http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No
QuoteMarijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system damage, brain damage, and stroke.
QuoteToday, marijuana trafficking is linked to a variety of crimes, from assault and murder to money laundering and smuggling. Legalization of marijuana would increase demand for the drug and almost certainly exacerbate drug-related crime
^This one made my brain hurt.
QuoteResearch has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause "psychotic symptoms.
QuoteMarijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug. These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.
I once saw a pot addict at the bus stop on my way to work. He offered to suck my dick for a hit of pot. He had pot tracks all up and down his arms from injecting weed into his veins(probably with a dirty needle) and his teeth were bloody and rotted from pot mouth. That poor poor bastard. Whatever you do, dont do Marijuana.
:lulz: :horrormirth:
Most of these is obvious crap, BUT
-Birth defects im sure can come up if you light up while pregnant
-If you are borderline psychotic, it can surely give you the little nudge you "need" to become full blown.
Hmmm, let's take a look at those pregnancy claims.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june272010/marijuana-infants-sc.php
QuoteBut all this is just conjecture on my part. Just me, grouping together various studies to make a theory about "failure to thrive" babies. Medical science surely isn't going to say that having Mom smoking a little pot in the evening is going to help her baby do better, is it?
Well, tonight, I found a study that seems to say just that! It's a sad little thing - an abstract of a study on the death of babies - yet vital facts can be learned from those soulless statistical studies. This one gave the infant death rates per 1,000 live births, and the drugs, if any, that the mother used during pregnancy.
A total of 2,964 babies were drug-tested at birth to see if they were positive for drugs - cocaine, opioids or cannabis were studied. 44% of the infants tested positive for all varieties of drugs, including the 3 being studied. During the first two years of their lives, 44 babies from the original group died. Since statistics are a drag to slog through, I'll cut right to the chase - the deaths per thousand live births - the numbers tell the story.
"No drugs at birth" deaths....... 15.7 deaths per 1000 live births
"Cocaine positive" deaths.......17.7 deaths per 1000 live births
"Opiate positive" deaths.......18.4 deaths per 1000 live births
"Cannabis positive" deaths.... 8.9 deaths per 1000 live births [5]
The cocaine and opiate babies have a higher death rate than the "No drugs" babies - that was to be expected. But look at the "cannabis" babies! Having extra cannabinoids in their bodies at birth (and likely later, from 2nd-hand exposure, or breast milk) seems to have some sort of a protective effect. The "cannabis" infants have a mortality rate almost half of what the "No drugs" infants have!
Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.
Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.
It gets better.
The Author of the Article is Charles Stimson.
http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/s/charles-cully-stimson
His biggest claim to fame was Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Detainee Affairs, where he advised the Secretary of Defense on detainee issues worldwide, including at Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Waterboarding, my anti-drug.
There's a lot of research out there. This woman did a 10 year study in Jamaica (on smokers and non-smokers).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuiP8F-lITA http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5229180006956120312#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9WorIM0RhA
25 pages. I'm calling it now.
Also, posting in this thread.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 18, 2010, 04:14:12 AM
25 pages. I'm calling it now.
Also, posting in this thread.
:lulz:
ECH, that's like those guys on the price is right who guess one dollar. You know better. :lulz:
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 18, 2010, 04:14:12 AM
25 pages. I'm calling it now.
Also, posting in this thread.
No way do we get off this with less than 30, probably not less than 36.
:x toward all this shit.
Nevertheless, I am against the proposition.
46 pages.
Anything that comes from the "Heritage Foundation", a far-right holding pen for poor, put upon Republicans with degrees think tank is going to be batting at at least 60-70% bullshit and lies, sometimes higher. The problem is they will seed occasional truths, or half-truths, or things which are almost true but they've purposefully misunderstood and rephrased so it sounds like the true thing it is referring to but actually isnt, just to fuck with your head. As such, they're not worth the effort, and at the same time slightly more accurate than the pro-drug sites which claim smoking pot makes you more intelligent and the Fundie sites which claim smoking pot makes you more open to demonic possession.
It looks like you want to start a thread about drugs. Would you like to revisit an existing topic, or start a new one?
/
(http://ashleyenglish.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/paper-clip.jpg)
A sample of existing threads which discuss marijuana / effects / legalization:
So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=22958.msg785057#msg785057): 40 pages
Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24167.msg838342#msg838342): 48 pages
Paid to smoke Pot (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25895.msg905222#msg905222): a mere 6 pages!
War on Drugs finally makes sense! (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19305.msg645933#msg645933): 11 pages
California to legalize pot! (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19926.msg674460#msg674460): 16 pages
Well, there goes prohibition south of the border (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21953.msg743657#msg743657): 5 pages
Have you met my friend Mary? (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20182.msg684695#msg684695): 7 pages
Psychedelics question (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26090.0): 27 pages
Drug cartels sully US forests: Solution: Hate pot smokers. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18066.msg596473#msg596473): 7 pages
THE PROPITIATION OF ST GULIK (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13543.0): 7 pages
average length: 17.4 pages
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 18, 2010, 04:14:12 AM
25 pages. I'm calling it now.
Also, posting in this thread.
Good call. Toasting in this fread.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 03:39:01 AM
Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.
Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.
Instead of "worrying", you could just
look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 18, 2010, 02:26:39 PM
It looks like you want to start a thread about drugs. Would you like to revisit an existing topic, or start a new one?
/
(http://ashleyenglish.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/paper-clip.jpg)
A sample of existing threads which discuss marijuana / effects / legalization:
So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=22958.msg785057#msg785057): 40 pages
Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24167.msg838342#msg838342): 48 pages
Paid to smoke Pot (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=25895.msg905222#msg905222): a mere 6 pages!
War on Drugs finally makes sense! (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19305.msg645933#msg645933): 11 pages
California to legalize pot! (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19926.msg674460#msg674460): 16 pages
Well, there goes prohibition south of the border (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21953.msg743657#msg743657): 5 pages
Have you met my friend Mary? (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20182.msg684695#msg684695): 7 pages
Psychedelics question (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26090.0): 27 pages
Drug cartels sully US forests: Solution: Hate pot smokers. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18066.msg596473#msg596473): 7 pages
THE PROPITIATION OF ST GULIK (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13543.0): 7 pages
average length: 17.4 pages
:potd:
I posted in this thread, thereby meeting my contract obligations.
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2010, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 03:39:01 AM
Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.
Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.
Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.
I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.
I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 08:08:25 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2010, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 03:39:01 AM
Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.
Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.
Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.
I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.
I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.
Why form an opinion on a subject you haven't researched?
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2010, 10:06:46 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 08:08:25 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2010, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 03:39:01 AM
Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.
Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.
Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.
I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.
I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.
Why How the fuck can you form an opinion on a subject you haven't researched?
Fixed.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 18, 2010, 10:08:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2010, 10:06:46 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 08:08:25 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 18, 2010, 07:34:50 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 03:39:01 AM
Ok fine, death might not be a side effect of the mother smoking pot - but death isnt the only thing one has to worry about.
Id be worried about cognitive and sensory-motor development too, amongst other things.
Instead of "worrying", you could just look it up. It's not like it hasn't been studied.
I think my google-fu isnt good enough to find a study about specifically that, that isnt fluff.
I was more than anything pointing out that death shouldnt be one's only concern in regards to a baby.
Why How the fuck can you form an opinion on a subject you haven't researched?
Fixed.
That's better.
I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.
I think this board really needs another thread about pot.
Nothing enriches my day more than a handful of braindead stoners arguing the same points over and over again to people who would largely agree with those points if they didn't have to listen to a bunch of potheads.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on September 18, 2010, 10:27:48 PM
I think this board really needs another thread about pot.
Nothing enriches my day more than a handful of braindead stoners arguing the same points over and over again to people who would largely agree with those points if they didn't have to listen to a bunch of potheads.
By your command!
Hawk,
always willing to help out.
:lulz:
I will now hide from ECH for one week.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 10:22:04 PM
I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.
Isn't the burden of proof on those arguing that something has negative effects? Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't know whether it has negative or positive effects, though, I would expect negative, if anything. I didn't click any links, because this subject isn't all that interesting to me, but so far all I've seen is that statistically lower infant fatality rates, so that seems to suggest my expectations may be skewed or completely off.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 19, 2010, 02:14:19 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 10:22:04 PM
I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.
Isn't the burden of proof on those arguing that something has negative effects? Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't know whether it has negative or positive effects, though, I would expect negative, if anything. I didn't click any links, because this subject isn't all that interesting to me, but so far all I've seen is that statistically lower infant fatality rates, so that seems to suggest my expectations may be skewed or completely off.
I think you're confusing drugs with people.
We already know pot has an effect on the physiological system of humans. Whether that is positive or negative is for the evidence to tell us. Nothing more. "Innocence" is a
legal term, and has no place in a scientific discussion.
As for the burden of proof, it lies on whoever is making a claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). If someone claims pot is good for babies, they need to prove that claim. If they claim it is bad for babies, they need to back up that claim. If there is an ongoing dispute between two parties holding those positions, both of them need to back up their claims.
Quote from: Cain on September 19, 2010, 04:57:10 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 19, 2010, 02:14:19 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 10:22:04 PM
I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.
Isn't the burden of proof on those arguing that something has negative effects? Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not saying you are wrong, just saying that I don't know whether it has negative or positive effects, though, I would expect negative, if anything. I didn't click any links, because this subject isn't all that interesting to me, but so far all I've seen is that statistically lower infant fatality rates, so that seems to suggest my expectations may be skewed or completely off.
I think you're confusing drugs with people.
We already know pot has an effect on the physiological system of humans. Whether that is positive or negative is for the evidence to tell us. Nothing more. "Innocence" is a legal term, and has no place in a scientific discussion.
As for the burden of proof, it lies on whoever is making a claim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). If someone claims pot is good for babies, they need to prove that claim. If they claim it is bad for babies, they need to back up that claim. If there is an ongoing dispute between two parties holding those positions, both of them need to back up their claims.
Oh, I agree with you. The "innocent until proven guilty" thing was just a phrase that I felt summed up the idea in layman's terms, but you are right that it's not quite the same.
I didn't realize someone was actually arguing that pot-smoking was good for babies, aside from the one article (which offered its proof, such as it was). I'm still not quite seeing that, having reread the thread more carefully.
I worded my first sentence poorly, the idea I was trying to get across was exactly what you said. You are right, and I defer to you.
I've got a rather busy week, plus I'm still sick, so I won't be participating in this one.
We need you to help hit 30 pages :argh!:
Heh, hit.
Maybe next week if it's still alive.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on September 18, 2010, 10:22:04 PM
I think that burden of proof is on those arguing that pot is good for babies.
Nobody is. Someone just posted some statistics refuting the knee-jerk assumption that pot must be bad for them.
If you want to claim that smoking pot during pregnancy is bad OR good, you will need to come up with some kind of evidence. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke out your ass and would be better off saying nothing at all.
Only ten pages. This fread is moving sloooooow.
Hosting in this bread.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 18, 2010, 03:10:16 AM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No
QuoteResearch has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause "psychotic symptoms.
QuoteMarijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug. These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.
These two are true, by the way. Granted, for the first, it entails rather heavy usage.
The second, I've seen the data first hand. The #1 substance in Maine for which adolescents are admitted into treatment is marijuana followed fairly closely by alcohol. Though, I think you would find that many really have addictions or issues with both.
RWHN,
tease
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 19, 2010, 09:48:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 18, 2010, 03:10:16 AM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No
QuoteResearch has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause "psychotic symptoms.
QuoteMarijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug. These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.
These two are true, by the way. Granted, for the first, it entails rather heavy usage.
The second, I've seen the data first hand. The #1 substance in Maine for which adolescents are admitted into treatment is marijuana followed fairly closely by alcohol. Though, I think you would find that many really have addictions or issues with both.
RWHN,
tease
You said for adolescents. Isnt it a possibility that their parents made them go?
What are the statistics for Adults?
In some cases, sure, but in my experience, largely no. See, in Maine adolescents have special rights when it comes to pursuing services for drug treatment as well as services for reproductive health. The parents don't have to be involved at all and have no right to know if their child is seeking or receiving services. And because I know someone else will point this out, yes, some of the admissions are court compelled as well, but they don't make up the majority. My suspicion is that we're only going to see this get worse here in Maine as the medical marijuana operations get off the ground.
For adults I'd have to look up the statistics. My professional work in substance abuse prevention focuses on adolescents so I don't know the figures off hand. My suspicion is that it is the reverse with alcohol being #1 and marijuana being second.
how many teens are using alcohol and how many are using marijuana?
Also, I'd point out court compelled treatment would be pretty much the same rate for booze and weed in teens, I can't imagine judges are any happier with a 15 year old drinking than they are with a 15 year old lighting up.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 19, 2010, 10:27:43 PM
how many teens are using alcohol and how many are using marijuana?
In Maine past 30 day use of alcohol is just under 30%. For marijuana it is 16%. We are slightly above average compared to the nation in both categories. These numbers are starting to increase again thanks to the pittance in funding we are getting to do our work.
I recently quit smoking weed cold-turkey and had no problem at all.
I think anyone who has "withdrawal symptoms" or anything like that from pot is probably a pussy.
I'd also be curious to see how many of the non-court compelled cases were still an individual who recently had a marijuana charge against them. Sometimes people voluntarily enter treatment in an attempt to get charges or sentences reduced, or to have it on the record that they successfully completed treatment so that the charge won't have as heavy a negative effect on future employment or education applications.
I mean really...."addicted" to pot? Gimme a break. Coffee, TV, and junk food are all far more addictive substances.
Casual marijuana use would be fine if we could just get rid of all the stupid stoners.
ECH,
this thread WILL hit 25 pages. Or else.
In my personal experience the only people who Ive met who were "addicted" to pot were the same kinds of people who would sniff paint or drink mouthwash to get high. They werent addicted to pot they were addicted to escaping reality.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 20, 2010, 01:50:09 AM
In my personal experience the only people who Ive met who were "addicted" to pot were the same kinds of people who would sniff paint or drink mouthwash to get high. They werent addicted to pot they were addicted to escaping reality.
Same here. The people who I have met who get addicted to marijuana are the people who will get addicted to anything.
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 20, 2010, 01:53:01 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 20, 2010, 01:50:09 AM
In my personal experience the only people who Ive met who were "addicted" to pot were the same kinds of people who would sniff paint or drink mouthwash to get high. They werent addicted to pot they were addicted to escaping reality.
Same here. The people who I have met who get addicted to marijuana are the people who will get addicted to anything.
I used to be that kind of person, mixed with the kind of person who always talked about breaking the rules but adhered to them closely.
I got better, thankfully.
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on September 20, 2010, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 20, 2010, 01:53:01 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 20, 2010, 01:50:09 AM
In my personal experience the only people who Ive met who were "addicted" to pot were the same kinds of people who would sniff paint or drink mouthwash to get high. They werent addicted to pot they were addicted to escaping reality.
Same here. The people who I have met who get addicted to marijuana are the people who will get addicted to anything.
I used to be that kind of person, mixed with the kind of person who always talked about breaking the rules but adhered to them closely.
I got better, thankfully.
That sort of lifestyle rarely has positive outcomes. So I'm glad you got out of that stage. :)
Quote from: phoenixofdiscordia on September 20, 2010, 01:53:01 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 20, 2010, 01:50:09 AM
In my personal experience the only people who Ive met who were "addicted" to pot were the same kinds of people who would sniff paint or drink mouthwash to get high. They werent addicted to pot they were addicted to escaping reality.
Same here. The people who I have met who get addicted to marijuana are the people who will get addicted to anything.
this. If pot didn't exist, those kids would find
something. It's like blaming handguns for homicides.
QuoteMarijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system damage, brain damage, and stroke.
Yep, smoking anything can
QuoteToday, marijuana trafficking is linked to a variety of crimes, from assault and murder to money laundering and smuggling. Legalization of marijuana would increase demand for the drug and almost certainly exacerbate drug-related crime
This doesn't make sense to me either. Although with some logic twisting I guess it could. Offers a cover for money laundering and whatnot.
QuoteResearch has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause "psychotic symptoms.
It certainly can. Ask Pixie.
QuoteMarijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug. These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.
Comparison here is to tobacco, not Heroin, although with that arguement tobacco should be illegal. Pot is also less addictive (by a considerable factor) than tobacco.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 19, 2010, 09:48:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 18, 2010, 03:10:16 AM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No
QuoteResearch has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause "psychotic symptoms.
QuoteMarijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug. These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.
These two are true, by the way. Granted, for the first, it entails rather heavy usage.
The second, I've seen the data first hand. The #1 substance in Maine for which adolescents are admitted into treatment is marijuana followed fairly closely by alcohol. Though, I think you would find that many really have addictions or issues with both.
RWHN,
tease
Although teens with drug problems is a bad thing I personally think that them being potheads as opposed to drunks is a good thing. The effects of pot abuse, while still not good, are not as bad as alcohol abuse physically by about an order of magnitude. The self destructive behaviors also tend to be not only less self destructive but also less destructive of others.
