about with one of my programs is Natural Highs.  Helping kids find things they love to do that offers them emotional rewards.  Because in the long term drugs cannot offer that.  And I know there are several other programs that work to give alternatives.  A buddy of mine runs a non-profit that allows kids to get together and play rock music.  I have another friend who uses theater and dramatic arts.  Another who uses art.  It is a very key part of the equation.  

What we're dealing with here in AZ is the fact that it's a retirement state full of bitter old people that wish to punish kids for being young.  There is no real support system other than the Y.  It's even illegal to use the school's outdoor basketball court outside of school hours, can you fucking believe it.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 09:58:41 PM

Quote from: fomenter on November 17, 2009, 08:44:28 PM
i just don't see how increased access for kids = large enough harm or insurmountable problem so large that it somehow outweighs the harm expense and injustice done by prohibition..

Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to one of these kids talk about how their brother became a completely different person after he started smoking pot, maybe you'd have a different view.  Maybe if you could sit here tonite, instead of me, and listen to another kid talk about how her Dad completely tuned out after he started smoking and doing drugs.  Maybe, then, you'd at least have more of a window into why increasing access to pot, or any drug, is a bad, bad idea.  These are real people  Real kids whose lives are being turned inside out.  The adults you are all so concerned about had a chance to have a childhood.  And you guys want to accept some casualties so adults can light up?  Really?  Is it that fucking important???  People have choices to make.  They know what laws are there.  If it is THAT important to smoke, if it is THAT important to sell, then they know what consequences await them.  A 14 year old kid doesn't have that decision making capacity.  But fuck, we need to make sure the adults get to have their jollies, unimpeded.  Fuck a few kids!  What the fuck does that matter, right?

i don't smoke i wont benefit and i don't care about dam hippies and their every body must get stoned attitudes .. the people that get their doors kicked in in the middle of the night, the people that have property confiscated, the people thrown in jail, the corruption it breeds the harms and expense caused by prohibition happens to real people with real lives too..... giving up liberty for the safety of the children and ending up with neither is what we have got now "why does that idea sound familiar?"

Quote

Quoterwhn and others in the field would have more money to work with harder laws/penalty's to use against adults selling to kids, the extra resources to fight the increase in access should make the job easier not harder , it just doesn't make math sense.... i still think the benefits of legalization far out way the harm and i haven't seen anything in the debate to sway that impression..

How the fuck would we have more money?  The government would have more money, but that doesn't mean it's coming to us.  My state gets money from the racino to fund gambling treatment.  Guess what, the State is taking that money for something else.  Legalization will NOT get us more money.  It's just more money to go somewhere else.  

if legislation is done right it would be..
i don't have much faith in government, it would need to be fought for but giving funds formerly used to prosecute a harmless pot head to someone doing drug use prevention for kids, makes more sense than prosecuting the pot head which doesn't have any benefit to anyone

So at this point I've probably pigeonholed myself into the Unfunny Punning Killjoy.  Right?  

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:20:32 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:16:08 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:07:22 PM
Or we could, you know, give kids something else to do, other than drugs.

My town has found every fun thing kids like to do, and legislated them out of existence.  And it's easier to get caught skateboarding than getting high.

The message, of course, is not lost on the kids.

That's certainly a key point.  And one of the things we talk about with one of my programs is Natural Highs.  Helping kids find things they love to do that offers them emotional rewards.  Because in the long term drugs cannot offer that.  And I know there are several other programs that work to give alternatives.  A buddy of mine runs a non-profit that allows kids to get together and play rock music.  I have another friend who uses theater and dramatic arts.  Another who uses art.  It is a very key part of the equation.  

What we're dealing with here in AZ is the fact that it's a retirement state full of bitter old people that wish to punish kids for being young.  There is no real support system other than the Y.  It's even illegal to use the school's outdoor basketball court outside of school hours, can you fucking believe it.

Yeah, I'd say that isn't an environment that is super conducive to building assets in young people. 

Quote from: RWHNThat's certainly a key point.  And one of the things we talk about with one of my programs is Natural Highs.  Helping kids find things they love to do that offers them emotional rewards.  Because in the long term drugs cannot offer that.  And I know there are several other programs that work to give alternatives.  A buddy of mine runs a non-profit that allows kids to get together and play rock music.  I have another friend who uses theater and dramatic arts.  Another who uses art.  It is a very key part of the equation.  

That's a really cool approach. I know in my hometown, drugs and alcohol were the most obvious solution to boredom. My group of friends probably started drinking / using a bit later than our peers because after school every day, we were in the woods pretending to be Elves and cranking each other in the face with PVC pipes.

This is a little off topic, but I'm intrigued by how the current anti-smoking campaign is handling this issue. The Truth campaign (as discussed in Christine Harold's Ourspace) has a very interesting approach - they're trying to frame being a nonsmoker as a form of rebellion against mainstream values. They're hoping that the kids who smoke because they think it's bad-ass-james-dean will actually find it much more punk rock to NOT act like their pack-a-day parents. The Truth website has all these materials to help you organize your own anti-smoking culture jams. Verrrry interesting approach. I don't have any data, but I imagine it has to be more effective than the sharply uncool Just Say No campaign.

Well, break time is over.  I'll catch up with this later.  Gotta go talk to the kiddos.    

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:21:31 PM
So at this point I've probably pigeonholed myself into the Unfunny Punning Killjoy.  Right?  

Not by me.

I think you give a fuck, and I like that.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:28:07 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:21:31 PM
So at this point I've probably pigeonholed myself into the Unfunny Punning Killjoy.  Right?  

Not by me.

I think you give a fuck, and I like that.

ditto
      i even "gack gag choke" like a pun some times

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2009, 10:28:07 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:21:31 PM
So at this point I've probably pigeonholed myself into the Unfunny Punning Killjoy.  Right?  

Not by me.

I think you give a fuck, and I like that.

This.

RWHN, I'm really starting to think we should illegal alcohol as well, because it causes even more problems than Canabis, and THAT'S illegal.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:04:28 PMBecause I know from my own research that increased access = increased use. If you could magically legalize it and magically keep it from getting into the hands of kids, I'm right there with you.  That world doesn't exist and will never exist.

I agree that world will never exist, seeing as how we can't keep it out of kids' hands now while it's illegal.  I haven't smoked in 15 years, but when I was a teenager, I never had trouble finding pot.  In fact, it was easier for me to get pot than beer.  If the fact that it was illegal was making it harder for me to get, I didn't notice.  

Of course, that's only my personal experience.  I certainly don't mean it as a counterargument to your claim that increased access = increased use.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:04:28 PMIt's irrelevant because prohibition of alcohol doesn't exist today.  Prohibition of marijuana does.  The battle over alcohol was waged 80 odd years ago.  It's not worth my time to fight that fight.

I'm sorry, I meant for my question to sound more hypothetical.  I did not mean to sound like I was questioning you for not tilting at windmills trying to reinstate prohibition of alcohol, when obviously your time is better spent doing things that can actually make a difference.  

How about if I rephrase my question this way -- if, hypothetically, a resurgent temperance movement gained enough power that reinstating the prohibition of alcohol was on the table, would you be in favor of it?

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:04:28 PMWhat I would argue for is harsher penalties for parents or any adult who supplies a safe haven for a child to drink, or directly supplies alcohol to minors.  Clearly what we have in place now isn't enough of a deterrent.

You could say the same thing about marijuana prohibition.  Actually, I think you already have said something to that effect somewhere ITT, so I think we're in agreement on that point.

You've done research that shows that marijuana prohibition is, to a measurable extent, keeping some kids away from it.  I have no reason not to trust your research, especially since I've done no research into the topic myself.  What I'm wondering is how much worse would it be than it already is?  If marijuana were legalized, but regulated in the same way that alcohol is now, with the same restrictions on use and penalties for misuse, how much does your research show that use among adolescents would increase?  Would it open the floodgates or are we talking about marginal increases?

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:04:28 PMThe way to solve the problem is what I and my colleagues are doing day in and day out.  Educating and working on policy.  Educating kids, educating parents, educating law makers, educating servers, educating teachers, etc., etc.,  It's about envrionmental change, increasing developmental assets in kids, lots of things.

I agree with this 100%.  Again, thanks for doing the work that you do.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.
























*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Not unprecedented.  Alcohol prohibition ended, illegal drugs used to be legal.  These are not vast changes, they are not making government honest and accountable, they are simple changes in a really relatively minor area.

It may be utopian to believe that ending prohibition would make everyuthing ok, it certainly wouldn't, but the basic arguement I am making, and that I see others making is that it would make things better more than it would make things worse.

Perhaps more people would use drugs, extant studies do not seem to indicate that in my mind, but I can accept that as a consequence, meanwhile the prisons would not be as full, criminal gangs would lose a huge source of funding, drugs would be of known purity and strength, marijuana would no longer be a gateway drug, AND I could imbite the substances i choose to imbibe.

Strikes me as a net gain.  Even if drug usage doubles.  Especcially if it is just marijuana that is legalized.

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 04:03:56 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 17, 2009, 03:57:07 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
No, you're arguing that the current system of government, legislation, and law enforcement is funamentally flawed and needs to be changed in radical and unprecidented ways.

Which is still a pipe dream*, and doesn't address the current situation.

*"pipe dream".  Get it?

Its hardly radical or unprecedented when its brought up by events that occur in the real world.
Are you suggesting that those in favor of legalization give up, and simply accept the status quo?

Also the A vs B dichotomy you use is an excellent way of portraying the different extremes, and arguing against one extreme while promoting the other. Sure, B may never exist, but it hardly makes A acceptable.

Show of hands: How many of you have actually worked to overturn the current drug policy?

And I never said that "A" was better than "B": I said that RWHN is the only one doing something to help those trapped in "A".

I have.  written letters, marched, researched for a performance art piece done to get information out there.  I'm not just sniping about it on the internet.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:08:25 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 17, 2009, 02:01:50 PM
I'd like to give RWHN some credit; as far as I know he's the only person on this board who works with chemically dependent and at-risk youths.  Because of this, he has very different experiences and opinions about drugs, and has seen far more cases and data regarding their use and effects.

While in my personal experience I have seen people react to drugs in both positive an negative ways, my sample size is extremely small.  Even if I can relate the personal drug histories of 100 people, that's still far too small to be accurate.  That's why anectdotal evidence is generally considered bullshit.

I understand that due to his job, he sees far more negative cases than positive ones; but the point is that these "negative" cases are still fucking humans.  They aren't statistics, and they sure as fuck aren't "acceptable losses" so you can get high whenever you want to.  

You can argue about how "society" is screwed up, and if we ended the War on Drugs and we all were taught and teach "responsibility" to each other, we could eliminate drug abuse and addiction.  And if you believe that world will ever exist, then you probably believe in the model that all people make rational decisions when faced with economic decisions.

RWHN is dealing with the situation as it is, not as what it might be if all of humanity had their IQ, Empathy, Will Power, and Self Respect boosted a hundredfold overnight.  In our current culture, and for the forseeable future, huge swaths of kids are doing damage to themselves which may turn out to be permanent.  RWHN has done all he can to help them.

What the fuck have any of you done?

Thanks.  And I just want to repeat what I've said several times now.  I DO think there are injustices carried out in the name of combating substance abuse.  Certainly a guy caught with a joint shouldn't be doing time in jail.  People who get in trouble with the law with personal amounts of substances should be hooked up with help, not jail.  And the thing is, we can address that and HAVE been addressing that.  Drug courts are one of those mechanisms.  Fuck, I sit on a committee, headed up by a Sgt in the State Police that is looking for alternatives for dealing with out of control kids.  Yeah, that's law enforcement heading this up.  And nowhere on the list of alternatives are we talking about incarceration.  We are talking about hooking them up with the resources they need to get help and to get clean.  I just sincerely don't see how legalization does anything to fix anything other than make it easier for adults to enjoy their marijuana without harrassment.  And that's fine and dandy if you can magically take kids out of the equation.  But you can't.  Nevermind that more adults will have marijuana making it more available.  You'll have more adults setting examples for their kids.  Parental modeling is already a huge issue in substance abuse.  Legalizing will only serve to further validate the behavior for children as parents are more free to light up. 