When it comes to the health and welfare of children, I'm not too hip to use the "lesser of two evils" approach.
Yay! Another pot thread!
Hey, seeing as we have so many of them, and because they all inevitably fall into the same arguments propogated by the same camps, why don't we set up a child board for them? Possibly in apple talk - it'd be AT's even dumber and repetitive and pointless in-bred cousin.
Then we can all safely ignore or indulge as the will takes us! It'd make activites such as Crams Stat Attack easier to accomplish! We could note who the most rabid and fundie pot heads are, for to take account of elsewhere! We could put advertisements in that board alone for cheetos and such and increase board revenue! RWHN would have a place to unleash the full fury on his "Punner-Troll-Drug Tsar-Musician" Shamanic Powers for the amusement and delicatation of all!
~~~Payne: not really serious. Thinks that this thread once again places WAY too much importance on pot, both for what it is and what it does.
True, it ain't no 'stache.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 01:26:58 PM
True, it ain't no 'stache.
Indeed. 'Stache will make you psychotic AND give you Hyper Projectile Occular Herpes. Even if you do it only once.
And no one has ever had, like, really deep Truths, like,
revealed to them, man. Like it was all '
woah, dude', and then it was, like, The Answer, man, and then I ate a pack of cheetos and watched some
Friends repeats...
..where was I? Oh, yeah. That shit doesn't happen on 'stache either. Just fucked up shit.
I smoked salmon once, but I didn't inhale.
1. Pot has some good effects.
2. Pot has some bad effects.
3. Rabid stoners are annoying.
4. Rabid pot opponents/fear-mongers are annoying (Disclaimer: not alluding to RWHN here, as his issue is with kids/teens, which although I don't agree with everything he says, is fine by me and does not place him in this category)
5. No one is going to agree on ANYTHING, EVER.
30 pages here we come....
My personal thing against pot and other drugs probably can be best understood through the lens of the Shrapnel and Paths discussions. I think especially for young people, drugs can end up being a limiting agent and as kids get more and more wrapped up into the behavior, paths become obscured and are no longer in sight. It doesn't become the one-true path perhaps, but it's one of the few that matters to the young person. Ultimately, this path becomes self-destructive depending on how far along the kid goes. And the horizon has become so limited in options that it is all that can be done to make treatment appear to be a new path, and one that offers promise and personal rewards.
So I guess in the end it's still a morality issue, but I like to think that it isn't a religious self-serving morality. I just want kids to not become limited in their childhood and to still have all the options and paths opened to them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 04:09:22 PM
My personal thing against pot and other drugs probably can be best understood through the lens of the Shrapnel and Paths discussions. I think especially for young people, drugs can end up being a limiting agent and as kids get more and more wrapped up into the behavior, paths become obscured and are no longer in sight. It doesn't become the one-true path perhaps, but it's one of the few that matters to the young person. Ultimately, this path becomes self-destructive depending on how far along the kid goes. And the horizon has become so limited in options that it is all that can be done to make treatment appear to be a new path, and one that offers promise and personal rewards.
So I guess in the end it's still a morality issue, but I like to think that it isn't a religious self-serving morality. I just want kids to not become limited in their childhood and to still have all the options and paths opened to them.
First, you and I are in agreement about kids smoking pot = bad idea.
However, I wonder if the 'obscuring of paths' that you mention is because of pot, or because of"pot as act of rebelliousness" or "pot as escapism" or even because there's no way to introduce young adults to pot in a responsible manner. Speaking as a person who uses pot, it can sometimes feel limiting simply because its an illegal act and you never know if a new person might be offended/upset etc. if they see a pipe somewhere in your house. Since I'm an adult, I can take responsibility for that and just make sure my stuff is put away etc. but if I were younger, less responsible, more paranoid, well, maybe it would feel limiting/obscuring/constraining.
My parents gave me my first drink when I was maybe 5 or 6. I had really bad chest cold or bronchitis or something and they mixed a shot of whiskey, honey and lemon, heated it and made me drink it. As I got older, Dad would let me have a taste of beer or a taste of wine or whatever they were having. Drinking alcohol was never demonized... it was just not allowed at my age. When I was in my late teens, I was allowed a beer occasionally. I wonder if pot would be such a consuming aspect to kids perceptions if it wasn't alienating by virtue of society. Shante's first experience with marijuana was as an adult, after she got stood up for a New Years party. Her Dad shared a joint with her for the evening and they had a great time bonding. Granted, he's a crazy hippie... but she remembers that as a positive experience.
After I grew up and finally tried pot (recreational) I stumbled upon the fact that its a godsend for recurring migraines that I've gotten ever since I was a kid. My parents had given me every drug the Doctors would perscribe, some of which left me feeling like my head was a hot air balloon... most of which didn't help or had nasty side effects. Would my expereince with Pot have been different if it had been like that first shot of whiskey?
I dunno.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on September 20, 2010, 12:33:06 PM
Yay! Another pot thread!
Hey, seeing as we have so many of them, and because they all inevitably fall into the same arguments propogated by the same camps, why don't we set up a child board for them? Possibly in apple talk - it'd be AT's even dumber and repetitive and pointless in-bred cousin.
Then we can all safely ignore or indulge as the will takes us! It'd make activites such as Crams Stat Attack easier to accomplish! We could note who the most rabid and fundie pot heads are, for to take account of elsewhere! We could put advertisements in that board alone for cheetos and such and increase board revenue! RWHN would have a place to unleash the full fury on his "Punner-Troll-Drug Tsar-Musician" Shamanic Powers for the amusement and delicatation of all!
~~~Payne: not really serious. Thinks that this thread once again places WAY too much importance on pot, both for what it is and what it does.
hush, you. I have a wager on this.
ECH,
30 pages or bust!
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on September 18, 2010, 03:10:16 AM
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Legalizing-Marijuana-Why-Citizens-Should-Just-Say-No
QuoteMarijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system damage, brain damage, and stroke.
QuoteToday, marijuana trafficking is linked to a variety of crimes, from assault and murder to money laundering and smuggling. Legalization of marijuana would increase demand for the drug and almost certainly exacerbate drug-related crime
^This one made my brain hurt.
QuoteResearch has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause "psychotic symptoms.
QuoteMarijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug. These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.
I once saw a pot addict at the bus stop on my way to work. He offered to suck my dick for a hit of pot. He had pot tracks all up and down his arms from injecting weed into his veins(probably with a dirty needle) and his teeth were bloody and rotted from pot mouth. That poor poor bastard. Whatever you do, dont do Marijuana.
I hate you.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 20, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
First, you and I are in agreement about kids smoking pot = bad idea.
However, I wonder if the 'obscuring of paths' that you mention is because of pot, or because of"pot as act of rebelliousness" or "pot as escapism" or even because there's no way to introduce young adults to pot in a responsible manner. Speaking as a person who uses pot, it can sometimes feel limiting simply because its an illegal act and you never know if a new person might be offended/upset etc. if they see a pipe somewhere in your house. Since I'm an adult, I can take responsibility for that and just make sure my stuff is put away etc. but if I were younger, less responsible, more paranoid, well, maybe it would feel limiting/obscuring/constraining.
My parents gave me my first drink when I was maybe 5 or 6. I had really bad chest cold or bronchitis or something and they mixed a shot of whiskey, honey and lemon, heated it and made me drink it. As I got older, Dad would let me have a taste of beer or a taste of wine or whatever they were having. Drinking alcohol was never demonized... it was just not allowed at my age. When I was in my late teens, I was allowed a beer occasionally. I wonder if pot would be such a consuming aspect to kids perceptions if it wasn't alienating by virtue of society. Shante's first experience with marijuana was as an adult, after she got stood up for a New Years party. Her Dad shared a joint with her for the evening and they had a great time bonding. Granted, he's a crazy hippie... but she remembers that as a positive experience.
After I grew up and finally tried pot (recreational) I stumbled upon the fact that its a godsend for recurring migraines that I've gotten ever since I was a kid. My parents had given me every drug the Doctors would perscribe, some of which left me feeling like my head was a hot air balloon... most of which didn't help or had nasty side effects. Would my expereince with Pot have been different if it had been like that first shot of whiskey?
I dunno.
Rightly or wrongly, I don't think pot really is all that alienating anymore. I think that is why we are seeing more and more states at least going in the direction of medical marijuana. I think the national attitude on marijuana has shifted markedly since the 80s. At this point I think the most rabid, reactionary opposition comes from social conservatives. Granted, this may not be the case as much with employers who may shy away from an applicant with a record. But even then, I suspect this is less to do with a moral judgment and more about the bottom line and liability issues.
But I guess I've seen and heard about a lot of kids who sort of get lost down the bunny hole and then can't see the way back out. But then again, I think there are a lot of kids who WANT to get lost down in that hole because their life is such that they can't see other paths. They've been inundated with shrapnel that has kept them on a certain path. Prevention tries to get at some of that shrapnel, but there is little to no money for that kind of work.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 20, 2010, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 20, 2010, 04:09:22 PM
My personal thing against pot and other drugs probably can be best understood through the lens of the Shrapnel and Paths discussions. I think especially for young people, drugs can end up being a limiting agent and as kids get more and more wrapped up into the behavior, paths become obscured and are no longer in sight. It doesn't become the one-true path perhaps, but it's one of the few that matters to the young person. Ultimately, this path becomes self-destructive depending on how far along the kid goes. And the horizon has become so limited in options that it is all that can be done to make treatment appear to be a new path, and one that offers promise and personal rewards.
So I guess in the end it's still a morality issue, but I like to think that it isn't a religious self-serving morality. I just want kids to not become limited in their childhood and to still have all the options and paths opened to them.
First, you and I are in agreement about kids smoking pot = bad idea.
However, I wonder if the 'obscuring of paths' that you mention is because of pot, or because of"pot as act of rebelliousness" or "pot as escapism" or even because there's no way to introduce young adults to pot in a responsible manner. Speaking as a person who uses pot, it can sometimes feel limiting simply because its an illegal act and you never know if a new person might be offended/upset etc. if they see a pipe somewhere in your house. Since I'm an adult, I can take responsibility for that and just make sure my stuff is put away etc. but if I were younger, less responsible, more paranoid, well, maybe it would feel limiting/obscuring/constraining.
My parents gave me my first drink when I was maybe 5 or 6. I had really bad chest cold or bronchitis or something and they mixed a shot of whiskey, honey and lemon, heated it and made me drink it. As I got older, Dad would let me have a taste of beer or a taste of wine or whatever they were having. Drinking alcohol was never demonized... it was just not allowed at my age. When I was in my late teens, I was allowed a beer occasionally. I wonder if pot would be such a consuming aspect to kids perceptions if it wasn't alienating by virtue of society. Shante's first experience with marijuana was as an adult, after she got stood up for a New Years party. Her Dad shared a joint with her for the evening and they had a great time bonding. Granted, he's a crazy hippie... but she remembers that as a positive experience.
After I grew up and finally tried pot (recreational) I stumbled upon the fact that its a godsend for recurring migraines that I've gotten ever since I was a kid. My parents had given me every drug the Doctors would perscribe, some of which left me feeling like my head was a hot air balloon... most of which didn't help or had nasty side effects. Would my expereince with Pot have been different if it had been like that first shot of whiskey?
I dunno.
Pot was socially accepted for me as a teen. My father would not tolerate me using it in his house, because of possible legal repercusssions to him, but he did not mind if I used it occasionally at parties. Alcohol meanwhile he would absolutely not tolerate the usage of under 21.
I've never abused either of those drugs (at least I don't think I have, I don't have any negative consequences in my life that I can attribute to either) on the other hand I have abused the hell out of DXM cough syrup (not the recent time, that was a once in several years occurance that I think was a positive thing) and I have also abused LSD (not as severely, but it certainly led to some negative consequences that could have been foreseen and avoided)
My main problems with pot being illegal are the funneling of money to organized crime and the gateway drug effect. Because if you know someone who sells pot chances are you know someone who sells something else it often serves as the gateway to harder drugs.
Pot Smoking Radicals Are Using the Internet to Turn America Into a Socialist Sex Utopia !!!!11!11one!one!111 (http://christwire.org/2010/10/pot-smoking-radicals-are-using-the-internet-to-turn-america-into-a-socialist-sex-utopia/)
:lulz: :argh!: :lulz:
Quote from: Telarus on October 08, 2010, 10:31:29 PM
Pot Smoking Radicals Are Using the Internet to Turn America Into a Socialist Sex Utopia !!!!11!11one!one!111 (http://christwire.org/2010/10/pot-smoking-radicals-are-using-the-internet-to-turn-america-into-a-socialist-sex-utopia/)
:lulz: :argh!: :lulz:
If they're trying to make it sound bad, why didn't they use DYStopia? :lulz:
Please tell me that's a parody site.
According to this NIDA report, one bowl of cannabis on average has a nutritional value equivalent to nearly 3 brussel sprouts:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Vitamins-minerals-health-benefits2009.html (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)
I mean, it's not much, and people should of course always take care to have a varied diet. But at least it shows that cannabis isn't all bad.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:40:31 AM
According to this NIDA report, one bowl of cannabis on average has a nutritional value equivalent to nearly 3 brussel sprouts:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Vitamins-minerals-health-benefits2009.html (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)
I mean, it's not much, and people should of course always take care to have a varied diet. But at least it shows that cannabis isn't all bad.
Naturally a Dutchman would look to find the nutritional value of weed in comparison to Belgian food.
It's from American research, just sayin'.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:47:28 AM
It's from American research, just sayin'.
Damn.
The NIH website should have tipped me off on that.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:40:31 AM
According to this NIDA report, one bowl of cannabis on average has a nutritional value equivalent to nearly 3 brussel sprouts:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Vitamins-minerals-health-benefits2009.html (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)
I mean, it's not much, and people should of course always take care to have a varied diet. But at least it shows that cannabis isn't all bad.
Mmmm, with a cheese sauce!!!
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:40:31 AM
According to this NIDA report, one bowl of cannabis on average has a nutritional value equivalent to nearly 3 brussel sprouts:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Vitamins-minerals-health-benefits2009.html (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)
I mean, it's not much, and people should of course always take care to have a varied diet. But at least it shows that cannabis isn't all bad.
link totally got me
there needs to be an emote combining :lulz: with this guy's fist :argh!:
Quote from: Cramulus on October 12, 2010, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:40:31 AM
According to this NIDA report, one bowl of cannabis on average has a nutritional value equivalent to nearly 3 brussel sprouts:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Vitamins-minerals-health-benefits2009.html (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)
I mean, it's not much, and people should of course always take care to have a varied diet. But at least it shows that cannabis isn't all bad.
link totally got me
there needs to be an emote combining :lulz: with this guy's fist :argh!:
Or just the fist on its own, so we can attach it to anything. Like the fap mote.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 12, 2010, 11:30:42 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 12, 2010, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 09, 2010, 12:40:31 AM
According to this NIDA report, one bowl of cannabis on average has a nutritional value equivalent to nearly 3 brussel sprouts:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/Vitamins-minerals-health-benefits2009.html (http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g213/05136/fd1e3fc3.jpg)
I mean, it's not much, and people should of course always take care to have a varied diet. But at least it shows that cannabis isn't all bad.
link totally got me
there needs to be an emote combining :lulz: with this guy's fist :argh!:
Or just the fist on its own, so we can attach it to anything. Like the fap mote.
or the goatse rabbit.
(http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/imagecache/300px/john-stewart-sign.jpg)
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/oct/30/marijuana_legalization_contingen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=608643&affid=fb
(http://entimg.s-msn.com/i/150/News/Oct10/ZachGalifianakis_150.jpg)
Galifianakis lights up a joint on late-night TV
Oct. 30, 2010, 12:18 PM EST
WENN
Funnyman Zach Galifianakis stunned TV viewers on Friday night when he lit up a joint and started smoking it during a political chat show.
"The Hangover" star was making a point about the upcoming vote for marijuana legalization on "Real Time With Bill Maher" when he took the roll-up and a lighter out of his blazer pocket.
He said, "It's a tricky thing politically to jump on that bandwagon (and vote for the legalization of pot) because I think that maybe people still see it as taboo."
Galifianakis then started puffing away and offered the joint to fellow guest Margaret Hoover, a conservative news reporter, who smelled the cigarette and verified it was the real thing.
The actor continued smoking as the political debate on the show continued, and then raised a laugh by screaming, "Oh my God, look at those dragons!," poking fun at the stereotype of stoners.
-------------
LOOK AT THE DRAGONS!!!!!! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
too bad Galifianakis is a major douchebag.
And so is Bill Maher.
Otherwise, good show.
Quote from: First City Hustle on October 31, 2010, 05:13:01 AM
too bad Galifianakis is a major douchebag.
Some reason he reminds me of ryan dunn from jackass
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562334/Abstract
Alzheimer's disease is the leading cause of dementia among the elderly, and with the ever-increasing size of this population, cases of Alzheimer's disease are expected to triple over the next 50 years. Consequently, the development of treatments that slow or halt the disease progression have become imperative to both improve the quality of life for patients as well as reduce the health care costs attributable to Alzheimer's disease. Here, we demonstrate that the active component of marijuana, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), competitively inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) as well as prevents AChE-induced amyloid β-peptide (Aβ) aggregation, the key pathological marker of Alzheimer's disease. Computational modeling of the THC-AChE interaction revealed that THC binds in the peripheral anionic site of AChE, the critical region involved in amyloidgenesis. Compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Aβ aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.
Keywords: Cannabinoids, Alzheimer's disease, Acetylcholinesterase
<<snip some very interesting SCIENCE!>>
Conclusion
(Emphasis mine)
We have demonstrated that THC competitively inhibits AChE, and furthermore, binds to the AChE PAS and diminishes Aβ aggregation.
In contrast to previous studies aimed at utilizing cannabinoids in Alzheimer's disease therapy,8-10 our results provide a mechanism whereby the THC molecule can directly impact Alzheimer's disease pathology. We note that while THC provides an interesting Alzheimer's disease drug lead, it is a psychoactive compound with strong affinity for endogenous cannabinoid receptors.
It is noteworthy that THC is a considerably more effective inhibitor of AChE-induced Aβ deposition than the approved drugs for Alzheimer's disease treatment, donepezil and tacrine, which reduced Aβ aggregation by only 22% and 7%, respectively, at twice the concentration used in our studies.7 Therefore, AChE inhibitors such as THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease, augmenting acetylcholine levels by preventing neurotransmitter degradation and reducing Aβ aggregation, thereby
simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer's disease.
I used to forget shit all the time, but then I started smoking dope, man!
\
:hippie:
On an unrelated note, I just learned there will be a medical marijuana dispensary opening up in my city. Right next to a craft store in a strip mall. I'll have to be sure to go welcome the new neighbors.
makes sense, though, to locate it next to the craft store.
keep the hippies from having to make two trips in the car.
There's also a dollar store in the same development so there will be access to some cheap munchies.
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 16, 2010, 01:21:53 PM
I used to forget shit all the time, but then I started smoking dope, man!
\
:hippie:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Who the fuck thought this up.....
-----
Counter-terrorism exercise features pot growers setting off bombs, seizing damhttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/terrorism-exercise-pot-growers-bombs/
Marijuana activists are criticizing -- and at least partly laughing off -- a counter-terrorism exercise carried out Wednesday in California that featured marijuana growers setting off bombs and seizing a dam.
Organized by the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the exercise involved 20 government agencies and some 250 personnel, according to a report from the Redding Record-Searchlight (http://www.redding.com/news/2010/nov/17/practice-makes-safety/). In the scenario, marijuana growers blew up a bus and car and seized control of northern California's Shasta Dam in a bid to free an imprisoned colleague.
QuoteThe Shasta Dam scenario began with the two mock bomb blasts followed by the "Red Cell" terrorist group taking over the dam in an effort to free one of their fellow marijuana growers from prison. Holding three people hostage, they threatened to flood the Sacramento River by rolling open the drum gates atop the dam. Those gates hold back the nearly full lake.
Jeff Stein at the
Washington Post points out (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/pot_growers_portrayed_as_terro.html) that "in a confidential catalog of terrorist threats, uncovered by Congressional Quarterly in 2005, the Department of Homeland Security did not include the region's marijuana growers." And marijuana advocates say there has never been a recorded case of marijuana-growing terrorists attacking public works.
"No, never," California NORML head Dale Gieringer told the Drug War Chronicle (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/nov/18/federal_and_state_police_conduct).
"That was so stupid," Geringer said of the exercise. "I don't know what inspired it. I can see the need to do better pat downs for air travelers to make sure they're not holding joints in their underpants, but this? It sounds like something some yahoo red county sheriff would dream up."
"This is a classic example of law enforcement's utterly inaccurate stereotype of who is involved with marijuana," a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project told the Chronicle. "For decades, they have [vilified] users and people involved in the industry to such an extent that they now equate them with terrorists."
The Record-Searchlight reports that the exercise was one of a series designed to improve security responses at major dams across the US.
QuoteLed by the Bureau of Reclamation — the federal agency that oversees the massive concrete dam that creates Lake Shasta — medical, fire and police agencies responded to the mock terrorist attack. During the drill the dam, the roads leading to it and a pair of popular fishing boat ramps were closed.
Part of the Bureau's Critical Infrastructure Crisis Response Exercise Program, which started in 2003, the exercise was the first of its kind at the dam, Harral said. Similar drills took place at Utah's Flaming Gorge Dam in 2003, Washington's Grand Coulee Dam in 2005 and Hoover Dam on the Nevada-Arizona line in 2008. A similar drill is set for Folsom Dam next.
More here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/pot_growers_portrayed_as_terro.html
Over 250 federal, state and local officials carried out a half million dollar LARP in Northern California using taxpayer money
/
:news:
Huh. Interesting. And most pot growers in No. Cali are actually just small-time farmers...there are contingents that go into the National forest and grow for the cartels, but most cartel farming takes place out of the state.
Would've been more accurate to make them crazy left-wing environmentalists like the cats in Earth First! who actually have been involved in domestic terrorism.
Gov decides not to have scientific advice on drugs any more
British government abandons policy of actually asking real scientists for scientific advice because it turns out that real scientists won't just rubber stamp whatever ridiculousness the politicians come up with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/science_advice/
The coalition government is ditching the requirement to seek scientific advice before setting drugs policy.
As part of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 government must take, or at least listen to, advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That committee needed to have at least six scientists on it.
But police reform legislation introduced last week will remove the requirement to listen to annoying scientists before setting policy.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 19, 2010, 06:58:14 PM
Would've been more accurate to make them crazy left-wing environmentalists like the cats in Earth First! who actually have been involved in domestic terrorism.
I believe in 2006 the FBI designated eco-terrorism as the main domestic terrorist threat in the USA.
Presumably because all Muslims are foreigners and all those crazy Patriot militia cats, uh, dont count.
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 08:01:41 AM
Gov decides not to have scientific advice on drugs any more
British government abandons policy of actually asking real scientists for scientific advice because it turns out that real scientists won't just rubber stamp whatever ridiculousness the politicians come up with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/science_advice/
The coalition government is ditching the requirement to seek scientific advice before setting drugs policy.
As part of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 government must take, or at least listen to, advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That committee needed to have at least six scientists on it.
But police reform legislation introduced last week will remove the requirement to listen to annoying scientists before setting policy.
Fantastic!
Somehow, I feel this has something to do with scientists ripping the government for its knee-jerk attempt to ban synthetic, legal, over the internet drugs based on a couple of deaths (which turns out had nothing to do with the drugs themselves) and tabloid hysteria.
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 08:01:41 AM
Gov decides not to have scientific advice on drugs any more
British government abandons policy of actually asking real scientists for scientific advice because it turns out that real scientists won't just rubber stamp whatever ridiculousness the politicians come up with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/science_advice/
The coalition government is ditching the requirement to seek scientific advice before setting drugs policy.
As part of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 government must take, or at least listen to, advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That committee needed to have at least six scientists on it.
But police reform legislation introduced last week will remove the requirement to listen to annoying scientists before setting policy.
Just want to point out this wouldn't fly in the U.S. in the current funding climate. You can't get funding these days if your work is not evidence-based.
I'm a little surprised this hasn't shown up in this thread yet:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/dea-bans-synthetic-marijuana.html
QuoteThe U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has enacted an emergency ban on five synthetic marijuana chemicals, The New York Times reported Nov. 24.
During the temporary ban, the DEA said they will research if the products should remain illegal, controlled substances permanently.
"Synthetic marijuana" -- which had been sold legally as incense under brand names such as "K2" and "Spice" -- is an herb-and-chemical compound that, when smoked, simulates the effects of the tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in marijuana.
"Makers of these harmful products mislead their customers into thinking that 'fake pot' is a harmless alternative to illegal drugs, but that is not the case," said Michele M. Leonhart, the acting administrator of the DEA. "Today's action will call further attention to the risks of ingesting unknown compounds and will hopefully take away any incentive to try these products."
The DEA said they designated the chemicals as Schedule I substances in response to a rise in reports from hospitals, poison-control centers, and law enforcement agencies since 2009.
At least fifteen states, several localities, and parts of Europe, previously had banned or restricted the products.
The one-year ban (with a possible six-month extension) will go into effect in about 30 days.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 07, 2010, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: Telarus on December 07, 2010, 08:01:41 AM
Gov decides not to have scientific advice on drugs any more
British government abandons policy of actually asking real scientists for scientific advice because it turns out that real scientists won't just rubber stamp whatever ridiculousness the politicians come up with
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/science_advice/
The coalition government is ditching the requirement to seek scientific advice before setting drugs policy.
As part of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 government must take, or at least listen to, advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That committee needed to have at least six scientists on it.
But police reform legislation introduced last week will remove the requirement to listen to annoying scientists before setting policy.
Just want to point out this wouldn't fly in the U.S. in the current funding climate. You can't get funding these days if your work is not evidence-based.
That would be sensible.
The government is also demanding addicts go cold turkey, rather than wean themselves off drugs via lower usage.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 07, 2010, 01:31:16 PM
I'm a little surprised this hasn't shown up in this thread yet:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/dea-bans-synthetic-marijuana.html
QuoteThe U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has enacted an emergency ban on five synthetic marijuana chemicals, The New York Times reported Nov. 24.
During the temporary ban, the DEA said they will research if the products should remain illegal, controlled substances permanently.
"Synthetic marijuana" -- which had been sold legally as incense under brand names such as "K2" and "Spice" -- is an herb-and-chemical compound that, when smoked, simulates the effects of the tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, in marijuana.
"Makers of these harmful products mislead their customers into thinking that 'fake pot' is a harmless alternative to illegal drugs, but that is not the case," said Michele M. Leonhart, the acting administrator of the DEA. "Today's action will call further attention to the risks of ingesting unknown compounds and will hopefully take away any incentive to try these products."
The DEA said they designated the chemicals as Schedule I substances in response to a rise in reports from hospitals, poison-control centers, and law enforcement agencies since 2009.
At least fifteen states, several localities, and parts of Europe, previously had banned or restricted the products.
The one-year ban (with a possible six-month extension) will go into effect in about 30 days.
So the synthetic stuff is putting people in hospitals and poison control centers... while the actual stuff doesn't.
Now that's some irony.
The very existence of K2 comes from the dogmatic idealization of Prohibition (much like the majority share of the black market violence). I'm all for banning K2, but not for it's THC content (for the harm that has been evidentarily demonstrated).
does anybody have links to data about the hospitals and poison control centers?
I don't have data, just anecdotal stuff from my friend and colleague who works at the New England Poison Center. They have been getting a lot of calls regarding the K2 and Spice, mostly from parents I think.
I think I read that at high doses it may cause seizures in some people... also that at very high doses it may be possible to overdose, since the synthetic stuff apparently connects to the receptors in the brain better than actual THC.
However, I haven't found anything that directly ties Spice to death or serious problems, there were a couple deaths in Indiana one of which was a person that had recently smoked Spice. There were also some people that showed up at hospital with "Cannabis Intoxication" symptoms but didn't test positive for it (since they were using the synthetic).
Most of the warnings I've seen in my short Internet search had more to do with it being an untested chemical compound with unknown effects, rather than any list of known/defined effects.
I haven't tried it and I generally shy away from any drug they're selling at the local 7/11.
(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/833/dunecatu.jpg)
(edit for fixing stupid hotlink prevention stupidness stupidheads i hate those kind of people)
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/12/jury_pool_in_marijuana_case_stages_mutiny_wont_con.php
Montana jury pool 'stages a mutiny' at the attempt to prosecute this guy for 1/16 of an ounce, jury can't get seated for this charge. Judge, defense and prosecutor work out a deal where he pleads 'no guilt', but still gets sentenced (20 years !! 19 of them suspended, the remaining 1 year to be served along side his prior conviction of Theft).
This case's jury was not allowed to be seated until the judge and prosecutor had weeded out (lol) everyone there who knew about 'jury nullification' (see the comment about dismissing potential jurors who had 'philosophical objections').
Also, it's buried in at the end, but the Judge comments on the age range of the objectors, and that the most vocal was a 60yr old woman, and wisely points out that even if he got a jury of 12 people who bought hard line drug prohibition, would that be a neutral group of the accused 'peers'? Or would it just be a minority of the population biased in the 'pro- prohibition' direction.
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/10/restricting-sale-of.html
Restricting sale of cold medicine creates lucrative black marketMark Frauenfelder at 10:13 PM Monday, Jan 10, 2011
The tracking system laws that make it inconvenient to buy cold medicine have not slowed down the meth trade one bit. In fact, they've created a new "sub-criminal culture," says an agent with the DEA.
QuoteThe practice has not only failed to curb the meth trade, which is growing again after a brief decline. It also created a vast and highly lucrative market for profiteers to buy over-the-counter pills and sell them to meth producers at a huge markup.
...
Since tracking laws were enacted beginning in 2006, the number of meth busts nationwide has started climbing again. Some experts say the black market for cold pills contributed to that spike. Other factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Radley Balko of Reason says: "
Meth use was also up 34 percent in 2009. So the new laws are inconveniencing law-abiding people who want to treat cold and allergy symptoms, have had either zero or a positive effect on meth use, have lured new people into the meth trade, and have created a bigger market for smuggling meth and meth ingredients into the country from Mexico."
This is a big win for law enforcement and the prison industry. Look for even more restrictive cold medicine laws in the future.
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/10/shockingly-anti-meth-laws-have-had-unintended-consequences/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+radleybalko+%28The+Agitator%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Tracked down the original article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drug_war_tracking_meth
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2011, 07:42:11 AM
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/10/restricting-sale-of.html
Restricting sale of cold medicine creates lucrative black market
Mark Frauenfelder at 10:13 PM Monday, Jan 10, 2011
The tracking system laws that make it inconvenient to buy cold medicine have not slowed down the meth trade one bit. In fact, they've created a new "sub-criminal culture," says an agent with the DEA.
QuoteThe practice has not only failed to curb the meth trade, which is growing again after a brief decline. It also created a vast and highly lucrative market for profiteers to buy over-the-counter pills and sell them to meth producers at a huge markup.
...
Since tracking laws were enacted beginning in 2006, the number of meth busts nationwide has started climbing again. Some experts say the black market for cold pills contributed to that spike. Other factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Radley Balko of Reason says: "Meth use was also up 34 percent in 2009. So the new laws are inconveniencing law-abiding people who want to treat cold and allergy symptoms, have had either zero or a positive effect on meth use, have lured new people into the meth trade, and have created a bigger market for smuggling meth and meth ingredients into the country from Mexico."
This is a big win for law enforcement and the prison industry. Look for even more restrictive cold medicine laws in the future.
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/10/shockingly-anti-meth-laws-have-had-unintended-consequences/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+radleybalko+%28The+Agitator%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Just want to point out that the article was reasonable and balanced until the bolded sentence, which, is 100% horseshit. The reasons to put cold medicines behind the counter were many but I can tell you that one of them was NOT to pad the bank accounts of wardens and police chiefs. It was partly in response to kids and others getting recipes to make meth off the internet, getting the stuff at the pharmacy, and making small batches of meth for personal use/experimentation at home. As with any policy, there is never 100% guarantee it will have the impact you hope for. So obviously, those who make the policies need to take this data and information into account and adjust.
But it really is disgusting to me, as someone who works shoulder to shoulder with people in law enforcement, to take this and turn it on law enforcement officials and blame them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 01:23:44 PM
Quote from: Telarus on January 11, 2011, 07:42:11 AM
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/10/restricting-sale-of.html
Restricting sale of cold medicine creates lucrative black market
Mark Frauenfelder at 10:13 PM Monday, Jan 10, 2011
The tracking system laws that make it inconvenient to buy cold medicine have not slowed down the meth trade one bit. In fact, they've created a new "sub-criminal culture," says an agent with the DEA.
QuoteThe practice has not only failed to curb the meth trade, which is growing again after a brief decline. It also created a vast and highly lucrative market for profiteers to buy over-the-counter pills and sell them to meth producers at a huge markup.
...
Since tracking laws were enacted beginning in 2006, the number of meth busts nationwide has started climbing again. Some experts say the black market for cold pills contributed to that spike. Other factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Radley Balko of Reason says: "Meth use was also up 34 percent in 2009. So the new laws are inconveniencing law-abiding people who want to treat cold and allergy symptoms, have had either zero or a positive effect on meth use, have lured new people into the meth trade, and have created a bigger market for smuggling meth and meth ingredients into the country from Mexico."