I hate to say it but your approach sounds way more utopian than legalization.  The idea that we can reform the drug war, turn something that is a giant, corrupt, money funnel for drug dealers and a way for the DEA and police forces to seize property and fill the jails into something that works and gets people off drugs seems to be a very pie in the sky vision to me.

The basic assumption that recreational intoxicants are bad left aside, I do not see that sort of reform as possible or viable.  I will support it if I see it, but I don't think it is going to happen.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:21:31 PM
So at this point I've probably pigeonholed myself into the Unfunny Punning Killjoy.  Right?  

Nope, you're the hilarious punning killjoy.

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on November 17, 2009, 11:40:05 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:04:28 PMBecause I know from my own research that increased access = increased use. If you could magically legalize it and magically keep it from getting into the hands of kids, I'm right there with you.  That world doesn't exist and will never exist.

I agree that world will never exist, seeing as how we can't keep it out of kids' hands now while it's illegal.  I haven't smoked in 15 years, but when I was a teenager, I never had trouble finding pot.  In fact, it was easier for me to get pot than beer.  If the fact that it was illegal was making it harder for me to get, I didn't notice.  

Of course, that's only my personal experience.  I certainly don't mean it as a counterargument to your claim that increased access = increased use.

I recognize that it is already very easy to get access.  But the legal barrier IS a barrier for some kids.  There are a good number of kids who are concerned about being caught by the law and having that ruin college plans, career plans, etc., that it keeps them from experimenting and using.  Never mind wanting to avoid disappointment from their parents for not only using, but also getting in trouble with the law.  Though, in that regard I can't tell you how many times I've heard of kids getting in trouble with the law over drugs and the parents were more concerned with the kid having a record than attending to the kid's drug problem.  Kids are under a lot of fucking pressure from parents to succeed and follow in footsteps to attend that ivy league school or take over the family business. 

QuoteHow about if I rephrase my question this way -- if, hypothetically, a resurgent temperance movement gained enough power that reinstating the prohibition of alcohol was on the table, would you be in favor of it?

Without seeing specific legislation I can't say for sure either way.  The devil is always in the details.  Meanwhile there is a movement brewing amongst some college and university Presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  Anyone want to guess why University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18?

Quote

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 10:04:28 PMWhat I would argue for is harsher penalties for parents or any adult who supplies a safe haven for a child to drink, or directly supplies alcohol to minors.  Clearly what we have in place now isn't enough of a deterrent.

You could say the same thing about marijuana prohibition.  Actually, I think you already have said something to that effect somewhere ITT, so I think we're in agreement on that point.

Certainly.  There is always more work to be done.  And certainly marijuana is one of the more difficult substances to tackle because of the various perceptions about its impact on an individual. 

QuoteYou've done research that shows that marijuana prohibition is, to a measurable extent, keeping some kids away from it.  I have no reason not to trust your research, especially since I've done no research into the topic myself.  What I'm wondering is how much worse would it be than it already is?  If marijuana were legalized, but regulated in the same way that alcohol is now, with the same restrictions on use and penalties for misuse, how much does your research show that use among adolescents would increase?  Would it open the floodgates or are we talking about marginal increases?

It may only rise 4 or 5%.  But when you multiply that by the number of young people in the US, that becomes a lot of kids.  Even a 3% increase would be a lot of kids.  So on a percentage basis it may seem marginal, but when you look at the raw number, it would impact many lives. 

it still seems to me to basically be a "trading liberty for security" type of issue.

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures. 

It does appear that they are lying about those figures, in that marijuana use apparently has little to do with whether there are repressive or liberal laws being enforced:

QuoteIn conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband's earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a 'liberal' cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy. [Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use. 

- Dirk J. Korf from the University of Amsterdam (source (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm)).


It would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

Oh yeah, I forgot all about the fact that I was denied financial aid for college because of a pot conviction. After I had already gone through all the hoops and gotten a class schedule, even. They told me the day before classes started that I was shit outta luck.

"Sorry, son, having a pot conviction means we shouldn't help you try to better your life and become a more productive citizen who doesn't have to sell drugs to pay rent and buy food."

WTF? Who thinks that's a productive policy?

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 05:18:03 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures. 

It does appear that they are lying about those figures, in that marijuana use apparently has little to do with whether there are repressive or liberal laws being enforced:

QuoteIn conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband's earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a 'liberal' cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy. [Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use. 

- Dirk J. Korf from the University of Amsterdam (source (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm)).

Of course decriminalization =/= legalization.  And that study is 14 years old.  And it still doesn't mean the hard data that showed increases in marijuana use amongst young adults in the Netherlands was fabricated.  It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation of what it does or does not mean.  

QuoteIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem.  

you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

is it your position that it is not possible for people to responsibly use recreational drugs in a manner that would not negatively impact their ability to perform their job or succeed in school were it not for the illegality and resulting punitive measures associated with drug use?

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement. 

Quoteis it your position that it is not possible for people to responsibly use recreational drugs in a manner that would not negatively impact their ability to perform their job or succeed in school were it not for the illegality and resulting punitive measures associated with drug use?

An adult yes.  An adolescent, no.  And that is where the issue lies. 

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:22:13 AM
Oh yeah, I forgot all about the fact that I was denied financial aid for college because of a pot conviction. After I had already gone through all the hoops and gotten a class schedule, even. They told me the day before classes started that I was shit outta luck.

"Sorry, son, having a pot conviction means we shouldn't help you try to better your life and become a more productive citizen who doesn't have to sell drugs to pay rent and buy food."

WTF? Who thinks that's a productive policy?

according to the math, your not getting aid to get into collage and subsequent "becoming a dealer" to pay rent and make ends meet (and all those with similar stories including being tossed in jail) did less harm to real people with real lives and less harm to society than the 3% or so increase in pot smoking does by effecting availability for kids, even though kids can score any where any time they want already.... sorry RCH

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 05:18:03 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM

QuoteI don't believe that people are going to become More Responsible but I fail to see what the fuck that has to do with stupid laws that are based on stupid lies. Stupid laws are bad/wrong because they are stupid laws. Most evidence available in areas where prohibition was relaxed indicate that people do not turn into drug laden zombies, wandering through a desolated city seeking the Next Big Hit.

There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures. 

It does appear that they are lying about those figures, in that marijuana use apparently has little to do with whether there are repressive or liberal laws being enforced:

QuoteIn conclusion, trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher then those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband's earlier conclusion that trends cannabis use evolve rather independently from drug policy, and that countries with a 'liberal' cannabis policy do not have higher or lower rates than countries with a more repressive policy. [Reuband, 1995].

Consequently, it is unlikely that decriminalisation of cannabis will cause an increase in cannabis use. 

- Dirk J. Korf from the University of Amsterdam (source (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm)).

Of course decriminalization =/= legalization.  And that study is 14 years old.  And it still doesn't mean the hard data that showed increases in marijuana use amongst young adults in the Netherlands was fabricated.  It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation of what it does or does not mean. 

"It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation..." sounds awfully disingenuous. They came to a conclusion that is incompatible with your claim about a nation's drug policy being connected to rates of using marijuana.

I also did not claim that the ONDCP fabricated anything. I said they lied. And to further clarify, they lied by omission. Yes it's true that there was an increase in usage by young people after it was made available in coffee shops, but the nature of that use was experimental not chronic and abusive. Most did not continue using it. And, the increase in usage fit with trends of use in other nations with very different drug policies. Not only is it a lie by omission but also a fine example of the ex post facto fallacy.

Part of the research I cited refers to a study done 14 years ago—that doesn't invalidate their findings. More recently conducted studies are included in the research I linked to which also support the author's conclusion. If you have evidence that competes with it, or demonstrates some sort of error in their methodology, let's see it.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM

QuoteIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem. 

I would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 05:18:03 AMIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem.  

please forgive me if i've misattributed quotes - i really just wanted to chime in and say i think college is the best place there is for a person with a drug problem.  at least in college - every 15 weeks or so you get some feedback about whether you are "succesful" or a total fuck-up - you get some do-overs, so to speak.  alternatively, if you are not in college and have a drug problem, you are most likely unemployed or about to become unemployed.

also - "i don't have a drinking problem, i have a drinking solution!" har har

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM
There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

that's weird because it doesn't really fit with the history of drug legislation in the Netherlands, as there is no single point in history that would count as "the introduction of coffeeshops", just a timeline of changes in legislation throughout the 20th century (starting in 1919 with the "Opium Law"*).

The strictness and (non-) legalisation of weed as well as the official and non-official levels of enforcement and prosecution considering weed possession and/or trading have gone both up and down in the 20th century, so I wonder what reference point your information uses compared to which marihuana use has increased amongst young adults**.

The "tolerance policy" was created around 1970, the difference between hard- and softdrugs was defined in 1976, during the 80s the tolerance policy again took a big hit, climaxing in 1992 with the cleansing of Platform Zero in Rotterdam. 1992 was also the year they instated the "AHOJ rules", defining what a coffeeshop must adhere to*** in order to not be prosecuted or closed down.

The number of Dutch coffeeshops peaked in the years 1991-1995, and has been declining ever since. Since 2004 politics has been following a "harder line" in the tolerance policy, resulting in closing down even more weed plantations and coffeeshops.

All in all, it's kind of bold to say that "marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops". I don't think this means that ONDCP lied about their figures, but it does make me doubt the objectivity of that research because if they would have sincerely considered all the facts the only conclusion would be that it's kind of hard to say what exactly caused what****, since so many different significant factors and events happened in the past century.

In addition to that, there's of course confirmation bias (which plays quite a strong role in a lot of these research, on both sides BTW), and perhaps most importantly, that this is stuff that happened over several decades and is now considered to be Dutch heritage by a lot of people, and that whole "engrainedness", I really think that you cannot simply apply these numbers to the USA or Maine. Our cultures are only superficially similar (mostly by important US popculture into Dutch) but below the surface there is so many significant nuances going on. I mean, even in little NL it makes sense to draw conclusions based upon separating different kinds of demographics based on second-generation-immigrant, province or rurality. So try to apply what moves 15 million people on a very tiny patch of earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDNdK7Cb0J0) to a huge country on another continent with its own very strong sense(s) of identity and cultural history, it's tricky I think.

To conclude, if you say legalizing marihuana in Maine is a bad idea, I can't argue with that, you are the expert. To say it was a bad idea in the Netherlands, or whether it would be a bad idea to implement somewhere else because, gets harder and harder, especially as you move farther away :)

Oh and btw you should really check that clip I linked there, it's a nice song, and subtitled (badly :) ).


* FYI currently, the Opium Law is the law defining the difference between harddrugs and softdrugs. It doesnt apply exclusively to opium, that's just what it's called. Our "tolerance policy" is not part of this (or any) law, but defined by the Dutch Ministry of Justice as "an official set of guidelines telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted".

** what are young adults btw? these are our legal ages in the Netherlands: 16 can buy beer, drive moped / 18 can buy weed, strong liquor, car drivers license / 21 financial independence.

*** no Advertising, Harddrugs, trouble (Overlast), youth (Jongeren, 18+)

**** and I haven't even touched upon the demographic changes in Dutch society, for instance several waves of immigrant workers had quite a large impact in a country which grew from 13M to 16.5M in 1970-2009

(edited by RCH to correct error in quote tags)

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:34:29 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 17, 2009, 08:18:15 PMyou still haven't addressed Portugal. their kids are doing less drugs now. What to make of that?