This is a big win for law enforcement and the prison industry. Look for even more restrictive cold medicine laws in the future.
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/10/shockingly-anti-meth-laws-have-had-unintended-consequences/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+radleybalko+%28The+Agitator%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Just want to point out that the article was reasonable and balanced until the bolded sentence, which, is 100% horseshit. The reasons to put cold medicines behind the counter were many but I can tell you that one of them was NOT to pad the bank accounts of wardens and police chiefs. It was partly in response to kids and others getting recipes to make meth off the internet, getting the stuff at the pharmacy, and making small batches of meth for personal use/experimentation at home. As with any policy, there is never 100% guarantee it will have the impact you hope for. So obviously, those who make the policies need to take this data and information into account and adjust.
But it really is disgusting to me, as someone who works shoulder to shoulder with people in law enforcement, to take this and turn it on law enforcement officials and blame them.
I think that was Telarus' comment... I didn't see it in the linked blog. The linked blog ended with:
QuoteBut perhaps we should go easy on the politicians who passed these laws. I mean, it's not like anyone could possibly have predicted any of this.
with a link to Reason Magazine:
http://reason.com/search?cx=000107342346889757597%3Ascm_knrboh8&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=meth+cold+medicine&sa=Search#1224
All I know is that they arrested a man here for buying an extra package of sudafed to take to camp with him. The extra pack put them over the limit. Despite common sense, the man was arrested and arraigned.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
All I know is that they arrested a man here for buying an extra package of sudafed to take to camp with him. The extra pack put them over the limit. Despite common sense, the man was arrested and arraigned.
Welcome to the land of the free, the home of the brave and the trashcan of a million screaming noses.
There will always be instances where enforcement goes too far, but that is the case with any policy, ordinance, or law. But I absolutely reject the idea that it is the norm and that the escalation of meth use is to be put squarely on the shoulders of law enforcement and prisons.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 03:31:30 PM
There will always be instances where enforcement goes too far, but that is the case with any policy, ordinance, or law. But I absolutely reject the idea that it is the norm and that the escalation of meth use is to be put squarely on the shoulders of law enforcement and prisons.
The "going too far" bit is hardwired into the law, here. It is in fact the norm. If your household uses too much sudafed - even if you can prove you were doing so legally and within the suggested usage of the drug - the person who bought the overage goes to jail.
If police associations lobbied for the law or supported it, then they are, even in a small way, responsible for its failings and the continued growth of meth. They chose a strategy which didn't work and I'm sure if they had asked a couple of criminologists and practising prosecutors, would've known didn't work. In the good old days, in the military, we used to hang people for failures like that. Not that it really helped any (the command also, amusingly, chose the wrong strategy) but it did stop the same gang of idiots making the same mistakes over and over again.
It's perfectly ok to potentially incarcerate and ruin the lives of otherwise law abiding citizens as long as we're able to catch the real criminals and force them to find black market solutions to people's addictions.
Because prohibiting drugs has always made them harder to get your hands on.
right?
"We're making a better world. All of them. Better worlds."
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2011, 03:44:54 PM
If police associations lobbied for the law or supported it, then they are, even in a small way, responsible for its failings and the continued growth of meth. They chose a strategy which didn't work and I'm sure if they had asked a couple of criminologists and practising prosecutors, would've known didn't work. In the good old days, in the military, we used to hang people for failures like that. Not that it really helped any (the command also, amusingly, chose the wrong strategy) but it did stop the same gang of idiots making the same mistakes over and over again.
Yes, if. I'm not aware of any police unions doing so, and it certainly didn't happen in my state. Putting cold medicines behind the counter was a good faith effort to keep people from establishing DIY meth labs. It really wasn't as much intended to trip up or combat big time criminal organizations or meth operations. And as noted in what Telarus posted, there are other factors in the rise of meth and a significant source is the stuff coming from Mexico.
I'm all for re-examining policies to see what can be done differently, but I just don't like the blame game especially when it is based in an emotional culture of distrust for law enforcement and not hard-linked facts.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 04:10:52 PM
I'm all for re-examining policies to see what can be done differently, but I just don't like the blame game especially when it is based in an emotional culture of distrust for law enforcement and not hard-linked facts.
The guy was arrested. That's a hard-linked fact.
Yes, and as I said there will be cases where it goes too far but that is different then a general, blanket indictment of law enforcement such as the one Telarus made.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Yes, and as I said there will be cases where it goes too far but that is different then a general, blanket indictment of law enforcement such as the one Telarus made.
It can be difficult to remain objective in the face of a minority that are always in the spotlight. I know some cops that are good people, that just want to help (first hand). I know some cops that confiscate pot and don't charge the person (first hand). I know some cops that take the confiscated pot to strip clubs and trade it for lap dances (second hand)... and I know some cops that are complete and utter assholes (first hand, second hand, third hand).
Even though I KNOW good cops, when shit happens I find myself throwing them all in a lump. Its not fair, but its human.
:lulz: :horrormirth:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 11, 2011, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Yes, and as I said there will be cases where it goes too far but that is different then a general, blanket indictment of law enforcement such as the one Telarus made.
It can be difficult to remain objective in the face of a minority that are always in the spotlight. I know some cops that are good people, that just want to help (first hand). I know some cops that confiscate pot and don't charge the person (first hand). I know some cops that take the confiscated pot to strip clubs and trade it for lap dances (second hand)... and I know some cops that are complete and utter assholes (first hand, second hand, third hand).
Even though I KNOW good cops, when shit happens I find myself throwing them all in a lump. Its not fair, but its human.
:lulz: :horrormirth:
I don't know any good cops. Not one. Well, one detective, but he's become a drunk.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 05:25:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 11, 2011, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Yes, and as I said there will be cases where it goes too far but that is different then a general, blanket indictment of law enforcement such as the one Telarus made.
It can be difficult to remain objective in the face of a minority that are always in the spotlight. I know some cops that are good people, that just want to help (first hand). I know some cops that confiscate pot and don't charge the person (first hand). I know some cops that take the confiscated pot to strip clubs and trade it for lap dances (second hand)... and I know some cops that are complete and utter assholes (first hand, second hand, third hand).
Even though I KNOW good cops, when shit happens I find myself throwing them all in a lump. Its not fair, but its human.
:lulz: :horrormirth:
I don't know any good cops. Not one. Well, one detective, but he's become a drunk.
Well, you live in Arizona... I think there's only about 23 good 'people' in Arizona. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 11, 2011, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2011, 05:25:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 11, 2011, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 04:55:08 PM
Yes, and as I said there will be cases where it goes too far but that is different then a general, blanket indictment of law enforcement such as the one Telarus made.
It can be difficult to remain objective in the face of a minority that are always in the spotlight. I know some cops that are good people, that just want to help (first hand). I know some cops that confiscate pot and don't charge the person (first hand). I know some cops that take the confiscated pot to strip clubs and trade it for lap dances (second hand)... and I know some cops that are complete and utter assholes (first hand, second hand, third hand).
Even though I KNOW good cops, when shit happens I find myself throwing them all in a lump. Its not fair, but its human.
:lulz: :horrormirth:
I don't know any good cops. Not one. Well, one detective, but he's become a drunk.
Well, you live in Arizona... I think there's only about 23 good 'people' in Arizona. :lulz:
Also, my cousins who are cops in Peel County, Ontario, and in the OPP. They are cunts, one and all, and shouldn't be trusted with enough power to go to the bathroom themselves, let alone carry a gun.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 01:23:44 PM
Just want to point out that the article was reasonable and balanced until the bolded sentence, which, is 100% horseshit. The reasons to put cold medicines behind the counter were many but I can tell you that one of them was NOT to pad the bank accounts of wardens and police chiefs. It was partly in response to kids and others getting recipes to make meth off the internet, getting the stuff at the pharmacy, and making small batches of meth for personal use/experimentation at home. As with any policy, there is never 100% guarantee it will have the impact you hope for. So obviously, those who make the policies need to take this data and information into account and adjust.
But it really is disgusting to me, as someone who works shoulder to shoulder with people in law enforcement, to take this and turn it on law enforcement officials and blame them.
I agree with you.
The bolded part was from the Boing Boing post (not my statement as Tosk had suggested), and it set off my bias alarm. Which is why I tracked down the original article ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_drug_war_tracking_meth ), but the bias is there too (just in this case, pro-LE glossing over of facts), which makes the Boing Boing bias reactionary (not excusable, but more understandable).
But, whatever the opinions, the fact remains that this law CREATED a new 'sub-criminal' black market, which drove up meth use and caught up more people in the prison-for-profit system. The yahoo article I cited directly compares this to Oregon's success (we made pseudo-effedrine
prescription only, to the wailing and nashing of teeth of multi-national drug companies).
So, we have 2 models enacted in similar cultures with 2 distinct results. One pandered to the multinational drug companies and increased use and societal involvement in the meth trade, the other did not. The results really speak for themselves.
:Edit: I also have a 'real human' point of contact with LEOs. My martial arts Sensei is a local county Deputy.
QuoteOther factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Given the other factors, and the Mexican cartels are a significant factor and contributor to the meth trade in America, I argue that one cannot definitively state the cause in the increase of meth busts and meth use is due to the cited policy.
While I agree you can't blame the increase on the laws, this does strongly suggest that the laws are ineffectual except as a pay raise for the prison industry.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 06:24:34 PM
QuoteOther factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Given the other factors, and the Mexican cartels are a significant factor and contributor to the meth trade in America, I argue that one cannot definitively state the cause in the increase of meth busts and meth use is due to the cited policy.
True, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation... and there are always many factors to consider.
However, if the law had not been put into place, its unlikely that the drug cartels would have had a market for 'black market sudafed'... meaning that while some people would still be cooking up meth, the money wouldn't be lining the pockets of the mexican drug cartels... the people making it wouldn't be dealing with the mexican drug cartels and overall there wouldn't be a smell of fried onions.
It seems to me that there is a recurring pattern with drug laws.
X is made illegal.
Criminals begin selling X.
Market for X increases.
Is it due to the law, or the marketing practices of the criminals, or is it completely unrelated and the market would have increased anyway?
If its due to the law, then we need to rethink our drug laws. If its due to the criminals then, again, we need to revisit the laws... if its completely unrelated to the law and this spike would have happened anyway... then what exactly is the law accomplishing?
I know you and I disagree on the philosophy here... but so far, it doesn't seem that making something illegal does much beyond landing more people in the judicial system*.
*I admit that the sudafed issue may help control some DIY kids from making their own meth... but I think we can both agree that likely means they're just buying from someone else now.
No, just no, if you read the actual article, the whole article, you get more of the story. The fact is that initially the new tracking system was effective, very effective in the first couple of years. But, here's the thing, criminals are criminals, because that is what they are good at. They found a way to game the system, but this is not unique to this particular criminal code. You see criminals gaming all kinds of laws on our books.
The other piece is that busts are up because the tracking system give police better access to information about meth operations. These operations are tripping the system when they go over the limit and then the police go in and make the busts. So the rise in busts isn't because of more meth production, it is because of better information to catch more criminals.
But if you just read the hatchet job by Boing Boing, you don't get that side of the story, that is cleverly left out because it doesn't fit the anti-Law Enforcement narrative.
Yeah, that Boing Boing blurb was awful, and I almost regret posting it before digging down to the original source.
It even misquotes the statistics (well, it quotes the random blog, which misquotes the statistics in the original source).
Here's the sections and actual numbers that jumped out at me (rearranged to cut some of the biased commentary, broken by subject matter):
Bust/LEO activity statistics (only quoting the highlevel statistics here, so they're not confused with the next section):
QuoteThe AP reviewed DEA data spanning nearly a decade, from 2000 to 2009, and conducted interviews with a wide array of police and government officials.
Since tracking laws were enacted beginning in 2006, the number of meth busts nationwide has started climbing again.
Meth-related activity is on the rise again nationally, up 34 percent in 2009, the year with the most recent figures. That number includes arrests, seizures of the drug and the discovery of abandoned meth-production sites.
Use Statistics
QuoteMeth arrests and lab busts are not the only indicator that use of the drug is on the rise. In September, the annual report from the federal government's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showed a 60 percent one-year increase in the number of meth users.
Prescription Only/Multinational drug corp stuff:
QuoteThe pharmaceutical industry has spent several million dollars to fund the tracking systems. For drug makers, that is far cheaper than one alternative — making the medication available only by prescription.
Oregon began requiring a prescription for pseudoephedrine products in 2006. Mississippi became the second state to do so in July, and Missouri's governor is asking lawmakers to follow suit in 2011.
If more states do the same, it could be devastating for makers of cold and sinus pills. The pseudoephedrine market is estimated at more than $550 million annually.
The state (of Oregon) had 191 meth incidents in 2005, the year before the prescription-only law. By 2009, it had 12. <--- an LEO activity statistic, not a use statistic
Missouri led the nation in meth incidents in 2009 for the seventh straight year. The state is in the early stages of electronic tracking, but its meth problem is so bad that more than a dozen communities have passed their own prescription laws.
Very telling blurb:
Quote"Where else can you make a 750 percent profit in 45 minutes?" asked Grellner, former president of the Missouri Narcotics Officers Association.
And, finally, some HAHA-Only-Serious editing:
QuoteBoggs, the DEA agent, didn't take a stand on prescription laws, but said the pill brokers are out of control: "They've We've created this whole other effort for law enforcement."
Again, the problem with looking at an increase in the number of busts is you don't actually know why there is an increase. As the article notes, one reason could be as I mentioned that this data tracking system, well, gives police more data for tracking criminals. So it could very well be you have the same number of criminals but police have better tools to catch them, and so, are catching more of them.
And if that's the case, then the tracking system isn't a failure, it's a success. Because that was the point of the tracking system, to set a ceiling for how much cold medicine you could buy at a whack and to put in to place a mechanism that tips off pharmacists, and then the authorities, when people are going over that max, and likely hoarding for the purposes of meth production.
Now, as I said, criminals are criminals because that is what they are good at, so yes we see this smurfing thing where criminals are banding together to subvert the system. But that will happen with any kind of system. So it means you need to adjust the system to try to close that loophole.
But in the end there is nothing in this data that provides a clear-cut indictment of law enforcement or this data tracking policy.
Oh, I'm totally with you there.
That's why I separated out the Use statistics, and contrasted national LE 'incidents' with the Oregon LE 'incidents'. I believe those were jumbled in the article on purpose (look how the blog quoted on Boing Boing totally misconstrued them, it cited the 34% number as an increase in use).
This indicates to me that if States or Agencies continue to push "behind the counter" over "prescription only", then pandering to the people who stand to make a profit (drug companies, and those who profit from incarcerating the lower class tempted by "750% profit in 45 minutes") is more important than resolving the social harm caused by the substance. Profits > People.
What will be truly telling is how state agencies and law-making bodies deal with this inconsistency. They have the option of dismantling this black market that the law created, OR using it as a further excuse to increase funding for certain groups (yours not traditionally included, which pisses me off RWHN).
Well, I'm federally funded, so, technically speaking, I am part of the Man.
Quote"Where else can you make a 750 percent profit in 45 minutes?"
The banking industry. And you don't even have to actually do anything profitable either. In fact, if you become extremely unprofitable, it's probably better.
Ironically, the banking industry in late 2008 was propped up almost entirely by an influx of drug profits. A good, if fictional account of this can be found in John le Carre's latest book (he signed mine for me, because I'm
special. And knew people working at the store and so was allowed in before it was opened). And both banks and drugs tend to be involved in illegal activities involving governments, at some point or another, if those behind them are successful enough, or even not in the case of one R. Allen Stanford.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 06:24:34 PM
QuoteOther factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Given the other factors, and the Mexican cartels are a significant factor and contributor to the meth trade in America, I argue that one cannot definitively state the cause in the increase of meth busts and meth use is due to the cited policy.
You don't think it's likely that that the increased involvement of the Mexican Cartels is directly linked to efforts to make the precursor chemicals more difficult to obtain in the US?
Also...it should be pointed out that the very concept of "DIY Meth Labs", while not unreal, is laughable. And the idea that a high school kid could just go to the drug store and get all the supplies to make meth and then get a recipe off the internet, well, you'd know who that kid was pretty quickly because he'd either blow himself up or poison himself. There are NO reliable meth recipes on the internet. None. At all. And it's a more complicated and dangerous process that people who have no experience with it seem to think.
Good point from ECH. The Mexican Cartels are likely filling the market left void by US crackdown efforts. Across the border, after all, those protections are not in place, and as American groups dealing meth go under, it seems rather obvious they would take over. And pursuing those new markets quite aggressively. There is a phenomenon, quite well noted in criminology, where organized gangs are often replaced by gangs who are even more violent and aggressive in their activities than their predecessors, for obvious reasons. It seems quite likely this particular dynamic is at play in this situation.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 12, 2011, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 06:24:34 PM
QuoteOther factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Given the other factors, and the Mexican cartels are a significant factor and contributor to the meth trade in America, I argue that one cannot definitively state the cause in the increase of meth busts and meth use is due to the cited policy.