I would suggest that further information is required.  The thing is you can't simply compare statistics on whether a substance is legal or illegal.  There are other variables in the culture to consider.  What are the parental attitudes around substances?  What are parent-child relationships like?  Parental modeling.  Community norms.  Socio-economic. 

It's not as simple as saying "the drugs were made legal and thus substance abuse went down".  It may have been a factor, but without controlling for other factors you can't say for sure.  In other words, it isn't a universal that is going to have the same effects in every culture.  Remember different cultures have different reality grids and those are going to have huge impacts too.  Remember the BIP.  Different cultures and individuals in those cultures will have different bars exerting their influence.

Heyyyy this is basically the same argument I just made in the previous post about that information of marihuana use in young adults in NL going up :-)

See what I mean with the confirmation bias?

FWIW, I neither believe Portugal to be an example proving that legalisation is right, nor do I believe that (alleged?) increase in marihuana use in young adults in NL demonstrates a tolerance policy is wrong.

(Especially no way I'm going to assume that Portuguese reaction on this would be equivalent to the same thing happening in NL--cultures are way too different in too many ways)

Of course I do suppose that in your line of work the "probably neither is right" assumption is not a very useful or productive one, so you have to make an informed decision and pick a position. However, just because you have to take a position doesn't suddenly make that position more right, or even just as right as the position that "both may be likely and it's kind of hard to say".

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 04:59:32 AMthere is a movement brewing amongst some college and university Presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  Anyone want to guess why University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18?

Personally, in the Netherlands, I always thought it was a very sensible idea for people to learn to deal with alcohol first (beer at 16), and only get their driver's license later (18).

Cause you wouldn't go to driving lessons while drunk. But you might come to the bad idea to drive home after your first "alcohol lessons", cause you already been driving for 5 years, after all and know you can handle that car.

QuoteIt may only rise 4 or 5%.  But when you multiply that by the number of young people in the US, that becomes a lot of kids.  Even a 3% increase would be a lot of kids.  So on a percentage basis it may seem marginal, but when you look at the raw number, it would impact many lives.

That's usage, or kids that actually waste their lives due to abuse cause they get access?

And how much would that be in absolute numbers?

What if you offset that to the absolute numbers of kids that currently get into trouble due to marihuana use with their career plans or college plans (like you said), broken families cause dad went to jail / lost his job / house bashed in or whatever it is they do?

Because if I understand you correctly, you say that one must be higher than the other. If you'd show us the figures, I think you'd convince a lot of people ITT (myself included, pertaining to legalisation of weed in the USA, that is).

sorry for the multiple posts, but one more question, and then I'll be gone for the rest of the day ;-)

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 05:26:19 AM

QuoteIt would seem that those laws primary effect is to fuck up both adults and kids lives by making it more difficult to go to college (by denying financial aid for a drug offense) and make it more difficult to make a living (due to having to list it as a criminal offense on job applications).

It's also generally more difficult for a kid to go to college and make a living when he/she has a drug problem.

which number is higher, the number of kids unable to go to college because of drug offense or the number of kids not going to college / difficulty in college due to drug abuse?

as far as I see:

scenario 1 = A% use drugs, B% of A get caught and legal problems, C% of A abuse and get drug problem = A x (B ^ C) % get into general trouble (the ^ denotes union of B and C because drug users can either get caught, abuse, both or neither--to be fair they're not even independent variables but as an approx it's complex enough as it is)

scenario 2 = D% use drugs, E% of D abuse and get drug problem = D x E % get into general trouble.

now, even if D > A, meaning more will use if it's legalized (can't really argue with that), the Big Question is, if you want to form an objective opinion on whether legalisation is good or bad, how does the entire equation look?

(for example, it could be argued C > E, meaning percentually less drug using people will abuse, because the topic is lifted from its taboo and education on responsible drug use increases. but maybe also not, I'm speculating)

either way, it seems that you are of the opinion that A x (B ^ C) < D x E, am I right? (meaning, more people would get into general trouble with legalisation than without)

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 08:43:06 AM
"It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation..." sounds awfully disingenuous. They came to a conclusion that is incompatible with your claim about a nation's drug policy being connected to rates of using marijuana.

Yes, and I think their conclusions are inconclusive.  I don't believe they properly took into consideration all of the variables that influence prevalence. 

QuoteI also did not claim that the ONDCP fabricated anything. I said they lied. And to further clarify, they lied by omission. Yes it's true that there was an increase in usage by young people after it was made available in coffee shops, but the nature of that use was experimental not chronic and abusive. Most did not continue using it. And, the increase in usage fit with trends of use in other nations with very different drug policies. Not only is it a lie by omission but also a fine example of the ex post facto fallacy.

But, um, no.  It is not a lie to report that usage went up when usage went up.  What you are quibbling about is interpretation of what the data means.  Because you have come to a different conclusion about what the data means compared to the ONDCP does not mean that one of you are lying.  It may mean that one of you is more correct about the interpretation, but that is decidedly different than lying. 

QuotePart of the research I cited refers to a study done 14 years ago—that doesn't invalidate their findings. More recently conducted studies are included in the research I linked to which also support the author's conclusion. If you have evidence that competes with it, or demonstrates some sort of error in their methodology, let's see it.

I think it is an incomplete study and one that, as I said, didn't properly take into consideration many variables that impact substance usage.  Things are different in 2009 than they were in 1995.  While usage has been trending down in the past year or so amongst adolescents, it is certainly higher than it was in 1995.  But I cannot ignore what I know about adolescent behavior to fully expect legalization will lead to more adolescents experimenting with and using marijuana. 

QuoteI would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Well my experience with the "repressive laws" is they've been the impetus to get kids straight.  We've had countless kids who've gone through our residential program, or our outpatient program, or our drug court program who've gone on to college and become very successful.  And many of them will tell you, if they hadn't got caught, if they hadn't been referred to one of these programs, they'd still be doing the drugs and going nowhere.  And I know the experience of my agency is not unique and that those stories are told all across the US. 

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 18, 2009, 09:13:23 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 17, 2009, 08:15:50 PM
There is mixed evidence however.  I'd post some information about how marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops,etc. but it comes from the ONDCP so I know you'll just ignore it.  They obviously just lied about those figures.  

that's weird because it doesn't really fit with the history of drug legislation in the Netherlands, as there is no single point in history that would count as "the introduction of coffeeshops", just a timeline of changes in legislation throughout the 20th century (starting in 1919 with the "Opium Law"*).

The strictness and (non-) legalisation of weed as well as the official and non-official levels of enforcement and prosecution considering weed possession and/or trading have gone both up and down in the 20th century, so I wonder what reference point your information uses compared to which marihuana use has increased amongst young adults**.

The "tolerance policy" was created around 1970, the difference between hard- and softdrugs was defined in 1976, during the 80s the tolerance policy again took a big hit, climaxing in 1992 with the cleansing of Platform Zero in Rotterdam. 1992 was also the year they instated the "AHOJ rules", defining what a coffeeshop must adhere to*** in order to not be prosecuted or closed down.

The number of Dutch coffeeshops peaked in the years 1991-1995, and has been declining ever since. Since 2004 politics has been following a "harder line" in the tolerance policy, resulting in closing down even more weed plantations and coffeeshops.

All in all, it's kind of bold to say that "marijuana use amongst young adults went up in the Netherlands after it became available at coffee shops". I don't think this means that ONDCP lied about their figures, but it does make me doubt the objectivity of that research because if they would have sincerely considered all the facts the only conclusion would be that it's kind of hard to say what exactly caused what****, since so many different significant factors and events happened in the past century.

In addition to that, there's of course confirmation bias (which plays quite a strong role in a lot of these research, on both sides BTW), and perhaps most importantly, that this is stuff that happened over several decades and is now considered to be Dutch heritage by a lot of people, and that whole "engrainedness", I really think that you cannot simply apply these numbers to the USA or Maine. Our cultures are only superficially similar (mostly by important US popculture into Dutch) but below the surface there is so many significant nuances going on. I mean, even in little NL it makes sense to draw conclusions based upon separating different kinds of demographics based on second-generation-immigrant, province or rurality. So try to apply what moves 15 million people on a very tiny patch of earth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDNdK7Cb0J0) to a huge country on another continent with its own very strong sense(s) of identity and cultural history, it's tricky I think.

To conclude, if you say legalizing marihuana in Maine is a bad idea, I can't argue with that, you are the expert. To say it was a bad idea in the Netherlands, or whether it would be a bad idea to implement somewhere else because, gets harder and harder, especially as you move farther away :)

Oh and btw you should really check that clip I linked there, it's a nice song, and subtitled (badly :) ).


* FYI currently, the Opium Law is the law defining the difference between harddrugs and softdrugs. It doesnt apply exclusively to opium, that's just what it's called. Our "tolerance policy" is not part of this (or any) law, but defined by the Dutch Ministry of Justice as "an official set of guidelines telling public prosecutors under which circumstances offenders should not be prosecuted".

** what are young adults btw? these are our legal ages in the Netherlands: 16 can buy beer, drive moped / 18 can buy weed, strong liquor, car drivers license / 21 financial independence.

*** no Advertising, Harddrugs, trouble (Overlast), youth (Jongeren, 18+)

**** and I haven't even touched upon the demographic changes in Dutch society, for instance several waves of immigrant workers had quite a large impact in a country which grew from 13M to 16.5M in 1970-2009

(edited by RCH to correct error in quote tags)

Just to clarify that the ONDCP didn't do the research.  They got the data from researchers who were examining the Dutch cannabis policy.  Here is a document that has the data complete with a citation for the research.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/mj_rev.pdf

The data is on page 10.

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 18, 2009, 09:29:06 AM
Of course I do suppose that in your line of work the "probably neither is right" assumption is not a very useful or productive one, so you have to make an informed decision and pick a position. However, just because you have to take a position doesn't suddenly make that position more right, or even just as right as the position that "both may be likely and it's kind of hard to say".

Well my position is easy because marijuana IS illegal.  And whether it is legal or illegal it still has the same impacts on adolescents who use it.  I don't concern myself, in my day to day job, with what might be years from now.  My discussions here are my personal opinions informed by my professional experience.  But in my day to day job, marijuana is illegal, many kids are using and getting addicted, and so that is what I'm dealing with.  The here and now. 

Quote from: Triple Zero on November 18, 2009, 10:02:28 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 04:59:32 AMthere is a movement brewing amongst some college and university Presidents to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  Anyone want to guess why University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18?

Personally, in the Netherlands, I always thought it was a very sensible idea for people to learn to deal with alcohol first (beer at 16), and only get their driver's license later (18).

Cause you wouldn't go to driving lessons while drunk. But you might come to the bad idea to drive home after your first "alcohol lessons", cause you already been driving for 5 years, after all and know you can handle that car.

And by the way the reason the University Presidents want to lower the drinking age to 18 is to lower their exposure to liability lawsuits.  Which is a giant red flag as why you don't want to lower the drinking age.  Their motivation is based upon their knowledge of what happens when someone 18-20 does drink. 

Quote

QuoteIt may only rise 4 or 5%.  But when you multiply that by the number of young people in the US, that becomes a lot of kids.  Even a 3% increase would be a lot of kids.  So on a percentage basis it may seem marginal, but when you look at the raw number, it would impact many lives.

That's usage, or kids that actually waste their lives due to abuse cause they get access?

And how much would that be in absolute numbers?

What if you offset that to the absolute numbers of kids that currently get into trouble due to marihuana use with their career plans or college plans (like you said), broken families cause dad went to jail / lost his job / house bashed in or whatever it is they do?

In my experience that is overstated and over dramatized.  And I would further argue that states where kids are getting into that level of trouble with the law, and who are having their houses "bashed in" have bad enforcement policies that need to be more sensible.  I'll repeat what I've said many times now.  The solution to bad enforcement policies is not legalizing the substance.  It is advocating for better and more sensible enforcement policies. 

QuoteBecause if I understand you correctly, you say that one must be higher than the other. If you'd show us the figures, I think you'd convince a lot of people ITT (myself included, pertaining to legalisation of weed in the USA, that is).

If you have a sensible enforcement policy in place, yes one would likely be higher than the other.  And yes, Maine is rather progressive when it comes to these policies and we are probably far ahead of the curve in that area.  So the solution I would advocate for is for other states to employ Maine models and to do a better job of helping kids and not throwing the book at them. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:26:56 PM

QuoteI would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Well my experience with the "repressive laws" is they've been the impetus to get kids straight.  We've had countless kids who've gone through our residential program, or our outpatient program, or our drug court program who've gone on to college and become very successful.  And many of them will tell you, if they hadn't got caught, if they hadn't been referred to one of these programs, they'd still be doing the drugs and going nowhere.  And I know the experience of my agency is not unique and that those stories are told all across the US.  

I don't see how decriminalization or legalization would do any of the following things:
• cause treatment programs to evaporate
• make it legal for underage people to get high
• increase access to marijuana to minors

What seems to have happened in the Netherlands is that the coffee houses ran the underground dealers out of business. If I'm not mistaken, it's much more effective to monitor the flow of pot and bust businesses that sell to underage people rather than hoping to keep tabs on every last goon actively working to avoid detection that may or may not have an ethical bone in his body.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:26:56 PM

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 08:43:06 AM
"It just means this source you've cited has a different interpretation..." sounds awfully disingenuous. They came to a conclusion that is incompatible with your claim about a nation's drug policy being connected to rates of using marijuana.

Yes, and I think their conclusions are inconclusive.  I don't believe they properly took into consideration all of the variables that influence prevalence. 

This still sounds disingenuous. As a social scientist, you know that all the variables that influence prevalence cannot be taken into consideration.

What makes your conclusions MORE conclusive?

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:26:56 PM

QuoteI also did not claim that the ONDCP fabricated anything. I said they lied. And to further clarify, they lied by omission. Yes it's true that there was an increase in usage by young people after it was made available in coffee shops, but the nature of that use was experimental not chronic and abusive. Most did not continue using it. And, the increase in usage fit with trends of use in other nations with very different drug policies. Not only is it a lie by omission but also a fine example of the ex post facto fallacy.

But, um, no.  It is not a lie to report that usage went up when usage went up.  What you are quibbling about is interpretation of what the data means.  Because you have come to a different conclusion about what the data means compared to the ONDCP does not mean that one of you are lying.  It may mean that one of you is more correct about the interpretation, but that is decidedly different than lying. 

Interpretation of data is not a minor concern. Knowingly taking a piece of data out its larger context, thereby distorting its meaning in fundamental ways is lying and not a valid interpretation. It is a lie by omission.

By the way, I was walking down the street last night and I ripped a massive fart. Milliseconds later, the porch light of the house I walked by went out and a car door slammed.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:26:56 PM

QuotePart of the research I cited refers to a study done 14 years ago—that doesn't invalidate their findings. More recently conducted studies are included in the research I linked to which also support the author's conclusion. If you have evidence that competes with it, or demonstrates some sort of error in their methodology, let's see it.

I think it is an incomplete study and one that, as I said, didn't properly take into consideration many variables that impact substance usage.  Things are different in 2009 than they were in 1995.  While usage has been trending down in the past year or so amongst adolescents, it is certainly higher than it was in 1995.  But I cannot ignore what I know about adolescent behavior to fully expect legalization will lead to more adolescents experimenting with and using marijuana. 

What specifically did it not take into consideration?

Again, the research I linked to includes a number of studies, some of which where completed more recently than 1995. These all point to drug policies having little effect on usage rates. You're claiming that criminalizing pot has an effect on reduced rates of usage. I'd like to see how much evidence you have to support this position.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:26:56 PM

QuoteI would much rather that my baby girl grows up to have a marijuana problem than a marijuana problem AND repressive laws making it extremely difficult for her to go to college and make a living.

Well my experience with the "repressive laws" is they've been the impetus to get kids straight.  We've had countless kids who've gone through our residential program, or our outpatient program, or our drug court program who've gone on to college and become very successful.  And many of them will tell you, if they hadn't got caught, if they hadn't been referred to one of these programs, they'd still be doing the drugs and going nowhere.  And I know the experience of my agency is not unique and that those stories are told all across the US. 

How does growing up with a dad in jail help kids out? How do fines that seriously effect low income families, help kids out? How does a multi-billion dollar trade get monitored for the most serious abuses (selling to kids) when all but the most petty pot dealers have a serious incentive to stay off the radar?

I don't doubt for a minute that you have massively benefited the kids who have gone through your agency and many others. But I also don't see your work as contingent on criminalizing marijuana either.

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 01:47:17 PM


I don't see how decriminalization or legalization would do any of the following things:
• cause treatment programs to evaporate
• make it legal for underage people to get high
• increase access to marijuana to minors

I can answer that last one.  Imagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2009, 01:51:50 PM

Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on November 18, 2009, 01:47:17 PM


I don't see how decriminalization or legalization would do any of the following things:
• cause treatment programs to evaporate
• make it legal for underage people to get high
• increase access to marijuana to minors

I can answer that last one.  Imagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

Yes, and that's why the Prohibition was a shining success.

There was no black market run by the Mafia and other violent, experienced criminals.

And if there was an explosion in organized crime, they were the kind of decent lads to only sell to people of age.

Yeah!

I also heard that during the Prohibition bar stools were made up of a larger ratio of empty space to atomic particles.

Um, you're overthinking this.


If pot were available in every 7-11* in the country, and could be sold to any 21-year old, it would be far easier for a 12-year-old kid to get access to pot than it is right now; much like beer currently is.  If beer were illegal, and could not be purchased in every 7-11, then it would be more difficult to aquire.


Please note the lack of absolute language in the above.  Kids can still get pot.  The argument is that it would be easier to get pot if made legal, which means more kids could get it more often.









*Which is being used as shorthand for every convenience/liquor store/bodega

Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2009, 02:36:26 PM
Um, you're overthinking this.


If pot were available in every 7-11* in the country, and could be sold to any 21-year old, it would be far easier for a 12-year-old kid to get access to pot than it is right now; much like beer currently is.  If beer were illegal, and could not be purchased in every 7-11, then it would be more difficult to aquire.


Please note the lack of absolute language in the above.  Kids can still get pot.  The argument is that it would be easier to get pot if made legal, which means more kids could get it more often.









*Which is being used as shorthand for every convenience/liquor store/bodega

Yet, most underage people I know seem to have an easier time getting marijuana than beer... cause a dealer doesn't check your ID.


RWHN, I'll be putting together the quotes you asked for, it will take a bit of time though :)

Also, I don't think you're unfunny etc... We just disagree on this particular topic. It's cool to disagree.

I think (and it should be more clear when I post with quotes etc) that much of the 'lies' told by the government on this topic fit the example in the last few pages. Cases where we have multiple studies and the US only mentions the bits that are pro-prohibition. That's the giist of what the GAO statement said... whatever the drug czar needs to do to push the current policy is fine, even if that means half-truths, 'interpretations' of data that support their position etc. Just a few weeks ago the current Drug Czar stated that marijuana is dangerous and has 'no medical benefit'. Yet, there are scores of studies which disagree and the FDA must also disagree as Marinol is approved as having medical value.

Only telling part of the truth is not telling the truth. Only quoting studies that agree with your position is not honesty. When the government makes a habit of that, its difficult to trust anything they say on the topic. For Erissake, that's the sort of thing that the last administration appears to have done with the Intel on Iraq. They didn't 'lie', they just interpreted the data differently and ignored the data that didn't support their position because they disagreed with the methodology.

So more stuff coming, but I don't really keep all the quotes etc in a handy notepad, so I'll nee to go get sources etc :)

HOWEVER, YOU PUNOFABITCH just because we disagree here doesn't mean I think any less of your awesome contributions to the site.   :lulz:

Also, if anyone happens to have access to PDF files, I'll be quoting a lot from the book "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics," by Appalachian State University Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Matthew Robinson and Associate Professor of Political Science Renee Scherlen. I'm looking for a pdf version, because the copy I borrowed went back to the owner who now lives in Louisiana.

I should probably just buy a copy, but its $60.

So if a PDF is found, please link it so we can all read it.


UPDATE: Amazon had it for under $30, so I'll have a copy by Friday. Still looking for a PDF copy though, I don't want anyone accusing me of cherry picking quotes from the book.

1 possible reason kids might get into heroin

Because it's illegal and, therefore, edgy and impressive to their friends. When you're setting yourself up as a smack dealer (non-user) and you want to grow your market and milk the shit out of it till they're all dead, the first thing you do is invite the "cool kids" round for a free taster. You know the cool kids - they steal stuff and break in places and no one fucks with them cos if they do they get hospitalised. Once the cool kids are hooked all the little runts that look up to them are hooked in no time. Smack economy is simple - in order to get your next hit you need cash/valuables and for your average user that means you do some crime and acquire said payment. The guy at the top is a 21st century Fagin with the dope being how he keeps his band of robbers robbing. I know this because a guy I used to run pot for got into selling heroin - he made a fucking fortune and never looked back.

You make drugs legal, you remove this whole scenario. The whole drug economy only works because it's illegal. And the whole drug economy is the only reason kids are being hassled into trying it in the first place.

Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2009, 01:51:50 PMImagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

It's not that simple.  If beer were made illegal, a black market would be created for it, and many people who don't make beer now would start making it.  So the difference would be that instead of getting it from stores and bars they would get it from friends and neighbors, and they would no longer need fake IDs.

I'm not trying to say that banning booze would increase kids' access to it.  I don't know whether it would or wouldn't.  I'm just saying that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Also, aside from the question of increasing/decreasing access, illegalization of booze would mean that the government no longer has a say in ingredients or production process, meaning the black market version is potentially more dangerous.  That's probably not a serious issue with black market beer, but it was a big problem with prohibition era distilled spirits, and it's a problem with black market drugs today.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

But, that does seem to be the current trend. In the 1990's particularly, arrests and convictions (at the state level) increased dramatically for simple possession. A study published in 2006 (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524483) had the following result:

QuoteThe study found that since 1990, the primary focus of the war on drugs has shifted to lowlevel
marijuana offenses. During the study period, 82% of the increase in drug arrests nationally
(450,000) was for marijuana offenses, and virtually all of that increase was in possession offenses.
Of the nearly 700,000 arrests in 2002, 88% were for possession. Only 1 in 18 of these arrests
results in a felony conviction, with the rest either being dismissed or adjudicated as a misdemeanor,
meaning that a substantial amount of resources, roughly $4 billion per year for marijuana alone, is
being dedicated to minor offenses.

(I don't assume these people to be unbiased as they are focused on reducing sentencing etc)

Yet during that same time, ONDCP claimed that these sorts of arrests had decreased, because they used federal statistics. Feds are arresting mostly dealers etc... but local law enforcement is still incarcerating non-violent possession offenders. Maybe thats 'data interpretation', but it seems awfully close to not being truthful.


However, before I sound like a completely paranoid ass, I would like to point out that even the ONDCP now seems to disagree with the past reports by the ONDCP... I just found this summary which has some interesting conclusions and statements... they appear opposite of the ONDCP position over the past several years. This is obviously not a policy paper, but I think it makes some very forward thinking statements which seem MORE IN LINE with most reports I've read... as opposed to past documents which seem at odds with similar reports from other sources.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/20082705/ONDCP-White-Paper-Summary-Email (http://www.scribd.com/doc/20082705/ONDCP-White-Paper-Summary-Email)


The last Drug Czar touted how well the Drug War was going. ONDCP published lots of POSITIVE numbers... However, this ONDCP doc now says:

QuoteDespite incarcerating millions of Americans and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent, and widely available, and the harms associated with them – addiction, overdose, and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C – continue to persist in every community. Meanwhile the war on drugs is creating problems of its own - broken families, increased poverty, wasted tax dollars, prison overcrowding, and eroded civil liberties.  America desperately needs a coherent and compassionate national drug policy that reduces the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs.