You don't think it's likely that that the increased involvement of the Mexican Cartels is directly linked to efforts to make the precursor chemicals more difficult to obtain in the US?
No. I think it's due to increased demand.
QuoteAlso...it should be pointed out that the very concept of "DIY Meth Labs", while not unreal, is laughable. And the idea that a high school kid could just go to the drug store and get all the supplies to make meth and then get a recipe off the internet, well, you'd know who that kid was pretty quickly because he'd either blow himself up or poison himself. There are NO reliable meth recipes on the internet. None. At all. And it's a more complicated and dangerous process that people who have no experience with it seem to think.
Sorry, I've seen these labs in my community. Including one that got caught because it did blow up and catch fire. I have first hand knowledge from my police partners that these labs do exist.
got a chemist friend of mine who got caught up with some bad sorts in his 30's and started cooking for them. The sorts that will just put a bullet in your brain if they show up to collect and the weight is too light for the amount of ingredients they delivered to him.
He said the thing they always seemed to have the hardest time acquiring was red phospherous. Of course, this was in the early 90's so things may have changed on that front.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2011, 03:09:02 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 12, 2011, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2011, 06:24:34 PM
QuoteOther factors are at play, too, such as meth trafficking by Mexican cartels and new methods for making small amounts of meth.
Given the other factors, and the Mexican cartels are a significant factor and contributor to the meth trade in America, I argue that one cannot definitively state the cause in the increase of meth busts and meth use is due to the cited policy.
You don't think it's likely that that the increased involvement of the Mexican Cartels is directly linked to efforts to make the precursor chemicals more difficult to obtain in the US?
No. I think it's due to increased demand.
But wouldn't that increase in demand be a result of the decrease of supply? :?
Yeah, the supply from Mexico. You guys are trying to put the cart before the horse here. The meth trade in the U.S. has historically and largely come out of Mexico and it has basically spread across the U.S. from SouthWest to NorthEast, though it has been somewhat slow to get a big foothold in New England. But that's only because the cost/benefit ratio of getting the drugs all the way up here from Mexico isn't quite worth it yet, but that will not last long. The tracking system really is more about the domestic operations, not the operations originating from Mexico.
But you're wrong. The meth trade in the US has historically and largely been overwhelmingly comprised of domestically-produced product. It's only been recently, contemporaneous to the regulations on pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals, that the Mexican cartels have gotten involved in the US meth trade.
I think, given time, methheads will reslove the issue on their own. And as a bonus give WBC something to do.
Meth is (compared to other things like LSD or Ecstasy) really easy to make. importing it from Mexico is stupid so long as the precursor ingredients are available.
Meth is the drug that I personally consider the worst of any out there, the effects that I have seen it have on people are worse than any other, I still think it is better that it be made by Joe Skinhead and his inbred cousins than that it help fund the overthrow of the Mexican government.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 12, 2011, 07:23:16 PM
Meth is the drug that I personally consider the worst of any out there, the effects that I have seen it have on people are worse than any other
IAWTC
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 12, 2011, 07:51:48 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 12, 2011, 07:23:16 PM
Meth is the drug that I personally consider the worst of any out there, the effects that I have seen it have on people are worse than any other
IAWTC
I put it on the same level as oxycontin or heroin addiction for guaranteeing to fuck your life up.
Everyone always forgets cocaine.
Quote from: Charley Brown on January 12, 2011, 11:39:52 PM
Everyone always forgets cocaine.
oh no. That one's right up there in my mind as well.
Should have put it in the last post actually. Good call Charley.
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 12, 2011, 07:19:57 PM
But you're wrong. The meth trade in the US has historically and largely been overwhelmingly comprised of domestically-produced product. It's only been recently, contemporaneous to the regulations on pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals, that the Mexican cartels have gotten involved in the US meth trade.
[citation needed]
Meth started coming into the States from Mexico back in the 90s and has dominated the trade ever since. It didn't magically crop up when this policy went into place.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on January 12, 2011, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 12, 2011, 07:51:48 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 12, 2011, 07:23:16 PM
Meth is the drug that I personally consider the worst of any out there, the effects that I have seen it have on people are worse than any other
IAWTC
I put it on the same level as oxycontin or heroin addiction for guaranteeing to fuck your life up.
Heroin's effects on the body are nowhere near as severe as meth. The effects on the mind aren't as bad either, the real problem with heroin is how incredibly addictive it is. Meth isn't as addictive as heroin, but it'll physically wreck you, and the mental effects of not sleeping add up pretty quickly.
Tell that to Layne Staley.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 13, 2011, 01:06:32 AM
Tell that to Layne Staley.
Layne Staley was a junkie for decades. Methheads don't make it for decades.
The worst physiological effect pure heroin has on the body, addictiveness aside, is constipation. The problem is finding said pure heroin in the first place. Also, secondary effects arising from addiction can be an issue.
Pure meth, by contrast, causes severe cognitive impairment, irreversible neurological damage, fatigue and psychosis which resists normal forms of treatment. And that's before we get into secondary effects.
I know, given the choice, which of the two I'd prefer.
As far as I know, most of the damage from heroin is actually caused by the person's unwillingness to take care of themselves on a day-to-day basis.
But it still happens because of the drug, so unless you can afford a nurse/taskmaster, the results are the same as if the drug directly caused it.
But, yeah, meth is far worse, IMO.
Quote from: RWHN on January 13, 2011, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hipster on January 12, 2011, 07:19:57 PM
But you're wrong. The meth trade in the US has historically and largely been overwhelmingly comprised of domestically-produced product. It's only been recently, contemporaneous to the regulations on pseudoephedrine and other precursor chemicals, that the Mexican cartels have gotten involved in the US meth trade.
[citation needed]
Meth started coming into the States from Mexico back in the 90s and has dominated the trade ever since. It didn't magically crop up when this policy went into place.
Meth started coming into the states from Mexico back in the 60's, and kept doing so in a relatively small amount (in terms of the percentage of the overall american meth market) until fairly recently, right about the same time that access to important precursor chemicals started being regulated at the state level (and at the federal level in the case of ephedrine). The only citation I have to offer is firsthand experience in the matter during the relevant timeframe (which was, of course, not gained by me firsthand but rather relayed to me through microscopic stereo implants in my head, got that Mr. teh DEA bots?)
To say that the regulation and limitation of precursor chemicals did not have a direct and immediate impact on the cost-effectiveness of domestic production vs. outsourcing to Mexico is just silly.
For the record, I'm in favor of
some of the regulations (mostly at the bulk levels and for the more horrific chemicals like anhydrous ammonia and red phosphorus) but NOT in favor of the fact that I can't buy goddamn cold medicine that WORKS anymore.
http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2011/01/responding-to-leap-obama-says.html
Obama started a you-tube contest to vote up the #1 question the internet wants to ask him.
#1 happened to be a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that straight out asked about the violence feuled by prohibition.
Obama's response, "We should be able to talk about it as an option, but personally, I'm against it." or something along those lines. Go see for yourself.
Meanwhile, on the Front Lines:
Latin American statesmen question drugs war strategy (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0127/1224288397742.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d415a933cade5b5%2C0)
Which is pretty easy to believe once you learn that drug smugglers are using medieval war tech to get around border security (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/26/20110126arizona-border-marijuana-catapult.html).
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2011/obama-advocates-curbing.html
An article that summarizes Obama's comments from the YouTube Q&A session referred to earlier.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150111337848656&id=1414312703
Medical Marijuana, A Cure for Cancer?
Robert Melamede, Ph.D.
Biology Dept. UCCS, Cannabis Science Inc, Phoenix Tears Foundation
ABSTRACT
Every vertebrate, from the time of conception till the time of death, literally has all body systems homeostatically regulated by endocannabinoids (marijuana-like compounds produced by the body). Illnesses are biochemical imbalances, failures of homeostasis. By being alive, all organisms suffer from the common biochemical imbalances that underlie aging and all age-related illness, including autoimmune, cognitive, cardiovascular diseases, as well as cancers.
Over 600 peer reviewed articles show that numerous cancer types (lung, breast, prostate, glioma, thyroid, leukemia, lymphoma, basil cell carcinoma, melanoma, etc) are killed by cannabinoids in tissue culture and animal studies. Furthermore, cannabinoids inhibit the biochemical pathways involved in metastasis and drug resistance. The question that naturally arises is "Why is a plant that inhibits aging, kills cancers, and whose activity is found in mother's milk illegal?
Because federal and state governments have failed to implement marijuana policies that are reflective of modern scientific knowledge and thousands of years of medical history, the people have demanded, and gained access to this miraculous medicine through direct vote with the initiative process. In effect, marijuana clinical efforts are now in the hands of the people and the medical marijuana community. This poster provides dramatic photographic evidence of cannabis extracts curing basal-cell carcinoma via it's topical application.
HISTORY
This Australian woman grew up in Queensland where the population suffers from the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Basal cell carcinoma is the most common form of cancer with over 800,000 cases occurring each year in the US.
She had a number of surgeries to remove previous lesions diagnosed as basal cell carcinomas.
After a new lesion appeared on her right cheek, alternative therapies that included the topical application of cannabis extracts were tried.
Cannabis extracts were applied daily until her surgeon stated that there was no need for surgery since the lesion on her cheek was gone, However, a new lesion had appeared on her right nostril.
The series of photos below documents the disappearance of the lesion on the nostril after ten days of self-administering topical cannabis extracts.
REFERENCES
Toth, B. I. et al. Endocannabinoids Modulate Human Epidermal Keratinocyte Proliferation and Survival via the Sequential Engagement of Cannabinoid Receptor-1 and Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid-1. J Invest Dermatol (2011).
Bilkei-Gorzo, A. et al. Early onset of aging-like changes is restricted to cognitive abilities and skin structure in Cnr1(-/-) mice. Neurobiol Aging (2010).
Van Dross, R. T. Metabolism of anandamide by COX-2 is necessary for endocannabinoid-induced cell death in tumorigenic keratinocytes. Mol Carcinog (2009).Biro, T.,
Toth, B. I., Hasko, G., Paus, R. & Pacher, P. The endocannabinoid system of the skin in health and disease: novel perspectives and therapeutic opportunities. Trends Pharmacol Sci (2009).
Wilkinson, J. D. & Williamson, E. M. Cannabinoids inhibit human keratinocyte proliferation through a non-CB1/CB2 mechanism and have a potential therapeutic value in the treatment of psoriasis. J Dermatol Sci 45, 87-92 (2007).
http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/220-cannabis-science-extracts-kill-cancer-cells.html
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/183586_1900019986254_1414312703_2281865_7181626_n.jpg)
(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/181612_1900020306262_1414312703_2281866_376284_n.jpg)
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/184914_1900020506267_1414312703_2281867_849723_n.jpg)
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/180729_1900020626270_1414312703_2281868_3751178_n.jpg)
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/183790_1900020866276_1414312703_2281869_5605532_n.jpg)
(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/184877_1900021066281_1414312703_2281870_5700925_n.jpg)
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/180962_1900021226285_1414312703_2281871_6443140_n.jpg)
White House Requests Meeting with Seattle Times to Bully Against Pro-Pot Editorials
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/25/white-house-requested-meeting-with-seattle-times-editorial-board-to-bully-against-pro-pot-articles
The Stranger has learned that immediately after the Seattle Times ran an editorial (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2014270472_edit20legal.html) last week supporting a bill to tax and regulate marijuana, the newspaper got a phone call from Washington, D.C. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske wanted to fly to Seattle to speak personally with the paper's full editorial board.
The meeting is scheduled for next Friday, an apparent attempt by the federal government to pressure the state's largest newspaper to oppose marijuana legalization. Or at least turn down the volume on its new-found bullhorn to legalize pot.
Bruce Ramsey, the Seattle Times editorial writer who wrote the unbylined piece, says the White House called right "right after our editorial ran, so I drew the obvious conclusion... he didn't like our editorial."
"MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed," the newspaper wrote on February 18. "The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington."
This isn't the first time the Obama Administration has campaigned to keep pot illegal. Kerlikowske, who is also Seattle's former police chief, also traveled to California last fall to campaign against Prop 19, a measure to decriminalize marijuana and authorize jurisdictions to tax and regulate it.
Is the Seattle Times the more reticent to speak up? Apparently not. It ran another pro-pot editorial in today's paper.
Kerlikowske's office has not yet responded to a request for comment.
-----------------------
Petition to Webcast the meeting:
http://control.mpp.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3951
Some interesting developments on this front.
Dr. Melamede has received verbal confirmation from the above woman's physician that the cancer on her nose is completely gone. Currently waiting on written confirmation for a press release.
Also:
Schizophrenia link to cannabis deniedhttp://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Schizophrenia-link-cannabis-denied/article-1288926-detail/article.html
QuoteBy dblackhurst
A STUDY by North Staffordshire academics has rejected a link between smoking cannabis and an increase in mental illness.
The research found there were no rises in cases of schizophrenia or psychoses diagnosed in the UK over nine years, during which the use of the drug had grown substantially.
Pro-cannabis campaigners seized on the results as supporting the legalising of cannabis, and claimed the report had been suppressed.
But the leading expert behind the study said it could be too low-key to re-ignite the debate on whether restrictions should be removed from soft drugs.
From their base at the Harplands Psychiatric Hospital in Hartshill, the four experts reviewed the notes of hundreds of thousands of patients at 183 GP practices throughout the country to look for any changing rate in cases of schizophrenia.
The work had been set up to see if earlier forecasts from other experts had been borne out, that the mental disorder would soar through the growing popularity of cannabis.
Published in the Schizophrenia Research journal, a paper on the study said: "A recent review concluded that cannabis use increases the risk of psychotic outcomes.
"Furthermore an accepted model of the association between cannabis and schizophrenia indicated its incidence would increase from 1990 onwards.
"We examined trends in the annual psychosis incidence and prevalence as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005 and found it to be either stable or declining.
"The casual models linking cannabis with schizophrenia and other psychoses are therefore not supported by our study."
The research was conducted by Drs Martin Frisher and Orsolina Martino, from the department of medicines management at Keele University; psychiatrist Professor Ilana Crome, from the Harplands academic unit, who specialises in addiction; and diseases expert Professor Peter Croft, pictured below, from the university's primary care research centre.
Its findings come shortly after the Government reclassified cannabis from Class C to Class B, which invokes heavier penalties.
Yet Dr Frisher revealed last night that the study had been partly commissioned by the Government's advisory committee on the misuse of drugs.
He said: "We concentrated on looking into the incidence of schizophrenia during those years and not specifically at cannabis use.
"It was relatively low-key research so I don't believe it will re-ignite the debate on whether the drug should be legalised."
Hartshill-based Dilys Wood, national co-ordinator of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, said that so far the report had been published in medical journals and would have a far-reaching reaction if it surfaced more widely.
She added: "I believe that if it had found a causal link between cannabis and schizophrenia it would have been all over the press.
"The public needs to know the truth about drugs; not more Government-led propaganda."
And Alliance press officer Don Barnard said: "It is hard to believe the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith did not know of this very important research when deciding to upgrade cannabis to Class B."
The team said a number of alternative explanations for the stabilising of schizophrenia had been considered and while they could not be wholly discounted, they did not appear to be plausible.
(EDIT:: This study apparently came out around the same time as one claiming the opposite. I'll check into it.)
Also (from December, but relevant considering the above):
http://www.bouldernaturesmedicine.com/Blog/2010/12/04/american-psychiatric-association-assembly-unanimously-backs-medical-marijuana/
Thanks for all that digging Telarus. I just learned a fuckton of things I previously didn't know about Pot. It's pretty crazy that there could be viable evidence that an external application could actually have an effect on cancerous growths.
as for meth- the AMC show "Breaking Bad" has incredibly realistic depictions of both the chemical processes that are used to make meth, and the international/local politics that surround the drug. A rare, horribly good show with a hell of a lot of research.
My understanding of the effects of meth are that clean, laboratory grade meth has a lot less of the physical deleterious effects (premature aging, tooth decay, bone decay, your skin rotting while it's still on your face, etc...), but actually has a much sharper slice of psychological fuck-your-shit-up, and you will go batshit insane...fast.
I wouldn't know about that first or second hand, though, and have no supporting evidence. All the friends and enemies I used to have that did meth were poor as fuck, and usually bought and smoked whatever was cheapest, so I doubt they ever had the "good" stuff.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/tylenol-and-the-war-drugs
QuoteWhat has all this to do with the war on drugs?
In the early days of the misguided, counterproductive and massively expensive "war on drugs", Richard Nixon signed the Drug Control Act that established "schedules" that doctors and patients must deal with today. The schedules range from IV to I, in order of their "abuse potential".
Just don't get confused and think that this had something to do with safety. Toxic chemotherapy agents, the blood thinner warfarin and many other very dangerous drugs are not on the schedule at all, but pretty much any drug someone might take at a party is.