The ONDCP has over the past decade claimed that most drug violations that result in prison... are SERIOUS OFFENDERS. This ONDCP doc says:

QuoteThe United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration rates, with less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners. The incarcerated population has grown from 500,000 in 1980 to 2.3 million today, of which almost one-fourth are for drug law violations.   In addition, nearly one-third of the roughly 5.1 million probationers and parolees in 2007 were supervised on account of a drug law violation. The U.S. incarcerates more of its citizens for drug law violations than all of Western Europe (with a much larger population) incarcerates for all offenses combined.

QuoteThe United States lags behind much of the advanced industrialized world, and even many developing nations, in making sterile syringes widely available to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, enacting life-saving overdose prevention policies, ensuring that people with drug-related problems have on-going access to healthcare, and making methadone and other quality drug treatment readily available to those who seek it. When it comes to the most widely used drugs in the U.S. – alcohol and tobacco – comprehensive public health strategies have reduced misuse and saved lives without incarcerating millions of Americans. Applying similar strategies to marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs could reduce the problems associated with those drugs while also reducing incarceration.

Here's a good idea that also flies in the face of past ONDCP documents:

QuoteOur country's failed drug policies persist in part because of ineffective evaluation and assessment.  There are two problems.  First, the key measurements - drug seizures, arrests and annual surveys of drug use – tell us little of importance and mostly distract from more important criteria.  Second, many programs persist even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they fail to meet their stated objectives. What is needed are a new set of criteria for evaluating the success or failure of federal drug policies.  Key measurements should focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drugs and prohibitionist policies. Programs proven to be ineffective or counterproductive should be eliminated.

There are many other good statements in this doc, including an admission that the main focus of ONDCP historically was focused on reducing drug use, but that it should instead be focused on reducing harm associated with drug use. They also seem to admit that the current view of all drugs being equally bad is not working:

Quote
Whatever one's views on drug use as a moral issue, there should be no argument that certain kinds of drug use are more problematic than others, with some drug use relatively benign in the context of the grave consequences associated with other types of drug use. And yet, ONDCP's historically undifferentiated views on drug use – where marijuana is as serious as methamphetamine – distorts this obvious dimension.  Moreover, ONDCP's focus on drug use rates obscures whether drug policies actually reduce the negative consequences of drug use, such as overdose fatalities or new HIV or hepatitis C infections.

In short this appears to be one of the few documents which I have read that has been produced by someone at ONDCP which agrees with most other studies.... AND DIsagrees with ONDCP's past studies. Up to this point Drug Czars have claimed we're winning, reducing the users, reducing the kids that try it... and now this documents concludes with:

QuoteWhile the Four Pillars model could provide the optimal framework for a national drug policy, implementing such an approach in the United States would be complicated by the daunting task of mitigating the profound consequences of its failed 40-year war on drugs.

I note that the document references Pres. Obama several times, and both he and his current Drug Czar have expressed these views in the past... However, the disparity between the admissions in that document and the 'reports' from the ONDCP in the past seem at odds.

I'll still be digging into a more detailed review of government statements which appear false to me... but I think this sampling here at least indicates that there is some disagreement in the ONDCP about the veracity of their past statements.

That's listed as a "summary email" for a whitepaper by ONDCP. "  The Role of an Effective Office of National Drug Control Policy" August 2009 However, I can't find the full document which may have different conclusions than the available summary. RWHN, if you can get a copy of the full whitepaper I'd love to read it.

well done Dr rat .... thanks for looking all that up for us.... :fap:

I've got some similar news from the United Cannabis Ministries email list that I've been lurking on for quite some time (we can get into the religious use of cannabis later):

-Recently, the AMA (American Medical Assocaition) changed it's stance on the scheduling of cannabis:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=the-american-medical-association-ea-2009-11-17

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marijuana-ama11-2009nov11,0,3003312.story

QuoteThe American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious group behind calls for more research.

The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000 member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive category, which also includes heroin and LSD.

-LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) noticed that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) still claims on its website that, "The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance." So they started an email bombing campaign to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice warning them that they may be in violation of the DATA QUALITY ACT.

-The DEA recently (yesterday or today) removed the offending language, "The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance." from their website.

Interesting developments when put into context by Ratatosk's find.

Sorry.  This was a particularily draining retreat.  I am spent and will not be able to get to the stuff Rat posted today.  I will make an effort sometime later to address what was posted.  I just can't deal with it right now. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 07:08:42 PM
Sorry.  This was a particularily draining retreat.  I am spent and will not be able to get to the stuff Rat posted today.  I will make an effort sometime later to address what was posted.  I just can't deal with it right now. 

Before we continue this, though... I want to apologize to you. I come to PD.com for the LULZ and the interesting discussions. I would HATE to have to talk about data security all the time. I don't come here to preach legalization or convert bad punsters. If the discussion is draining to you and if its detracting from your enjoyment of pd.com then let's stop the conversation.

There are far too many interesting things we can discuss, to get caught up in a debate that will likely end in frustration for everyone.

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 07:32:17 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

I, too, am curious about this.  I see no reason why an adult should not be able to use weed under the same conditions that they are allowed to use alcohol.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2009, 07:39:00 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 07:32:17 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

I, too, am curious about this.  I see no reason why an adult should not be able to use weed under the same conditions that they are allowed to use alcohol.

Well, he didn't exactly answer the question as presented. he added qualifiers and answered that instead.

Quote from: A Pesky Nonvoting Screeching on November 18, 2009, 07:42:36 PM

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2009, 07:39:00 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 07:32:17 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 12:15:21 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:02:43 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 18, 2009, 06:10:11 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
you seem to be equating any recreational use of drugs with "having a drug problem".

I don't recall making that specific statement.

hence my use of the word "seem".

while I certainly agree with you that assessment, counseling, and treatment are better options than fines, jail, and seizure of property, I vehemently disagree that being caught with a "personal use" amount of marijuana should be any reason for the government to involve themselves in an adult's life in any way.

It's just not a plausible scenario.  But what is plausible is to make that involvement fit the "crime".  An adult pulled over with a joint should not be spending any time in jail.  If they are driving under the influence it might be a slightly different matter in that behavior is jeapoardizing the safety of others on the road.  But it wouldn't make any sense to waste the time and resources to throw the book at an adult who has a minor amount of marijuana.  But it just isn't plausible for their to be no involvement whatsoever. 

at the risk of being overly-simplistic, why not?

I, too, am curious about this.  I see no reason why an adult should not be able to use weed under the same conditions that they are allowed to use alcohol.

Well, he didn't exactly answer the question as presented. he added qualifiers and answered that instead.

There's no crime in restating a question.

I just want to know why the law should have any say in whether or not an adult should be allowed to smoke weed in the same manner and conditions under which they can use alcohol.

if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

Oh, come on.  Leave what RWHN believes to RWHN.  Don't put leading words in his mouth.

Quote from: fomenter on November 18, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

Aw, fer chrissakes, let's let him answer for himself.

the biggest point of contention so far seem to be if and by how much kids are protected by prohibition laws, and if the amount of protection they provide for kids out-ways the amount of harm that is done to others by prohibition..


(if this attempt to sum it up is leading or wrong my apology he can certainly correct me if i am wrong)

and he can and does speak for him self i am saying how i see his argument

as I said earlier, I see it as basically being a "trading liberty for security" issue.

and the potential impact of drug use on children, while undeniable, should be more of an issue of parenting than state involvement.

IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:00:30 PM
as I said earlier, I see it as basically being a "trading liberty for security" issue.

and the potential impact of drug use on children, while undeniable, should be more of an issue of parenting than state involvement.

IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

This.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:00:30 PM
IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

how do you get parents to do that?



I think you're right, I think this country's drug problems (mostly) emerge from our attitudes about drugs, substances, responsibility, whatever. And that starts at home. But do you think that parents can be educated to raise more responsible kids? Because if drugs were decriminalized / legalized without there being a widespread adjustment in how people relate to drugs, I can see things getting very grim very quickly.

I would be more in favor of legalization if there were a program which demonstrated that it can reliably prevent youth addiction. D.A.R.E. certainly didn't work. And you can't make parents take parenting classes unless they fucked up already...

Quote from: Cramulus on November 18, 2009, 09:44:56 PM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 18, 2009, 08:00:30 PM
IOW, teach yer fuckin kids not to be junkies instead of relying on the state to make laws in a vain attempt to scare and/or punish kids into not being junkies.

how do you get parents to do that?



I think you're right, I think this country's drug problems (mostly) emerge from our attitudes about drugs, substances, responsibility, whatever. And that starts at home. But do you think that parents can be educated to raise more responsible kids? Because if drugs were decriminalized / legalized without there being a widespread adjustment in how people relate to drugs, I can see things getting very grim very quickly.

I would be more in favor of legalization if there were a program which demonstrated that it can reliably prevent youth addiction. D.A.R.E. certainly didn't work. And you can't make parents take parenting classes unless they fucked up already...

There actually is one.  Mine.  My program essentially builds community in schools.  The kids in my program go into their schools and act as peer support.  They are trained how to be good listeners, how to refer urgent issues like substance abuse, risk of suicide, eating disorders, etc.  They also develop action plans to address key issues they identify during the training session.  Through these activities they build connectedness in school, they build feelings of support, they build feelings of safety.  The research shows that when you build these things in schools, kids are less likely to engage in risky behaviors like using substances. 

Currently, my program isn't officially recognized as an evidence-based, or model program.  This is something I've been working on for the past couple of years and I just got a sweet opportunity to work with the RAND Corp to do some rigorous data analysis to show that it is having these positive impacts.  I will also be writing an article to submit for publication in a scholarly journal.  With the backing of RAND I will be in decent shape to get published.  If I can get it to model status, my agency can sell it to other agencies or other states to implement in their schools.  The problem right now is what little funding is available for prevention is only being targetted on programs already listed by NREPP as model programs. 

There is stuff out there that works, unfotunately there are a lot of obstacles right now that make it hard to implement them in a broader fashion. 

and just to clarify, RWHN, I think that your program and what you do are both awesome, and one of the best and most realistic examples of such a program that I've ever heard of.

I just haven't seen any evidence that your program would be less effective if marijuana were legal and regulated the same as alcohol, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.

It wouldn't be less effective.  It's just, that the goal posts would be farther away. 

fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not that would be worth the increased personal liberty for adults.

not being snarky either, if you're going to take the position that anything is worth decreasing the personal liberty of adults, protection of children is about the only reason I can think of that has any merit whatsoever.

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 01:13:12 AM
It wouldn't be less effective.  It's just, that the goal posts would be farther away. 

:lulz:

I didn't mean to imply that your program doesn't reliably prevent youth addiction btw, just that your program seems to be the exception in a country where attitudes towards substances are mired and complex. You should know that when my druggie friends go off on legalization, I try to do my best RWHN impression and talk some sense into them.  :p  Do you think that if your program was more widespread, it would balance out the potential harm to youth which will stem from drug legalization?

For what it's worth, I don't mind my freedoms being curtailed a bit if it prevents kids from starting their lives on the wrong foot. I don't think kids are equipped to resist the temptations of awesome drugs. And even bad drugs.

But I do wonder where exactly the line should be drawn. Somehow we've given this legal authority over our lifestyle to the government, and I don't think they always make the best choices, but at least they're trying? To me, a lot of contemporary problems stem from the nature of institutions - that once they're funded, their funding generally goes to extending their lifespan whether or not the cause is a "good" one.