It was decided that drugs should be made more difficult to obtain based on their potential for "abuse". In keeping with the moralistic and authoritarian origins of all this, "abuse" means "getting high" and has little to do with how dangerous the given drug is to your health. Some drugs, like cannabis, are schedule I and legally unavailable to anyone in most states. Does anyone really think cannabis is deadlier than Jim Beam?
This is how you end up with an unnecessary liver toxin in your narcotic. The government figures it has a lower potential for abuse because you will be dissuaded from taking enough of it to "get high' by the potential for hepatotoxicity due to the added acetaminophen! The manufacturer quite naturally responds to the perverse incentives of the Drug Control Act by adding the acetaminophen to get a schedule III classification. This makes it less onerous for the prescribing physician, and easier for the patient, resulting in greater sales for the drug company.
Make the potential party drug more toxic so it is less likely to be "abused".
In case you think my reasoning on this is overly cynical, have you ever purchased denatured alcohol at the hardware store? This is ethanol - the same kind found in your gin and tonic - which has been purposefully engineered to kill you if you drink it. "Denatured" implies there has been some chemical alteration of the alcohol, but in fact it is just intentionally contaminated with toxic industrial solvents like methanol or acetone.
The manufacturer goes to extra effort and expense to add poison for the sole purpose of escaping burdensome government regulation and taxation. And the government dissuades you from getting high with a legal drug by threatening you with death.
Still doubt that your government might be willing to burn the village in order to save it?
Much more at the link.
With all due respect, that article is a pond full of red herrings.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 25, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
With all due respect, that article is a pond full of red herrings.
I appreciate that take on it (I mostly post these thing in this thread to hear _all_ of the opinions around here).
What jumped out at me was the recognition by the FDA that adding a substance with a low LD50 rating (the LD50, for anyone else out there is the "amount per Kilogram of test subject" at which 50% of the test animals die from toxicity) as not addressing the problems of Vicodin diversion, and was in fact causing preventable deaths from liver toxicity. They have demanded that drug manufacturers lower the amount of acetaminophen in 'mixed' drugs.
Maybe these are some better sources. I still think that this shows the overall "thrust" in the current federal policy is biased towards corporate profits and leaves "preventable harm" behind. The fact that PRESCRIPTIONS that included acetaminophen were NOT REQUIRED to warn of liver damage until now.... Hmmmm.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/tylenol/tylenol-overdose-liver-damage-acetaminophen-3-16183.html
Oh and look at this... the Companies have 3 years to comply with the reduced levels. This won't lead to more liver toxicity AT ALL.
http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Policy&d_id=51&i=March%2B2011&i_id=716&a_id=16865
QuoteCharles Seifert, PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, described it as a thoughtful approach. "If you reduce the amount of acetaminophen in those products, that's a really nice middle ground, if you will," said Dr. Seifert, professor of pharmacy practice in the School of Pharmacy at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock. "Now you can still get them as Schedule III. But you hope that, as you increase the narcotic component, the acetaminophen doesn't exceed 4 g a day."
OK, so that backs up the accusation that Acetaminophen is only included in order to take the "Product" down to a Class III CSA schedule.
The original article definitely had it's own bias, and I'm finding exaggerations, allegory and emotional language in the first Article. Much of the factual details, tho, are being backed up with the other news sources.
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_4f4e973a-bc22-5839-99c2-3392f92304f0.html
QuoteThe bigger problem isn't the lack of adequate warnings so much as the abundance of ways in which to get acetaminophen, Barlow said. Many countries in Europe do not bundle the drugs together; a patient would have to take a painkiller and an acetaminophen tablet separately, so there's less worry about unintentional overdoses. Stores also don't sell the medication in 1,000-tablet bottles but in individual dosages.
As a result, the overdose rates are significantly lower, Barlow said.
"The easy way to handle it is to do like they do in Europe, but that makes too much sense, so we're not going to do it," he said.
In just don't understand how adding something that increases Toxciticy (by lowering the LD50 of the blended product), allows the substance to be places in a LOWER Schedule than the substance alone. It doesn't make sense to me within the stated "prevention of harm" context of the CSA.
Finagling it to a Class III substance makes perfect sense when I think about it with Corporate Profits as the context. I guess that's my problem.
Hahaha. Now that I go back and read it (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/tylenol-and-the-war-drugs), I can see what RWHN was talking about. Never be afraid to change your opinion, people.
I still think the new Acetaminophen rules are a big deal, and probably an improvement. I just don't get why the Rx companies get to have 3 years to sell existing stock (which the FDA just said carries a higher risk of complete liver failure.... something which I just learned a good friend of mine is in surgery for today :argh!:).
Anyway, with all that hub-bub I missed this:
http://washingtonindependent.com/106943/federal-agency-proclaims-medical-use-for-marijuana
QuoteFederal agency proclaims medical use for marijuana
By Kyle Daly | 03.24.11 | 4:08 pm
As federal battles (http://www.americanindependent.com/175051/things-dont-look-good-for-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-fighting-irs-says-norml-director) over medical marijuana (http://coloradoindependent.com/79626/montana-medical-marijuana-raid-raises-huge-questions-with-national-implications) across the country heat up (http://coloradoindependent.com/79777/u-s-attorneys-memo-spells-out-fed-stance-on-medical-marijuana-in-contrast-to-holder-statements), a statement from one federal agency may be a huge asset for medical marijuana dispensaries that have been targeted by the various arms of the U.S. Department of Justice and the IRS.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is a division of the National Institute of Health, which is itself one of the 11 component agencies that make up the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, the NCI quietly added to its treatment database a summary of marijuana's medicinal benefits (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page2), including an acknowledgment that oncologists may recommend it to patients for medicinal use.
The summary cites clinical trials demonstrating the benefit of medical marijuana. Part of it reads:
QuoteThe potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.
Although 34 states have passed laws recognizing marijuana's medicinal properties and 15 states, plus Washington, D.C., have legalized it for medical use, this is the first time a federal agency has recognized it as medicine. Despite recent developments (http://coloradoindependent.com/79626/montana-medical-marijuana-raid-raises-huge-questions-with-national-implications), Attorney General Eric Holder said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/holder-vows-to-end-raids_n_170119.html) in 2009 that the Justice Department would not raid medical marijuana facilities, but at no point did he acknowledge their legitimacy as distribution centers for medicine. A 2001 Supreme Court ruling (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-151.ZS.html), meanwhile, declared that medical use of marijuana cannot be considered in any federal court deliberating on a marijuana possession or distribution case.
The new NCI assessment could have an impact on the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the harshest possible drug classification, which has resulted in a prison population in which 1 in 8 prisoners in the U.S. is locked up for a marijuana-related offense (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7071). One of the principal criteria (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000812----000-.html) for a Schedule I determination is that there be "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The U.S. Justice Department may have a hard time maintaining that claim if challenged, considering a federal agency now recognizes marijuana's medical use in cancer treatment.
From the other side of the argument comes a new white paper (http://www.ibhinc.org/pdfs/MedicalMarijuanaAGWhitePaper.pdf) (PDF) from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) censuring the prescription of marijuana by doctors in states where its medical use is legal. The ASAM takes issue with the fact that marijuana is not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore not subject to the same standards as other medicines. The white paper also cites as a health risk the fact that the most common method of using marijuana is smoking it.
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, believes that the ASAM paper is a direct response to the new NCI evaluation and that ASAM physicians have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal in all cases.
"These doctors are making a fortune off of marijuana prohibition," he says. "They have a financial, proprietary interest to maintain the status quo."
St. Pierre argues that addiction specialists would be losing a major revenue source if marijuana were legalized, decriminalized or simply recognized as medicine in federal court. Without the massive number of arrests and convictions based on marijuana-related offenses, there would be a sharp drop in the number of patients referred to a doctor for marijuana addiction counseling by judges.
"The NCI statement? Fascinating. The AMAS reply? Pathetic. And predictable," says St. Pierre.
Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former president of AMAS, claimed in an AMAS press release (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110323/pl_usnw/DC70683) that the white paper had its origins in a concern for doctor liability and responsibility.
"Allowing cannabis to circumvent FDA approval sets a dangerous precedent and puts us on a slippery slope," she said.
The back and forth at the end of the article aside, this is actually pretty huge, legally speaking.
Quote from: Iron Sulfide on March 11, 2011, 08:49:16 AM
Thanks for all that digging Telarus. I just learned a fuckton of things I previously didn't know about Pot. It's pretty crazy that there could be viable evidence that an external application could actually have an effect on cancerous growths.
as for meth- the AMC show "Breaking Bad" has incredibly realistic depictions of both the chemical processes that are used to make meth, and the international/local politics that surround the drug. A rare, horribly good show with a hell of a lot of research.
My understanding of the effects of meth are that clean, laboratory grade meth has a lot less of the physical deleterious effects (premature aging, tooth decay, bone decay, your skin rotting while it's still on your face, etc...), but actually has a much sharper slice of psychological fuck-your-shit-up, and you will go batshit insane...fast.
I wouldn't know about that first or second hand, though, and have no supporting evidence. All the friends and enemies I used to have that did meth were poor as fuck, and usually bought and smoked whatever was cheapest, so I doubt they ever had the "good" stuff.
Meth accelerates your metabolism. That's the main thing perfectly pure, clean meth does so laboratory grade meth would still accelerate aging.
Quote from: Telarus on March 25, 2011, 11:18:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 25, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
With all due respect, that article is a pond full of red herrings.
I appreciate that take on it (I mostly post these thing in this thread to hear _all_ of the opinions around here).
What jumped out at me was the recognition by the FDA that adding a substance with a low LD50 rating (the LD50, for anyone else out there is the "amount per Kilogram of test subject" at which 50% of the test animals die from toxicity) as not addressing the problems of Vicodin diversion, and was in fact causing preventable deaths from liver toxicity. They have demanded that drug manufacturers lower the amount of acetaminophen in 'mixed' drugs.
Maybe these are some better sources. I still think that this shows the overall "thrust" in the current federal policy is biased towards corporate profits and leaves "preventable harm" behind. The fact that PRESCRIPTIONS that included acetaminophen were NOT REQUIRED to warn of liver damage until now.... Hmmmm.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/tylenol/tylenol-overdose-liver-damage-acetaminophen-3-16183.html
Oh and look at this... the Companies have 3 years to comply with the reduced levels. This won't lead to more liver toxicity AT ALL.
http://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Policy&d_id=51&i=March%2B2011&i_id=716&a_id=16865
QuoteCharles Seifert, PharmD, FCCP, BCPS, described it as a thoughtful approach. "If you reduce the amount of acetaminophen in those products, that's a really nice middle ground, if you will," said Dr. Seifert, professor of pharmacy practice in the School of Pharmacy at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock. "Now you can still get them as Schedule III. But you hope that, as you increase the narcotic component, the acetaminophen doesn't exceed 4 g a day."
OK, so that backs up the accusation that Acetaminophen is only included in order to take the "Product" down to a Class III CSA schedule.
The original article definitely had it's own bias, and I'm finding exaggerations, allegory and emotional language in the first Article. Much of the factual details, tho, are being backed up with the other news sources.
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_4f4e973a-bc22-5839-99c2-3392f92304f0.html
QuoteThe bigger problem isn't the lack of adequate warnings so much as the abundance of ways in which to get acetaminophen, Barlow said. Many countries in Europe do not bundle the drugs together; a patient would have to take a painkiller and an acetaminophen tablet separately, so there's less worry about unintentional overdoses. Stores also don't sell the medication in 1,000-tablet bottles but in individual dosages.
As a result, the overdose rates are significantly lower, Barlow said.
"The easy way to handle it is to do like they do in Europe, but that makes too much sense, so we're not going to do it," he said.
In just don't understand how adding something that increases Toxciticy (by lowering the LD50 of the blended product), allows the substance to be places in a LOWER Schedule than the substance alone. It doesn't make sense to me within the stated "prevention of harm" context of the CSA.
Finagling it to a Class III substance makes perfect sense when I think about it with Corporate Profits as the context. I guess that's my problem.
Not including a warning about liver damage seems to be counterproductive. If the reason there is aceteminophen in it is to damage your liver so you won't abuse it then they'd want the warning to be nice and big so you don't abuse it anyways.
Quote from: Telarus on March 26, 2011, 09:13:22 PM
Hahaha. Now that I go back and read it (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p-nu/201103/tylenol-and-the-war-drugs), I can see what RWHN was talking about. Never be afraid to change your opinion, people.
I still think the new Acetaminophen rules are a big deal, and probably an improvement. I just don't get why the Rx companies get to have 3 years to sell existing stock (which the FDA just said carries a higher risk of complete liver failure.... something which I just learned a good friend of mine is in surgery for today :argh!:).
Anyway, with all that hub-bub I missed this:
http://washingtonindependent.com/106943/federal-agency-proclaims-medical-use-for-marijuana
QuoteFederal agency proclaims medical use for marijuana
By Kyle Daly | 03.24.11 | 4:08 pm
As federal battles (http://www.americanindependent.com/175051/things-dont-look-good-for-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-fighting-irs-says-norml-director) over medical marijuana (http://coloradoindependent.com/79626/montana-medical-marijuana-raid-raises-huge-questions-with-national-implications) across the country heat up (http://coloradoindependent.com/79777/u-s-attorneys-memo-spells-out-fed-stance-on-medical-marijuana-in-contrast-to-holder-statements), a statement from one federal agency may be a huge asset for medical marijuana dispensaries that have been targeted by the various arms of the U.S. Department of Justice and the IRS.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is a division of the National Institute of Health, which is itself one of the 11 component agencies that make up the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, the NCI quietly added to its treatment database a summary of marijuana's medicinal benefits (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page2), including an acknowledgment that oncologists may recommend it to patients for medicinal use.
The summary cites clinical trials demonstrating the benefit of medical marijuana. Part of it reads:
QuoteThe potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.
Although 34 states have passed laws recognizing marijuana's medicinal properties and 15 states, plus Washington, D.C., have legalized it for medical use, this is the first time a federal agency has recognized it as medicine. Despite recent developments (http://coloradoindependent.com/79626/montana-medical-marijuana-raid-raises-huge-questions-with-national-implications), Attorney General Eric Holder said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/holder-vows-to-end-raids_n_170119.html) in 2009 that the Justice Department would not raid medical marijuana facilities, but at no point did he acknowledge their legitimacy as distribution centers for medicine. A 2001 Supreme Court ruling (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-151.ZS.html), meanwhile, declared that medical use of marijuana cannot be considered in any federal court deliberating on a marijuana possession or distribution case.
The new NCI assessment could have an impact on the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the harshest possible drug classification, which has resulted in a prison population in which 1 in 8 prisoners in the U.S. is locked up for a marijuana-related offense (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7071). One of the principal criteria (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sec_21_00000812----000-.html) for a Schedule I determination is that there be "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The U.S. Justice Department may have a hard time maintaining that claim if challenged, considering a federal agency now recognizes marijuana's medical use in cancer treatment.
From the other side of the argument comes a new white paper (http://www.ibhinc.org/pdfs/MedicalMarijuanaAGWhitePaper.pdf) (PDF) from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) censuring the prescription of marijuana by doctors in states where its medical use is legal. The ASAM takes issue with the fact that marijuana is not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and therefore not subject to the same standards as other medicines. The white paper also cites as a health risk the fact that the most common method of using marijuana is smoking it.
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, believes that the ASAM paper is a direct response to the new NCI evaluation and that ASAM physicians have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal in all cases.
"These doctors are making a fortune off of marijuana prohibition," he says. "They have a financial, proprietary interest to maintain the status quo."
St. Pierre argues that addiction specialists would be losing a major revenue source if marijuana were legalized, decriminalized or simply recognized as medicine in federal court. Without the massive number of arrests and convictions based on marijuana-related offenses, there would be a sharp drop in the number of patients referred to a doctor for marijuana addiction counseling by judges.
"The NCI statement? Fascinating. The AMAS reply? Pathetic. And predictable," says St. Pierre.
Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former president of AMAS, claimed in an AMAS press release (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110323/pl_usnw/DC70683) that the white paper had its origins in a concern for doctor liability and responsibility.
"Allowing cannabis to circumvent FDA approval sets a dangerous precedent and puts us on a slippery slope," she said.
The back and forth at the end of the article aside, this is actually pretty huge, legally speaking.
Apparently, the UK may be starting to come to their senses about it too!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS SHIT?
http://coloradoindependent.com/81475/first-federal-agency-to-acknowledge-medical-marijuana-removes-anti-tumor-information-from-database
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
You mean like the kind of definitive science that occurred in 1974 which the DEA shut down because it didn't prove what they wanted it to prove? (http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/)
:popcorn:
Delivered to you by the Here-We-Go-Again Department.
Well, I'm tainted now anyway, given that I'm working with the DEA. So I'm not going to bother.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:28:32 PM
Well, I'm tainted now anyway, given that I'm working with the DEA. So I'm not going to bother.
Go ahead and slink out of the reefer madness thread with your tail between your legs.
:pwned:
It's more to do with not wanting to engage in a fruitless combat with a belief system.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:47:06 PM
It's more to do with not wanting to engage in a fruitless combat with a belief system.
How about if you read my posts in Richard Simmons' voice?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 30, 2011, 07:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:28:32 PM
Well, I'm tainted now anyway, given that I'm working with the DEA. So I'm not going to bother.
Go ahead and slink out of the reefer madness thread with your tail between your legs.
:pwned:
WTF?
RWHN is doing the kind of work that should be done, whether drugs are legal or illegal. Trying to help people get over addiction and lead healthier lives. He's set in his mind that pot's bad and you aren't going to convince him otherwise, why try to bait him into a fruitless debate?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 30, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 30, 2011, 07:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:28:32 PM
Well, I'm tainted now anyway, given that I'm working with the DEA. So I'm not going to bother.
Go ahead and slink out of the reefer madness thread with your tail between your legs.
:pwned:
WTF?
RWHN is doing the kind of work that should be done, whether drugs are legal or illegal. Trying to help people get over addiction and lead healthier lives. He's set in his mind that pot's bad FOR KIDS and you aren't going to convince him otherwise, why try to bait him into a fruitless debate?
If you're going to speak for RWHN, you might as well be accurate.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 30, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 30, 2011, 07:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:28:32 PM
Well, I'm tainted now anyway, given that I'm working with the DEA. So I'm not going to bother.
Go ahead and slink out of the reefer madness thread with your tail between your legs.
:pwned:
WTF?
RWHN is doing the kind of work that should be done, whether drugs are legal or illegal. Trying to help people get over addiction and lead healthier lives. He's set in his mind that pot's bad and you aren't going to convince him otherwise, why try to bait him into a fruitless debate?
Did I say anything about RWHN's work? Do you think I don't understand how entrenched his worldview is?
Fuck off. This thread is for discussing marijuana and RWHN posted in it.
And if you can't take a joke, as RWHN seems to be able to handle just fine, then you can eat a bag of dicks.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 30, 2011, 08:01:57 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 30, 2011, 07:53:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 30, 2011, 07:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:28:32 PM
Well, I'm tainted now anyway, given that I'm working with the DEA. So I'm not going to bother.
Go ahead and slink out of the reefer madness thread with your tail between your legs.
:pwned:
WTF?
RWHN is doing the kind of work that should be done, whether drugs are legal or illegal. Trying to help people get over addiction and lead healthier lives. He's set in his mind that pot's bad FOR KIDS and you aren't going to convince him otherwise, why try to bait him into a fruitless debate?
If you're going to speak for RWHN, you might as well be accurate.
Perhaps "not good" would be a better way of putting it. Since he's also argued against possible benefits every time they've been mentioned.
And to Net, I keep looking for bag of dicks, sounds tasty, but they don't seem to have them for sale anywhere.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
I believe this info was removed because it could have been cited directly and easily by patients or collective owners that are currently in federal court as evidence that the Scheduling is currently incorrect (considering the mass MMJ collectives busted in Colorado and Montana and California recently.. like this month recently). Now they will have to make a more complicated argument. The verbiage would have been cleared by a scientist and a lawyer before being posted in the first place. The fact that they retracted the clearest statement that cannabis can be used as an alternative treatment (and not just for symptom management) speaks loudly.
This
QuoteIn the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.
which includes "possible" next to anti-tumor effect, was changed to this
QuoteThough no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.
But only after bloggers linked a statement by a federal agency to the Scheduling criteria and the idea got attention.
Look at the verbiage. It's directed at medical practitioners not patients, and it just gives permission to recommend cannabis for possible anti-tumor effect. Which is perfectly reasonable, and doesn't carry liability (which is why I'm sure it was already looked at by a lawyer once before originally posted).
In fact, under the "Anti-Tumor Effects" subsection they go into detail on the possible mechanisms, and that was left alone:
Quote"Cannabinoids may cause anti-tumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis (new blood vessel growth) and metastasis cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their non-transformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death."
So this edit wasn't done just to shore up the possibility that the statements aren't backed up by hard science. The fact that this suddenly throws the Scheduling of the substance into doubt seems the primary motivation for the edit to me.
I really don't think it has anything to do with scheduling and has more to do with tamping down false hope.
I have a 3rd hand rumor that a CDC member has filed a FOI request to get the memos involved in the edit. I'll update if I get any more information.
Edit: http://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/united-states-of-america/national-cancer-institutes-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-pdq/502/
Apparently, they have 20 days to respond.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
I was under the impression that all available science points to marijuana NOT being physically addictive? (obviously, ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive)
not poking with a stick, just honestly curious whether you have something that contradicts that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 01:11:19 AM
I really don't think it has anything to do with scheduling and has more to do with tamping down false hope.
OK, waittaminute...
you REALLY think the feds care more about "tamping down false hope" than they do about keeping the current schedule of a drug that, if deemed medicinally useful at the federal level, could be grown at home in an unregulated manner which COMPLETELY cuts "big pharma" (aka "big campaign donor") out of the profits?
nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the medicinal usefulness of pot, I just can't believe your default position would be to assign the most altruistic motive possible to the people in charge of this sort of decision, especially given how much money is at play.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance.
[citation needed]
RWHN doesn't have to bother with this thread if he's busy. I don't mind.
We have a 1st 'official' explanation. Pretty well put together:
http://americanindependent.com/176489/nci-offers-explanation-for-changes-to-its-medical-marijuana-database-entry
Quote from: Telarus on March 31, 2011, 08:54:44 AM
RWHN doesn't have to bother with this thread if he's busy. I don't mind.
We have a 1st 'official' explanation. Pretty well put together:
http://americanindependent.com/176489/nci-offers-explanation-for-changes-to-its-medical-marijuana-database-entry
Number 2 in their explanation is pretty much in line with what I was talking about. Tamping down false expectations so that medical marijuana doesn't end up being prescribed, solely, for
possible anti-tumor effects.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 01:57:43 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
I was under the impression that all available science points to marijuana NOT being physically addictive? (obviously, ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive)
not poking with a stick, just honestly curious whether you have something that contradicts that.
I will post it later when I have time, but people who use marijuana extensively and then try to quit do experience withdrawal symptoms. Obviously, compared to heroin or other illicit drugs, they are a walk in the park, but they are still withdrawal symptoms, nonetheless.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 01:11:19 AM
I really don't think it has anything to do with scheduling and has more to do with tamping down false hope.
OK, waittaminute...
you REALLY think the feds care more about "tamping down false hope" than they do about keeping the current schedule of a drug that, if deemed medicinally useful at the federal level, could be grown at home in an unregulated manner which COMPLETELY cuts "big pharma" (aka "big campaign donor") out of the profits?
nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the medicinal usefulness of pot, I just can't believe your default position would be to assign the most altruistic motive possible to the people in charge of this sort of decision, especially given how much money is at play.
I wouldn't call it an altruistic motive. It's more of a "cover their butt" motive. If you put out there that pot is going to shrink tumors, and then it doesn't shrink tumors. You are going to have some hella mad cancer patients looking for blood.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on March 31, 2011, 07:57:37 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance.
[citation needed]
Marijuana is an addictive substance- RWHN, MPP; Substance Abuse Services Specialist
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 10:59:10 AM
Marijuana is an addictive substance- RWHN, MPP; Substance Abuse Services Specialist
Is there any biological basis for your assessment?
If there is any truth to this, I'm interested to examine the evidence myself, as I am not fully acquainted with your credentials.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-addiction/DS00183/DSECTION=symptoms
http://www.jointogether.org/blog/posts/2011/addiction-doctors-say-medical.html
QuoteASAM argues that marijuana is problematic because it is addictive
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/Marijuana.pdf
QuoteLong-term marijuana users who are trying to stop using the drug report symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.21
21 Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal:
Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat 35(4):362–368, 2008.
For starters.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 01:24:22 PM
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-addiction/DS00183/DSECTION=symptoms
http://www.jointogether.org/blog/posts/2011/addiction-doctors-say-medical.html
QuoteASAM argues that marijuana is problematic because it is addictive
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/Marijuana.pdf
QuoteLong-term marijuana users who are trying to stop using the drug report symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.21
21 Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal:
Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat 35(4):362–368, 2008.
For starters.
That doesn't sound much worse than say, cigarettes. Nobody's smoking tobacco for medical reasons, though.
Also, why are people smoking medical marijuana? Wouldn't it make more sense to make marijuana pills or something? Much less damage to the lungs that way.
Yes. Yes it would. And there actually are pills that contain the compounds in marijuana that have the medical benefits. In fact, my mother in law was just recently in the hospital rooming with someone who had a prescription for medical marijuana. But the pill form. She said it was providing her all of the benefits for her symptoms that the smoked version had. Mainly bringing back her appetite. I don't really understand why there isn't a bigger push for the pill form vs. the smoked form.
Especially, when we know that the smoked form is already being diverted to recreational users.
There are pills with THC, but there is more stuff in cannabis than THC. Unfortunately any cocktail of substances approximating cannabis would be almost impossible to get through the FDA.
Also, marijuana is cheap, pills are not.
Also, you say that smoking is bad for the lungs, but there isn't much evidence for this. Yes, smoke is hot and contains tar, but studies looking at long term cannabis smokers do not show an increased level of lung, throat, and mouth cancers. Also, tar isn't well defined. THC could count as a type of tar.
There are ways to consume marijuana that are more comfortable. There are vaporizers, which heat the cannabis up to less than 300 degrees C. It doesn't burn, but many of the active substances do make there way through. You could also make tea out of it. Arno Hazekamp wrote his PHD dissertation on the subject, it's available online (Cannabis; extracting the medicine.)
Quote
Also, you say that smoking is bad for the lungs, but there isn't much evidence for this. Yes, smoke is hot and contains tar, but studies looking at long term cannabis smokers do not show an increased level of lung, throat, and mouth cancers. Also, tar isn't well defined. THC could count as a type of tar.
This means pretty much nothing, since what I'd worry about is emphysema.
Also, the company that makes Cheerios got in trouble for saying it reduces Cholesterol without FDA approval, it should hardly be surprising that claiming an antitumor effect would create a similar ruckus.
Especially when it comes to cancer. Pretty much everyone knows someone, multiple someones, who've died of some form of cancer. You have to be really careful when you put out into public a suggestion that something might shrink tumors. Who wants to be responsible for suggesting something will work on tumors and then it ends up either not panning out or being far weaker than suggested? You don't fuck around with cancer patients or their families.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 01:24:22 PM
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-addiction/DS00183/DSECTION=symptoms
http://www.jointogether.org/blog/posts/2011/addiction-doctors-say-medical.html
QuoteASAM argues that marijuana is problematic because it is addictive
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/Marijuana.pdf
QuoteLong-term marijuana users who are trying to stop using the drug report symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.21
21 Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal:
Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat 35(4):362–368, 2008.
For starters.
The Mayo Clinic source doesn't say what you want it to say. It says cannabis may be "psychologically addicting," which is different from being addictive in the sense we say heroin or cocaine is addictive. Anything is psychologically addicting if you like it enough. And the "use and dependence" section simply lists some of the temporary side-effects of use, not any long-term effects, not to mention it conflates "use" with "abuse" as if they were one and the same, which is an old, tired drug warrior tactic.
The second link comes across as a group of professional nannies who make their money off treating addiction as wanting to protect their bread and butter rather than appealing to science. It also reinforces the idea that people shouldn't have access to medicine that the government hasn't given them permission to use, which is the kind of authoritarian bullshit that's destroyed this country. It's one thing to say drug companies can't market medicine without its approval. It's quite another to say people should be legally prevented from having access to cannabis they grow in their own yards (even if the voters approve it).
The third link is from the feds, which... :lulz: I'm new here, so I'm just going to assume you're trolling and this is an application of Poe's Law based on that. Not to mention it lists symptoms of "abuse" that I can reproduce from going without chocolate for a week...
It also ignores that doctors prescribe dozens of different massively addictive pills (IE, pretty much anything on schedule II). It's usually considered an acceptable risk.
Hell at least with weed nobody will turn to heroin after they don't need it (and can't get a prescription) anymore because street Vicodin is too expensive.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on March 31, 2011, 05:06:40 PM
The Mayo Clinic source doesn't say what you want it to say. It says cannabis may be "psychologically addicting," which is different from being addictive in the sense we say heroin or cocaine is addictive. Anything is psychologically addicting if you like it enough. And the "use and dependence" section simply lists some of the temporary side-effects of use, not any long-term effects, not to mention it conflates "use" with "abuse" as if they were one and the same, which is an old, tired drug warrior tactic.
Psychological addictions can be very powerful and cause very real harm to an individual. And as someone who works in the field, and who's worked with people who've been addicted to marijuana, I can attest to that. Addiction is addiction. If you are using a substance to an extent, that you cannot quit it because of the withdrawal symptoms, that is addiction. Word games and pedantry don't change that fact.
QuoteThe second link comes across as a group of professional nannies who make their money off treating addiction as wanting to protect their bread and butter rather than appealing to science. It also reinforces the idea that people shouldn't have access to medicine that the government hasn't given them permission to use, which is the kind of authoritarian bullshit that's destroyed this country. It's one thing to say drug companies can't market medicine without its approval. It's quite another to say people should be legally prevented from having access to cannabis they grow in their own yards (even if the voters approve it).
Umm, the ASAM criteria ARE based on science. It is an evidence-based model that sets the standards for addiction treatment in the United States. And that is precisely why they are against recognizing marijuana as a medicine in the same way other medicines are recognized. Because of patient safety. When the science definitively makes a case that leads to FDA approval, then ASAM will go along with it. But patient safety is a vital part of their "bread and butter" and it would go against their code of ethics to condone it.
QuoteThe third link is from the feds, which... :lulz: I'm new here, so I'm just going to assume you're trolling and this is an application of Poe's Law based on that. Not to mention it lists symptoms of "abuse" that I can reproduce from going without chocolate for a week...
Yes, you are new, and that was a rather predictable response. You will notice that in the quote I included the citation to the actual study linked to the quote. So the "its the feds" copout doesn't quite hold up.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 01:24:22 PM
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-addiction/DS00183/DSECTION=symptoms
http://www.jointogether.org/blog/posts/2011/addiction-doctors-say-medical.html
QuoteASAM argues that marijuana is problematic because it is addictive
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/Marijuana.pdf
QuoteLong-term marijuana users who are trying to stop using the drug report symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.21
21 Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal:
Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat 35(4):362–368, 2008.
For starters.
In all fairness, some would argue that those symptoms are just a return to the way things were before that individual started smoking pot. :lulz:
But seriously, those strike me as symptoms that would be induced by psychological craving rather than actual physical addiction. Ignore Laughing Jude being a prick ITT if you can, I'm actually really interested in this specific question.
For what little it's worth, I lived with someone who quit smoking tobacco, cold. Just decided, "done," and went from a pack a day to zero. Hell to live with for a couple weeks, but, once he decided he was done, he didn't light another for YEARS. He never could quit pot for more than a week at a time.
Responding to ECH: Yes, but not all psychological addictions are created equal. For example, gambling addiction is another area I have some background in. Generally, the only physical withdrawal symptoms a pathological gambler will have are restlessness and irritability. Of course those symptoms become nothing compared to the issues with becoming a social and familial outcast and obliterating your bank account. For someone who is highly addicted to marijuana, there will be more physical manifestations of withdrawal compared to other psychological addictions.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
Psychological addictions can be very powerful and cause very real harm to an individual. And as someone who works in the field, and who's worked with people who've been addicted to marijuana, I can attest to that. Addiction is addiction. If you are using a substance to an extent, that you cannot quit it because of the withdrawal symptoms, that is addiction. Word games and pedantry don't change that fact.
Funny thing, words games are also psychologically addictive. You can get addicted to crosswords and scrabble!
Anything that is enjoyable is going to be psychologically addictive. I know I have a way harder time quitting reddit for a week than quitting weed for a week (and I wouldn't call myself a light user).
But, like anything, there is a spectrum when we talk about psychological addictions. You can't just say "lawl, psychological addiction" and pretend all psychological addictions are equal. They are not.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
Responding to ECH: Yes, but not all psychological addictions are created equal. For example, gambling addiction is another area I have some background in. Generally, the only physical withdrawal symptoms a pathological gambler will have are restlessness and irritability. Of course those symptoms become nothing compared to the issues with becoming a social and familial outcast and obliterating your bank account. For someone who is highly addicted to marijuana, there will be more physical manifestations of withdrawal compared to other psychological addictions.
I see. Thanks for clarifying, Rev!
In my experience, weed is about as addictive an Mountain Dew.*
I have a Mountain Dew problem.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on March 31, 2011, 07:04:48 PM
In my experience, weed is about as addictive an Mountain Dew.*
I have a Mountain Dew problem.