Example: Reagan tried to reduce the size of the Navy (because hey, do we really need a huge ass navy when we have such a sick airforce AND a nuclear arsenal?) and found he wasn't powerful enough to do it. In this case, the survival mechanisms of that institution overrode the rational reason for having them around.

So if a great solution came up which balance out America's fucked up drug attitudes and the fucked up notion of criminalizing [relatively] victimless behavior --- I wonder if the idea will ever be strong enough to overcome the institutional resistance to the end of prohibition. Time will tell! I view California as a test lab for these things, and the data collected in the coming years will give us some insight as to how medical marijuana will do in the rest of the country.

Quote from: Cramulus on November 19, 2009, 02:19:30 AM
Example: Reagan tried to reduce the size of the Navy (because hey, do we really need a huge ass navy when we have such a sick airforce AND a nuclear arsenal?) and found he wasn't powerful enough to do it. In this case, the survival mechanisms of that institution overrode the rational reason for having them around.

Actually, I really like the framing of this effect in terms of 'institutions'.. too much focus on this within corporations, when it is a wider and more generic phenomenon.

Quote from: fomenter on November 18, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 19, 2009, 07:58:55 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 18, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

That's what I get from it, too.

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 19, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not that would be worth the increased personal liberty for adults.

not being snarky either, if you're going to take the position that anything is worth decreasing the personal liberty of adults, protection of children is about the only reason I can think of that has any merit whatsoever.

You posited it before as a choice between liberty and security.

Another way to think about it is a choice between sacrificing the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults. 

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 19, 2009, 07:58:55 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 18, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

Quote from: Cramulus on November 19, 2009, 02:19:30 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 01:13:12 AM
It wouldn't be less effective.  It's just, that the goal posts would be farther away. 

:lulz:

I didn't mean to imply that your program doesn't reliably prevent youth addiction btw, just that your program seems to be the exception in a country where attitudes towards substances are mired and complex. You should know that when my druggie friends go off on legalization, I try to do my best RWHN impression and talk some sense into them.  :p  Do you think that if your program was more widespread, it would balance out the potential harm to youth which will stem from drug legalization?

For what it's worth, I don't mind my freedoms being curtailed a bit if it prevents kids from starting their lives on the wrong foot. I don't think kids are equipped to resist the temptations of awesome drugs. And even bad drugs.

But I do wonder where exactly the line should be drawn. Somehow we've given this legal authority over our lifestyle to the government, and I don't think they always make the best choices, but at least they're trying? To me, a lot of contemporary problems stem from the nature of institutions - that once they're funded, their funding generally goes to extending their lifespan whether or not the cause is a "good" one.

Example: Reagan tried to reduce the size of the Navy (because hey, do we really need a huge ass navy when we have such a sick airforce AND a nuclear arsenal?) and found he wasn't powerful enough to do it. In this case, the survival mechanisms of that institution overrode the rational reason for having them around.

So if a great solution came up which balance out America's fucked up drug attitudes and the fucked up notion of criminalizing [relatively] victimless behavior --- I wonder if the idea will ever be strong enough to overcome the institutional resistance to the end of prohibition. Time will tell! I view California as a test lab for these things, and the data collected in the coming years will give us some insight as to how medical marijuana will do in the rest of the country.

Oh, I didn't think you were implying that at all.  I just wanted to put a plug in for my program (sans program name, gotta protect my true identity and all)  I just wrapped up my last training and I'm just very impressed with the group of kids I'm working with this year.  I love to brag them and my program up any chance I get. 

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 19, 2009, 07:58:55 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 18, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

you mean like social security?

Where do you draw the line, tho? Some kids might get their hands on our stash and get strung out on it - ban the stash. Some kids might get their hands on our car keys and die in a pile-up - ban the automobile? Some kids might put on a jacket that's too big, trip over the sleeves and fall down the stairs and die - ban clothing?

Truth is theres a fuckton of shitty parents out there, bringing up a bunch of shitty kids in some of the most fucked up ways imaginable. Those kids are fucked any way you want to look at it. If they are alive long enough to reach breeding age all they'll do is shit out a whole new generation of fucked up idiots and the cycle will repeat. Yeah it's fucking tragic cause all those kids need is some guidance* and/or parenting and they could turn out fine but fuck it, they aint gonna so why bother obsessing over what-if's? Makes no fucking difference whether I'm allowed to buy crack over the counter or not - there will be shitheads regardless.

Strikes me as the same fucking "save them from themselves" - bleeding heart mentality that puts up all those fucking fences where some idiot who deserved to die did exactly that when he stood too close to the edge and now the view is fucked cos there's a fence and a lameass sign saying "you might fall".

So the question is - where do you draw the line? Personally I choose not to. Lines are ugly and every one takes another little slice of my freedom.


* that's where people like WHN come in.

I would think that one line could be drawn by the purpose of the item in question.

The purpose of a car is transportation.
The purpose of clothing is warmth and social signals.
The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

Quote from: rong on November 19, 2009, 11:21:10 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 11:16:39 AM

Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 19, 2009, 07:58:55 AM

Quote from: fomenter on November 18, 2009, 07:48:31 PM
if i am following the RWHN argument correctly, your liberty as an adult to smoke weed in the same manor and conditions as alcohol must be sacrificed for the safety of the children...

That is exactly what I have gotten from his arguements as well, both here and on the other board I debated this with him.

If that's not what he's arguing than either fomenter and I need to work on our reading comprehension or he's being unclear.

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

you mean like social security?

Maybe I'm still groggy but you're going to need to expand upon this because I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. 

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 01:28:55 PM
The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

I think you may have been doing it wrong. Or I have. There are certain classes of thought which are easier to perform under the influence, which pass muster with a sober mind at a frequency high enough to make the process beneficial to me.

I know I'm not the only one with this experience, though the only documented source I can think of is Carl Sagans/Mr X essay.

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 01:50:19 PM

Quote from: rong on November 19, 2009, 11:21:10 AM

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 11:16:39 AM

As I just posted, And my impression from you, fomenter, RCP, others is that it is necessary to sacrifice the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  Is that incorrect? 

you mean like social security?

Maybe I'm still groggy but you're going to need to expand upon this because I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. 

I think this was a joke-ish thing: There's an idea that social security taxes future generations to support present-day retirees.

Quote from: FP on November 19, 2009, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 01:28:55 PM
The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

I think you may have been doing it wrong. Or I have. There are certain classes of thought which are easier to perform under the influence, which pass muster with a sober mind at a frequency high enough to make the process beneficial to me.

I know I'm not the only one with this experience, though the only documented source I can think of is Carl Sagans/Mr X essay.

Care to post link, and explain yourself better?

Okay, I'm feeling more refreshed today, AND I have the day off.  So.....

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 18, 2009, 04:25:06 PM
But, that does seem to be the current trend. In the 1990's particularly, arrests and convictions (at the state level) increased dramatically for simple possession. A study published in 2006 (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524483) had the following result:

QuoteThe study found that since 1990, the primary focus of the war on drugs has shifted to lowlevel
marijuana offenses. During the study period, 82% of the increase in drug arrests nationally
(450,000) was for marijuana offenses, and virtually all of that increase was in possession offenses.
Of the nearly 700,000 arrests in 2002, 88% were for possession. Only 1 in 18 of these arrests
results in a felony conviction, with the rest either being dismissed or adjudicated as a misdemeanor,
meaning that a substantial amount of resources, roughly $4 billion per year for marijuana alone, is
being dedicated to minor offenses.

(I don't assume these people to be unbiased as they are focused on reducing sentencing etc)

Okay, and have I not said several times now that sentencing and law enforcement need to continue to be addressed?  I've said several times now that we need to be sensible when it comes to enforcement and that someone caught with a small amount of pot should not be serving time along side a murder, rapist, or Bernie Madoff. 

BUT...the solution isn't simply lifting the ban and hoping it will be okay.  The solution is to work on law enforcement policies.  I would encourage anyone living in a state where low level offenders are being jailed to have their legislators look to the Maine example.  Law enforcement and people like myself work side by side to craft sensible policies around substance abuse and to make sure that people who need help get help, and not a jail cell. 

QuoteYet during that same time, ONDCP claimed that these sorts of arrests had decreased, because they used federal statistics. Feds are arresting mostly dealers etc... but local law enforcement is still incarcerating non-violent possession offenders. Maybe thats 'data interpretation', but it seems awfully close to not being truthful.

Well it's two completely different data sets.  Sure, when you look at it on a state by state basis you are going to see states that are very harsh and states that are more progressive.  Obviously when you lump them all together the trend is going to look different.  What you are describing isn't special to these kind of statistics.  Certainly, federal data isn't helpful when you are examining what is going on in Ohio.  But you shouldn't be looking at federal data when you are examining what is going on in Ohio.  That doesn't make any sense and will not help you. 

QuoteHowever, before I sound like a completely paranoid ass, I would like to point out that even the ONDCP now seems to disagree with the past reports by the ONDCP... I just found this summary which has some interesting conclusions and statements... they appear opposite of the ONDCP position over the past several years. This is obviously not a policy paper, but I think it makes some very forward thinking statements which seem MORE IN LINE with most reports I've read... as opposed to past documents which seem at odds with similar reports from other sources.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20082705/ONDCP-White-Paper-Summary-Email (http://www.scribd.com/doc/20082705/ONDCP-White-Paper-Summary-Email)

Well sure, with any agency in the federal government their views are going to shift from administration to administration.  I mean, do you think it makes any sense to compare the EPA under Clinton that tried to strengthen environmental regulations to the EPA under Bush that went in the opposite direction?  Of course it doesn't.  Why would the ONDCP or any of the other agencies under the thumb of the President be any different?  Besides, if someone wanted to, they could look at the data and do their own analysis of it.  You can get plenty of stats from SAMHSA and decide for yourself the extent of the issues around drugs in this country.  Don't let the government do all of the work for you.  I don't. 

QuoteThe last Drug Czar touted how well the Drug War was going. ONDCP published lots of POSITIVE numbers... However, this ONDCP doc now says:

QuoteDespite incarcerating millions of Americans and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, illegal drugs remain cheap, potent, and widely available, and the harms associated with them – addiction, overdose, and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C – continue to persist in every community. Meanwhile the war on drugs is creating problems of its own - broken families, increased poverty, wasted tax dollars, prison overcrowding, and eroded civil liberties.  America desperately needs a coherent and compassionate national drug policy that reduces the problems associated with both drugs and the war on drugs.

Right.  And so adjustments should be made.  New policies around enforcement should be enacted or old ones amended so these ills are reduced.  And that IS happening.  And I am an active participant in that process. 

QuoteThe ONDCP has over the past decade claimed that most drug violations that result in prison... are SERIOUS OFFENDERS. This ONDCP doc says:

QuoteThe United States ranks first in the world in per capita incarceration rates, with less than 5 percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners. The incarcerated population has grown from 500,000 in 1980 to 2.3 million today, of which almost one-fourth are for drug law violations.   In addition, nearly one-third of the roughly 5.1 million probationers and parolees in 2007 were supervised on account of a drug law violation. The U.S. incarcerates more of its citizens for drug law violations than all of Western Europe (with a much larger population) incarcerates for all offenses combined.

What is the breakdown of those violations?  That is important information.  For example, how many of those are for dealing?  Trafficking?  Providing to minors? 

Quote

QuoteThe United States lags behind much of the advanced industrialized world, and even many developing nations, in making sterile syringes widely available to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, enacting life-saving overdose prevention policies, ensuring that people with drug-related problems have on-going access to healthcare, and making methadone and other quality drug treatment readily available to those who seek it. When it comes to the most widely used drugs in the U.S. – alcohol and tobacco – comprehensive public health strategies have reduced misuse and saved lives without incarcerating millions of Americans. Applying similar strategies to marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs could reduce the problems associated with those drugs while also reducing incarceration.

And how many times have I said that same thing in this thread?  Drug courts et al. 

QuoteHere's a good idea that also flies in the face of past ONDCP documents:

QuoteOur country's failed drug policies persist in part because of ineffective evaluation and assessment.  There are two problems.  First, the key measurements - drug seizures, arrests and annual surveys of drug use – tell us little of importance and mostly distract from more important criteria.  Second, many programs persist even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they fail to meet their stated objectives. What is needed are a new set of criteria for evaluating the success or failure of federal drug policies.  Key measurements should focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drugs and prohibitionist policies. Programs proven to be ineffective or counterproductive should be eliminated.

Speaking as a professional evaluator, I would argue that strides have been made doing a better job of measuring the effectiveness of policies and outcomes.  Indeed the focus of today is on evidence based strategies and policies.  If a program cannot demonstrate outcomes, it is not funded.  Period.  I believe the same is going on at the federal level since it is the federal government who has really dictated this shift.  And that comes from SAMHSA not the ONDCP. 

QuoteThere are many other good statements in this doc, including an admission that the main focus of ONDCP historically was focused on reducing drug use, but that it should instead be focused on reducing harm associated with drug use. They also seem to admit that the current view of all drugs being equally bad is not working:

Quote
Whatever one's views on drug use as a moral issue, there should be no argument that certain kinds of drug use are more problematic than others, with some drug use relatively benign in the context of the grave consequences associated with other types of drug use. And yet, ONDCP's historically undifferentiated views on drug use – where marijuana is as serious as methamphetamine – distorts this obvious dimension.  Moreover, ONDCP's focus on drug use rates obscures whether drug policies actually reduce the negative consequences of drug use, such as overdose fatalities or new HIV or hepatitis C infections.

It is true that it is more effective to have a more nuanced approach to different substances.  Particularly when you are talking to kids.  Obviously you can't go into a classroom and say that a joint is just as deadly as a hit of heroin.  Kid will stop listening to you.  But nobody really does that anymore.  I'm sure there are a few here and there who are stuck in the 80s version of substance abuse prevention, but that shit can't get funded in this day and age.  But I also know what signals it will send if society decides to go 180 in the other direction and formally gives approval to the use of marijuana.  I know how that will impact youth, particularly troubled youth looking for something to medicate the shit they feel inside. 

QuoteIn short this appears to be one of the few documents which I have read that has been produced by someone at ONDCP which agrees with most other studies.... AND DIsagrees with ONDCP's past studies. Up to this point Drug Czars have claimed we're winning, reducing the users, reducing the kids that try it... and now this documents concludes with:

QuoteWhile the Four Pillars model could provide the optimal framework for a national drug policy, implementing such an approach in the United States would be complicated by the daunting task of mitigating the profound consequences of its failed 40-year war on drugs.

I note that the document references Pres. Obama several times, and both he and his current Drug Czar have expressed these views in the past... However, the disparity between the admissions in that document and the 'reports' from the ONDCP in the past seem at odds.

You mean an agency under a Democratic President is at odds with the agency as it was under a Republican President? 

QuoteI'll still be digging into a more detailed review of government statements which appear false to me... but I think this sampling here at least indicates that there is some disagreement in the ONDCP about the veracity of their past statements.

Of course.  Different administration AND we know a whole lot more now then we did in the 80s and even the 90s.  As in any area, knowledge is always evolving and thus policy needs to adjust with that knowledge.  To borrow from myself.  A policy is simply where you stopped legislating. 

QuoteThat's listed as a "summary email" for a whitepaper by ONDCP. "  The Role of an Effective Office of National Drug Control Policy" August 2009 However, I can't find the full document which may have different conclusions than the available summary. RWHN, if you can get a copy of the full whitepaper I'd love to read it.

I'll look around and see if I can get my mitts on it.  No promises. 

Quote from: Pastor-Mullah Zappathruster on November 18, 2009, 03:39:49 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2009, 01:51:50 PMImagine if beer were illegal.  How many kids who normally find ways to steal, cajole, or use fake IDs to buy beer would now be unable to do so?  In order to get beer they'd have to go and find someone who brewed their own, in small batches, or they'd have to make their own at home, hidden from their parents.  Hence, most kids would no longer have access to beer.

If adult access to pot is made more available, minor's access to pot is also made more available.

It's not that simple.  If beer were made illegal, a black market would be created for it, and many people who don't make beer now would start making it.  So the difference would be that instead of getting it from stores and bars they would get it from friends and neighbors, and they would no longer need fake IDs.

I'm not trying to say that banning booze would increase kids' access to it.  I don't know whether it would or wouldn't.  I'm just saying that it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Also, aside from the question of increasing/decreasing access, illegalization of booze would mean that the government no longer has a say in ingredients or production process, meaning the black market version is potentially more dangerous.  That's probably not a serious issue with black market beer, but it was a big problem with prohibition era distilled spirits, and it's a problem with black market drugs today.

I'm just going to throw this theory out for the hell of it.  And it is just a theory, I could well be wrong.  I am fully convinced that if we knew then what we know now about the impact of alcohol on the developing brain, and if we knew then what we know now about the developing brain, alcohol prohibition would still be in place, or, it would've lasted longer.  Or perhaps it would have been decriminalized instead of being legalized.  We've learned a lot about human biology and brain development since the 30s and it is still evolving.  The more we learn the more we realize how fucked up the brain can become when you introduce chemicals to the party (no pun intended, seriously (too much Alton Brown)). 

STOP BEING SO GAWDDAMNED NUANCED! 
I'VE GOT MY STOCK PRO-POT ARGUMENTS,
AND I'M GONNA USE THEM, GAWDDAMMIT!
       \
:pukka:

I think we're at odds on the purpose of that post... I am not debating the policies mentioned... as much as exemplifying these statements which disagree with the previous statements by the ONDCP.

The ONDCP, as I stated before has made comments which I believe to be lies, here are some examples of the current ONDCP administration making statements which agree with my position that previous statements by the ONDCP are untrue. If the truth varies based on who is in the White House... then I think thats a good reason not to trust their data.

Sure there are other government agencies... we'll get there :)

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 19, 2009, 02:33:17 PM
I think we're at odds on the purpose of that post... I am not debating the policies mentioned... as much as exemplifying these statements which disagree with the previous statements by the ONDCP.

The ONDCP, as I stated before has made comments which I believe to be lies, here are some examples of the current ONDCP administration making statements which agree with my position that previous statements by the ONDCP are untrue. If the truth varies based on who is in the White House... then I think thats a good reason not to trust their data.

Sure there are other government agencies... we'll get there :)

But I really don't think it is accurate to categorize what you are perceiving as a lie.  Politics are at play and knowledge is evolving.  And again, the data is the data.  The data comes from structured collection tools.  What you are having issues with is how the data is being interpreted and presented.  So what I would suggest is that you look at the data yourself, analyze it yourself, and present your interpretation of it. 

However, when you take confirmation bias into consideration, it's pretty clear what interpretation Rat would come back with.

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 02:40:40 PM
However, when you take confirmation bias into consideration, it's pretty clear what interpretation Rat would come back with.

Oh sure.  And I of course expect that the ONDCP does that as well to some degree.  Honestly I think I've used the ONDCP only once as a reference in any of my work.  Mainly because there are way better sites for data and information.  I love Join Together.  They are sort of the CNN of the field.  And they are very open and will post research on both sides of the coin.  I get updates from them daily.  And I rarely use federal data just because it makes little sense.  I mean, it's nice to know where Maine is compared to the country, but beyond that the federal numbers have little relevance to what I do.  I can only make an impact in Maine.  We in Maine can do fuckall about what's happening in the rest of the country and vice versa.  

Also Dr. Embry.  He's like our Carl Sagan, minus the drug use.  

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 01:56:41 PM

Quote from: FP on November 19, 2009, 01:53:58 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 01:28:55 PM
The purpose of hash is to fuck you up.

I think you may have been doing it wrong. Or I have. There are certain classes of thought which are easier to perform under the influence, which pass muster with a sober mind at a frequency high enough to make the process beneficial to me.

I know I'm not the only one with this experience, though the only documented source I can think of is Carl Sagans/Mr X essay.

Care to post link, and explain yourself better?

http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

Firewall.

I'll see if I can read it when I get home.

But if I understand you correctly, you think there are certain cognitive function that can only be accessed by getting stoned?



LMNO
-thinks he found yet another definition of the word "crutch".

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 03:21:58 PM
Firewall.

I'll see if I can read it when I get home.

The text is here, also:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=22663.msg769027#msg769027

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 03:21:58 PM
But if I understand you correctly, you think there are certain cognitive function that can only be accessed by getting stoned?



LMNO
-thinks he found yet another definition of the word "crutch".

No. There are certain cognitive functions that I find much easier to access by altering my brain chemistry in ways made predictable by previous experience, although a significant part of this is simply cutting through the adhd and increasing my ability to focus. One evening may provide six sober months of kicking the tires of a few new lines of thought or working out the finer details. Most of the time it is productive, and on rare occasions it's not.

I'm not claiming anything as ludicrous as one state being "better" than the other, rather that being able to travel between states provides results more interesting than being stuck in either one.

And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Its not like any of them would have endorsed drugs in any way.

As for Burroughs

Quote from: Bill Burroughs, from the appendix to Naked LunchThe ill effects of marijuana have been grossly exaggerated in the U.S. Our national drug is alcohol, we tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror. Anyone given over to these alien vices deserves the complete ruin of his mind and body. People believe what they want to believe without regard for the facts. Marijuana is not habit forming. I have never seen evidence of any ill effects from moderate use. Drug psychosis may result from prolonged or excessive use

Yeah, thanks for missing the point, Z.

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

I agree.

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:34:51 PM
Yeah, thanks for missing the point, Z.

Your point was that drugs are inherently unnecessary in terms of managing our brains?
This may be so, but sometimes they can be a useful tool for doing so.
& if the pharmaceutical companies get to do this, why cant I?

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:40:06 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:34:51 PM
Yeah, thanks for missing the point, Z.

Your point was that drugs are inherently unnecessary in terms of managing our brains?
This may be so, but sometimes they can be a useful tool for doing so.
& if the pharmaceutical companies get to do this, why cant I?

I agree.

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Anything? With the same amount of work and time involved? Don't tell the kidz, they'll be getting high on invisible pot all the time if they ever found out! What about Ritalin? Lithium? Are those worthless too?

You entirely miss the point that my statement was that I found the process made easier and more efficient - personally beneficial.

So, your point is that you need pot in order to think a certain way, because it's "easier".



Watching TV is "easier" than reading a book, too.  Oh, Real Housewives of Atlanta is on.

Later, kids.

I don't smoke to do magic to my brain. I smoke because:

A) I like it.
B) It helps settle my stomach when IBS flares up
C) I like it.
D) It helps a lot with the regular migraines I get (perscription medicine also works, but leaves me strung out)
E) I like it.

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
So, your point is that you need pot in order to think a certain way, because it's "easier"

That's not really my point at all. That may be a somewhat disingenuous paraphrasing of DRB's point, but not mine.

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
So, your point is that you need pot in order to think a certain way, because it's "easier".



Watching TV is "easier" than reading a book, too.  Oh, Real Housewives of Atlanta is on.

Later, kids.

And throwing your kids off the balcony is "easier" than raising them to adulthood. And, and robbing a bank is "easier" than earning an honest wage. And, and, driving your in-labour wife to the hospital in a car is "easier" than giving her a piggy-back ride for ten miles.

But, you know, nice fallacy.

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:31:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Its not like any of them would have endorsed drugs in any way.

As for Burroughs

Quote from: Bill Burroughs, from the appendix to Naked LunchThe ill effects of marijuana have been grossly exaggerated in the U.S. Our national drug is alcohol, we tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror. Anyone given over to these alien vices deserves the complete ruin of his mind and body. People believe what they want to believe without regard for the facts. Marijuana is not habit forming. I have never seen evidence of any ill effects from moderate use. Drug psychosis may result from prolonged or excessive use

When was this written?  Nevermind the fact he is completely wrong.  It is habit forming.  Addiction is addiction whether it is physical or psychological.  

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:40:06 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:34:51 PM
Yeah, thanks for missing the point, Z.

Your point was that drugs are inherently unnecessary in terms of managing our brains?
This may be so, but sometimes they can be a useful tool for doing so.
& if the pharmaceutical companies get to do this, why cant I?

The pharmaceutical companies make the drugs.  (Ideally)Your doctor tells you whether or not you should be taking them depending on your situation.

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:31:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Its not like any of them would have endorsed drugs in any way.

As for Burroughs

Quote from: Bill Burroughs, from the appendix to Naked LunchThe ill effects of marijuana have been grossly exaggerated in the U.S. Our national drug is alcohol, we tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror. Anyone given over to these alien vices deserves the complete ruin of his mind and body. People believe what they want to believe without regard for the facts. Marijuana is not habit forming. I have never seen evidence of any ill effects from moderate use. Drug psychosis may result from prolonged or excessive use

When was this written?  Nevermind the fact he is completely wrong.  It is habit forming.  Addiction is addiction whether it is physical or psychological.  

Well that's an area where I happen to disagree with the dominant paradigm, but thats besides the point. Also, I don't want to get sucked into debating the opinion of one writer as if its anything beyond that writers opinion, which was posted in the context of demonstrating the opinion of that particular writer... for example.

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:40:06 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:34:51 PM
Yeah, thanks for missing the point, Z.

Your point was that drugs are inherently unnecessary in terms of managing our brains?
This may be so, but sometimes they can be a useful tool for doing so.
& if the pharmaceutical companies get to do this, why cant I?

The pharmaceutical companies make the drugs.  (Ideally)Your doctor tells you whether or not you should be taking them depending on your situation.

So you're saying that the pharmaceutical companies have no influence over teh doctors?

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:31:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Its not like any of them would have endorsed drugs in any way.

As for Burroughs

Quote from: Bill Burroughs, from the appendix to Naked LunchThe ill effects of marijuana have been grossly exaggerated in the U.S. Our national drug is alcohol, we tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror. Anyone given over to these alien vices deserves the complete ruin of his mind and body. People believe what they want to believe without regard for the facts. Marijuana is not habit forming. I have never seen evidence of any ill effects from moderate use. Drug psychosis may result from prolonged or excessive use

When was this written?  Nevermind the fact he is completely wrong.  It is habit forming.  Addiction is addiction whether it is physical or psychological.  

Marijuana can be habit forming for some people, so can food, television, exercise and the Internet.

Of course,  a lot of people make use of all of those things without them being addicted....

Y'all's lack of subtlety and nuance is pretty damn funny.

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 05:01:54 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:40:06 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:34:51 PM
Yeah, thanks for missing the point, Z.

Your point was that drugs are inherently unnecessary in terms of managing our brains?
This may be so, but sometimes they can be a useful tool for doing so.
& if the pharmaceutical companies get to do this, why cant I?

The pharmaceutical companies make the drugs.  (Ideally)Your doctor tells you whether or not you should be taking them depending on your situation.

So you're saying that the pharmaceutical companies have no influence over teh doctors?

There is a reason I added "(Ideally)".  Sure, the pharma companies have influence with doctors.  They have also gone a long way to influence the public through advertising.  There has been a marked increase in prescriptions filled in the past decade after the regulations around TV advertising for Rx drugs were reinterpreted.  They've managed, quite adeptly I might add, to sway the public and convince them that THEY should be determining what drug they should be taking and telling their doctor.  The patient-doctor relationship has been effectively flipped on its head when it comes to medications.  

But, when you have a good doctor, that doctor is going to determine how best to manage your pain.  The doctor who has a medical background to make the proper choice.  You, the patient, should not be making that choice.  

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 11:13:24 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 19, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not that would be worth the increased personal liberty for adults.

not being snarky either, if you're going to take the position that anything is worth decreasing the personal liberty of adults, protection of children is about the only reason I can think of that has any merit whatsoever.

You posited it before as a choice between liberty and security.

Another way to think about it is a choice between sacrificing the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults.  

its not just about pleasure though is it? i know i wont benefit i don't smoke pot, i am probability not the only one arguing the pro legalization/decriminalization who is a non smoker..

and how do I sacrifice anything? i am not suggesting the kids be abandoned or that they are not as important as you believe they are, i am in agreement with you there. i have said that with any change of the law, improving funding for programs and education are necessary

the question is do the harms you see "sacrificing youth" (even worst case scenario funding and education remaining the same) outweigh the loss of liberty (something i hold very very dear) plus all the other costs of prohibition that we have been listing? i suspect they don't, prohibition and the violence and corruption the black market creates, the cost to the tax payer arresting and prosecution and prisons just to name a few, are a high cost to pay, especially if the sacrifice you talk about can be headed off by the funding and education we both would suggest (not saying it would be easy to get or that it wouldn't require a fight but i believe it could be done)

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
So, your point is that you need pot in order to think a certain way, because it's "easier".



Watching TV is "easier" than reading a book, too.  Oh, Real Housewives of Atlanta is on.

Later, kids.

thank you for adding some much needed snark and disingenuousness to this otherwise interesting and insightful conversation!

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 19, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
I don't smoke to do magic to my brain. I smoke because:

A) I like it.

You could have stopped right there.

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on November 19, 2009, 05:12:06 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: Z³ on November 19, 2009, 04:31:43 PM

Quote from: LMNO on November 19, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
And I paraphrase Leary, RAW, Burroughs, and Kesey: "Anything your brain can do on drugs, your brain can do off drugs."

Its not like any of them would have endorsed drugs in any way.

As for Burroughs

Quote from: Bill Burroughs, from the appendix to Naked LunchThe ill effects of marijuana have been grossly exaggerated in the U.S. Our national drug is alcohol, we tend to regard the use of any other drug with special horror. Anyone given over to these alien vices deserves the complete ruin of his mind and body. People believe what they want to believe without regard for the facts. Marijuana is not habit forming. I have never seen evidence of any ill effects from moderate use. Drug psychosis may result from prolonged or excessive use

When was this written?  Nevermind the fact he is completely wrong.  It is habit forming.  Addiction is addiction whether it is physical or psychological.  

Marijuana can be habit forming for some people, so can food, television, exercise and the Internet.

Of course,  a lot of people make use of all of those things without them being addicted....

And if marijuana was a television show, a form of exercise, or an internet website, it would be legal.  But it's a chemical that can be introduced into the body that plays with brain chemistry and when the brain is still developing, it has the potential to make an impact on that developing brain that the others, generally, do not.  However, that said, I have read some interesting research around theories that video gaming at an early age has the capacity to mimic some of the brain chemistry that occurs when someone uses drugs.  The pushing of a button that rewards the pleasure center of the brain, and how that could predispose a kid to seeking out other things to fulfill that pleasure later in life.  But this is pretty new territory and still needs to be explored.  

Thought this might open up the discussion a little

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/12/war-drugs

QuoteThe war on drugs has failed, but what should replace it? A powerful argument for defenders of the status quo has been that there is no viable alternative – that any softening-up on drugs would surely lead to anarchy, death, mass madness or worse.

But there are viable alternatives and today they are spelled out thoroughly and carefully in After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation. Written by Steve Rolles and fellow campaigners from Transform: Drug Policy Foundation, the book is launched today in the House of Commons. Blueprint shows that it is possible to have a grown-up drugs policy – one that lets people enjoy the drugs they like, in the ways they choose, within the context of a regulated market, with policies that reduce harm to users and protect society as a whole. Anarchy is not the inevitable outcome of ending prohibition.

We have five major options and it's up to us to choose.

These five, according to Blueprint, are:

1. Prescription – a medical model with strict control by professionals.

2. Pharmacy sales – with trained pharmacists who could offer advice and over-the-counter sales.

3. Licensed sales – something like we have now for tobacco and alcohol, with age and other limits.

4. Licensed premises – something like the Amsterdam coffee shops

5. Unlicensed sales with a more or less free market.

The last option does not seem very appealing, and Blueprint describes it as handing control of drug markets to exploitative profiteers just as surely as prohibition. So we probably have to find a solution with one of the other options. But the real point of this book is to show that change is possible. We can – and must – envisage "a world in which non-medical drug supply and use is addressed through the right blend of compassion, pragmatism, and evidence-based interventions focused on improving public health".

I was especially interested to learn what Blueprint says about specific drugs and how they might be handled. LSD, for example comes into the section on psychedelics, which points out that, though non-addictive, almost never fatal, and with no withdrawal effects, these drugs can precipitate psychotic episodes or lead to traumatic experiences and bad trips. They are also used widely for religious and sacred rituals and in some countries there are functioning legal frameworks for allowing such use. When drugs are used in this way they are usually taken only rarely, with many safeguards and in a social situation that provides a lot of support for people who may get into trouble using them. How nice it is to have this kind of responsible drug-taking discussed seriously.

Blueprint comes up with a discussion model for psychedelics based on membership of psychedelic groups or clubs, and licensed vendors with specific responsibilities as well as licensed users. Does this make sense? Would it work? I don't know. But then no one knows.

I can only say that I would welcome such a step. If LSD were legally available I personally would like to take it quite rarely – perhaps once a year or so – for the extraordinary insights it can give and the lessons it teaches. I am not alone: an online survey by Erowid of thousands of experienced LSD users showed that most would want to take it about once a year if it were legal.

I am much encouraged by Blueprint. I'm sure it doesn't have all the answers, but what it does offer is this: when the election comes, and if drugs become an issue, no one can say there is no alternative to prohibition. They can hold up Blueprint and say: "Here are the alternatives". Any of them must be better than the terrible harms that are currently being done to individuals and the whole of our society "clearly fuelled by the prohibitionist drug policies our governments pursue".

I haven't read the exact meat of the proposals, but there are links for those who want to have a look.

Quote from: fomenter on November 19, 2009, 05:45:02 PM

Quote from: R W H N on November 19, 2009, 11:13:24 AM

Quote from: Rip City Hustle on November 19, 2009, 02:17:29 AM
fair enough. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not that would be worth the increased personal liberty for adults.

not being snarky either, if you're going to take the position that anything is worth decreasing the personal liberty of adults, protection of children is about the only reason I can think of that has any merit whatsoever.

You posited it before as a choice between liberty and security.

Another way to think about it is a choice between sacrificing the futures of a portion of our youth for the pleasure of a portion of our adults. 

its not just about pleasure though is it? i know i wont benefit i don't smoke pot, i am probability not the only one arguing the pro legalization/decriminalization who is a non smoker..

and how do I sacrifice anything? i am not suggesting the kids be abandoned or that they are not as important as you believe they are, i am in agreement with you there. i have said that with any change of the law, improving funding for programs and education are necessary

But that won't happen.  And even if it did, I again say it's like drilling a hole in my boat and handing me a bigger oar.  I'd rather not have the hole in my boat.  

Quotethe question is do the harms you see "sacrificing youth" (even worst case scenario funding and education remaining the same) outweigh the loss of liberty (something i hold very very dear) plus all the other costs of prohibition that we have been listing? i suspect they don't, prohibition and the violence and corruption the black market creates, the cost to the tax payer arresting and prosecution and prisons cost just to name a few, are a high cost to pay, especially if the sacrifice you talk about can be headed off by the funding and education we both would suggest (not saying it would be easy to get or that it wouldn't require a fight but i believe it could be done)

But what you all seem to keep ignoring is what I keep bringing up.  The ills you listed can be addressed in policy reforms without legalizing the substance.  




[/quote]