I found out the hard way what happens when you go from downing a 2-Liter bottle of Coke a night to zero suddenly. Went camping, was drinking stuff other than anything with caffeine. The headaches made me, um, a LITTLE cranky...
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological; someone said Mountain Dew, and I agree. I've often compared my "addiction" with my former addiction to coffee. I still love coffee, and honestly, I miss drinking it the way I used to, but it started making me ill, so that made it easy to cut back drastically. I think it's important to remember that marijuana does affect different people differently, such as the numerous reports I've been given from rl folks that it actually increases anxiety (the opposite effect from what it has on me). I think, like many things, like coffee, marijuana can be helpful and worth consuming for many people, but there must be some sense of balance, and that threshold too, is different for every case.
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 07:36:02 PM
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological; someone said Mountain Dew, and I agree. I've often compared my "addiction" with my former addiction to coffee. I still love coffee, and honestly, I miss drinking it the way I used to, but it started making me ill, so that made it easy to cut back drastically. I think it's important to remember that marijuana does affect different people differently, such as the numerous reports I've been given from rl folks that it actually increases anxiety (the opposite effect from what it has on me). I think, like many things, like coffee, marijuana can be helpful and worth consuming for many people, but there must be some sense of balance, and that threshold too, is different for every case.
On the other hand, I've seen you smoke. You smoke a rather large quantity, far more than what I'd call "casual use". That doesn't imply "addiction", but it does raise a flag or two.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2011, 07:38:06 PM
On the other hand, I've seen you smoke. You smoke a rather large quantity, far more than what I'd call "casual use". That doesn't imply "addiction", but it does raise a flag or two.
Oh, I don't smoke like that anymore! I really didn't smoke like that for very long. That little period sort of feels like it was my last hurrah with drugs and booze. I still drink and smoke, but not like that. I touch Jameson or Tullamure Dew maybe once or twice a year now. A quarter lasts me up to two weeks, and I really don't have much to do with anything "hard" anymore. I can't handle uppers at all anymore... two cups of coffee in a day is already a bit too much.
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 07:36:02 PM
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological.
Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2011, 07:38:06 PM
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 07:36:02 PM
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological; someone said Mountain Dew, and I agree. I've often compared my "addiction" with my former addiction to coffee. I still love coffee, and honestly, I miss drinking it the way I used to, but it started making me ill, so that made it easy to cut back drastically. I think it's important to remember that marijuana does affect different people differently, such as the numerous reports I've been given from rl folks that it actually increases anxiety (the opposite effect from what it has on me). I think, like many things, like coffee, marijuana can be helpful and worth consuming for many people, but there must be some sense of balance, and that threshold too, is different for every case.
On the other hand, I've seen you smoke. You smoke a rather large quantity, far more than what I'd call "casual use". That doesn't imply "addiction", but it does raise a flag or two.
Some people just have to try alot harder than others to reach the point that most people get to with just minor casual use.
For example, I can drink a rugby team under the table, and still be just lightly buzzed. Of course, I decided a long time ago that this meant I should just be satisfied with "lightly buzzed", but Vaud does have a point about different people having different reactions to things.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 07:53:21 PM
Some people just have to try alot harder than others to reach the point that most people get to with just minor casual use.
Point. One hit of Toledo window box garbage, and I'm watching a whole different TV show for a few hours.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 31, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 07:36:02 PM
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological.
Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?
I think he's right in this case, but only really because the links RWHN gave aren't making any attempt to differentiate between physical and psychological addictions.
I can't really blame the site though, the APA insists that both kinds of addiction are things that only happen with chemical use, its only really when you look at the broad kinds of compulsive habits people form that there's any reason to consider the difference between addiction types.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 31, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?
Absolutely, I read through those links. The mayoclinic link merely illustrates that marijuana
can be classified as an addiction, but that doesn't mean it's pinned down to biological dependencies.. ofc, one could easily argue that anything psychological is biological, but I was much more interested in concrete evidence of chemical dependencies, or deficiencies caused by use. I haven't come across anything substantial.
The jointogether link doesn't bring anything new to the table either, unless one isn't aware of the harmful effects of smoking it. I do agree that smoking it is harmful to the lungs and heart. I'm a big fan of vaporizers, which are widely available, and at least here in central IL, quite affordable.
The whitehouse pub also addresses dangers in smoking, which I've already addressed, and I think it's pretty easy to see it's written with bias.
It seems to me that RWHN is coming at this from a sociologically influenced perspective, which can be substantial, of course. I just wanted to know if there were concrete/numerical analyses that illustrate a biological dependency.
I meant the part where he said that "psychological addictiction is still addiction."
Just because you casually dismiss it, doesn't invalidate what he's saying.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 31, 2011, 08:09:19 PM
I meant the part where he said that "psychological addictiction is still addiction."
I'm not disputing this point at all.
I think there may be a broader point to be made about whether or not the potential for psychological addiction should be basis for any decision about any substance's medicinal usefulness, but I'm also not sure there's much point to debating it here. My personal opinion is that while potential physical dependency SHOULD factor into a substance's schedule and frequency of prescription, the fact that psychological addiction can be caused by virtually anything in people predisposed to have that problem means that it should NOT factor into decisions on a substance's schedule and frequency of prescription.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 08:14:13 PM
I think there may be a broader point to be made about whether or not the potential for psychological addiction should be basis for any decision about any substance's medicinal usefulness,
I am most definitely addicted to benzos, but so what? I need them for a real reason, and they work.
I think it's crazy that prescribing OxyContin for chronic back pain is a legitimate business that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but smoking a joint for chronic back pain is considered a menace to society and grounds for an individual to have a criminal record (which these days just about guarantees they'll never get a job that pays a living wage).
:lulz:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 08:19:43 PM
I think it's crazy that prescribing OxyContin for chronic back pain is a legitimate business that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but smoking a joint for chronic back pain is considered a menace to society and grounds for an individual to have a criminal record (which these days just about guarantees they'll never get a job that pays a living wage).
I agree. This is completely insane.
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 08:04:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 31, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?
Absolutely, I read through those links. The mayoclinic link merely illustrates that marijuana can be classified as an addiction, but that doesn't mean it's pinned down to biological dependencies.. ofc, one could easily argue that anything psychological is biological, but I was much more interested in concrete evidence of chemical dependencies, or deficiencies caused by use. I haven't come across anything substantial.
The jointogether link doesn't bring anything new to the table either, unless one isn't aware of the harmful effects of smoking it. I do agree that smoking it is harmful to the lungs and heart. I'm a big fan of vaporizers, which are widely available, and at least here in central IL, quite affordable.
The whitehouse pub also addresses dangers in smoking, which I've already addressed, and I think it's pretty easy to see it's written with bias.
Again, the quote I pulled from that document from the whitehouse.gov site comes complete with a citation to scientific research. Can we try a little harder than, "lawl, government bias"?
QuoteIt seems to me that RWHN is coming at this from a sociologically influenced perspective, which can be substantial, of course. I just wanted to know if there were concrete/numerical analyses that illustrate a biological dependency.
Withdrawal symptoms aren't biological? Are they just hallucinations?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2011, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 31, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 07:36:02 PM
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological.
Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?
I think he's right in this case, but only really because the links RWHN gave aren't making any attempt to differentiate between physical and psychological addictions.
I can't really blame the site though, the APA insists that both kinds of addiction are things that only happen with chemical use, its only really when you look at the broad kinds of compulsive habits people form that there's any reason to consider the difference between addiction types.
Did everyone just skip over the part where I explained the difference between, say, pathological gambling and marijuana addiction?
Yes, must have missed it.
I predict this thread will end very, very badly, just like this topic (and a few others) always does.
FACT: Weed isn't good for you, unless you have a symptom it will treat (ie, it's better for insomnia than benzos).
FACT: Anyone who thinks that people caught with weed should be incarcerated should be taken for a drag around the prison yard.
This thread will become a tool box in less than an hour. Just saying.
Forget it, RWHN. It looks like the conversation has reached that familiar point where the exchange of ideas ends; in other words, a conclusion (by your definition).
[edit: in other words, what TGRR said.]
It's been a tool box for months.
QuoteBut, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary.
Yeah, I have no interest in having it out over this either. RWHN: I appreciate your input, and I do not intend to be dismissive toward it. I'll check out those links at the end; I truly skirted over them before.
I just think it is too simple to get hung up on this physiological vs. psychological angle. Substance abuse and addiction is far more complicated than that, as are psychological addictions themselves. And in the end, it is rather arbitrary given that the brain is a part of our biology, is it not?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 08:38:48 PM
I just think it is too simple to get hung up on this physiological vs. psychological angle. Substance abuse and addiction is far more complicated than that, as are psychological addictions themselves. And in the end, it is rather arbitrary given that the brain is a part of our biology, is it not?
Addiction is addiction. There's no sense differentiating between the two types. Either you can walk away from it easily, or you can't.
On the other hand, if there's no
reason to walk away from it, who cares? If someone is happy smoking weed, and they aren't suffering ill effects that outweigh that happiness, let them have their fun.
Personally, I can't see the value in smoking weed, but then again, I am sure not to many people would see the value in what I consider to be fun activities. To each his own.
Life's rough enough without imposing arbitrary prison sentences or even social stigma on someone for doing something that harms nobody else.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
QuoteThe second link comes across as a group of professional nannies who make their money off treating addiction as wanting to protect their bread and butter rather than appealing to science. It also reinforces the idea that people shouldn't have access to medicine that the government hasn't given them permission to use, which is the kind of authoritarian bullshit that's destroyed this country. It's one thing to say drug companies can't market medicine without its approval. It's quite another to say people should be legally prevented from having access to cannabis they grow in their own yards (even if the voters approve it).
Umm, the ASAM criteria ARE based on science. It is an evidence-based model that sets the standards for addiction treatment in the United States. And that is precisely why they are against recognizing marijuana as a medicine in the same way other medicines are recognized. Because of patient safety. When the science definitively makes a case that leads to FDA approval, then ASAM will go along with it. But patient safety is a vital part of their "bread and butter" and it would go against their code of ethics to condone it.
Emphasis added.
My main concern is how the science on marijuana is made nearly impossible to study in the US, shut down in the middle of clinical trials, or outright dismissed when the evidence clashes with official drug policy.
You say if the science proves marijuana is medically useful that policy will change, however I'm not sure you're aware of the obstacles in place to make sure that the evidence cannot be collected:
Quote
MAPS is currently the only organization working to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of botanical marijuana as a prescription medicine for specific medical uses to the satisfaction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
MAPS' efforts to initiate medical marijuana research have been hindered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) since its inception in 1986. NIDA's monopoly on the supply of marijuana for research and the DEA's refusal to allow researchers to grow their own has effectively paralyzed medical marijuana research, and for over ten years MAPS has been involved in legal struggles against the DEA to end this situation.
Source (http://www.maps.org/research/mmj/)
If government agencies were truly interested in collecting scientific evidence about medical marijuana we would have enough by now to make informed decisions about its medical value and it's appropriate scheduling. As it stands, NIDA and the DEA have repeatedly put serious obstacles in the way of research. Why are they so aversive to the science on this, if as you claim, they are merely following the evidence in the interest of public safety?
Net brings up a very valid and disturbing point.
The corruption of actual research in America is now enshrined in law.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 10:29:39 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 01:57:43 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
I was under the impression that all available science points to marijuana NOT being physically addictive? (obviously, ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive)
not poking with a stick, just honestly curious whether you have something that contradicts that.
I will post it later when I have time, but people who use marijuana extensively and then try to quit do experience withdrawal symptoms. Obviously, compared to heroin or other illicit drugs, they are a walk in the park, but they are still withdrawal symptoms, nonetheless.
I was taught in drug education at my school that Pot has no withdrawal symptoms due to it staying in your system for so long. So it's actually physically impossible to quit cold turkey because it doesn't all leave your system at once.
You're obviously more educated in that area than I am, but if it is possible to experience withdrawal that would kind of invalidate the biggest drawback to using pot (that it stays in your system for so long)
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on March 31, 2011, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 01:24:22 PM
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-addiction/DS00183/DSECTION=symptoms
http://www.jointogether.org/blog/posts/2011/addiction-doctors-say-medical.html
QuoteASAM argues that marijuana is problematic because it is addictive
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/Marijuana.pdf
QuoteLong-term marijuana users who are trying to stop using the drug report symptoms such as irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit.21
21 Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal:
Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat 35(4):362–368, 2008.
For starters.
That doesn't sound much worse than say, cigarettes. Nobody's smoking tobacco for medical reasons, though.
Also, why are people smoking medical marijuana? Wouldn't it make more sense to make marijuana pills or something? Much less damage to the lungs that way.
Tobacco is physically addictive. I don't know the withdrawal symptoms but I know they are there.
The symptoms RWHN listed sound, to me, like the symptoms of a mental addiction. I know that if I don't get my time on the internet I get irritable, anxious, sleepy, and crave it, those are all signs of a mental addiction certainly, but not a physical one.
Quote from: el sjaako on March 31, 2011, 04:30:41 PM
There are pills with THC, but there is more stuff in cannabis than THC. Unfortunately any cocktail of substances approximating cannabis would be almost impossible to get through the FDA.
Also, marijuana is cheap, pills are not.
Also, you say that smoking is bad for the lungs, but there isn't much evidence for this. Yes, smoke is hot and contains tar, but studies looking at long term cannabis smokers do not show an increased level of lung, throat, and mouth cancers. Also, tar isn't well defined. THC could count as a type of tar.
There are ways to consume marijuana that are more comfortable. There are vaporizers, which heat the cannabis up to less than 300 degrees C. It doesn't burn, but many of the active substances do make there way through. You could also make tea out of it. Arno Hazekamp wrote his PHD dissertation on the subject, it's available online (Cannabis; extracting the medicine.)
marijuana can also be taken orally without making it into a pill.
Mixing all the cannibanoids in pot might be possible, but it would be extremely expensive to make in the lab, and strikes me as awfully silly when it can be made cheaply and easily, and in a more environmentally sound way by simply growing a plant.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on March 31, 2011, 05:06:40 PM
The Mayo Clinic source doesn't say what you want it to say. It says cannabis may be "psychologically addicting," which is different from being addictive in the sense we say heroin or cocaine is addictive. Anything is psychologically addicting if you like it enough. And the "use and dependence" section simply lists some of the temporary side-effects of use, not any long-term effects, not to mention it conflates "use" with "abuse" as if they were one and the same, which is an old, tired drug warrior tactic.
Psychological addictions can be very powerful and cause very real harm to an individual. And as someone who works in the field, and who's worked with people who've been addicted to marijuana, I can attest to that. Addiction is addiction. If you are using a substance to an extent, that you cannot quit it because of the withdrawal symptoms, that is addiction. Word games and pedantry don't change that fact.
QuoteThe second link comes across as a group of professional nannies who make their money off treating addiction as wanting to protect their bread and butter rather than appealing to science. It also reinforces the idea that people shouldn't have access to medicine that the government hasn't given them permission to use, which is the kind of authoritarian bullshit that's destroyed this country. It's one thing to say drug companies can't market medicine without its approval. It's quite another to say people should be legally prevented from having access to cannabis they grow in their own yards (even if the voters approve it).
Umm, the ASAM criteria ARE based on science. It is an evidence-based model that sets the standards for addiction treatment in the United States. And that is precisely why they are against recognizing marijuana as a medicine in the same way other medicines are recognized. Because of patient safety. When the science definitively makes a case that leads to FDA approval, then ASAM will go along with it. But patient safety is a vital part of their "bread and butter" and it would go against their code of ethics to condone it.
QuoteThe third link is from the feds, which... :lulz: I'm new here, so I'm just going to assume you're trolling and this is an application of Poe's Law based on that. Not to mention it lists symptoms of "abuse" that I can reproduce from going without chocolate for a week...
Yes, you are new, and that was a rather predictable response. You will notice that in the quote I included the citation to the actual study linked to the quote. So the "its the feds" copout doesn't quite hold up.
Psychological addiction and physical addiction are substantially different however.
ANYTHING can be psychologically addictive if someone is bent to become addicted to that particular thing.
Sure it's easier to become addicted to weed than, say, hopscotch because wed is inherently more pleasurable. On the other hand the rate of addiction to World of Warcraft is higher and I don't see anyone clamoring to make that illegal.
Carefully controlling a substance due to the fact that it causes physical dependence makes sense. Controlling it because people can become psychologicaly dependent on it, is, IMO extremely silly.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on March 31, 2011, 07:04:48 PM
In my experience, weed is about as addictive an Mountain Dew.*
I have a Mountain Dew problem.
Actually Mountain Dew is physically addictive because of the caffeine. So it's more addictive than weed. Caffeine withdrawal can cause severe hypertension and migraine headaches.
You can also die from a caffeine overdose, or suffer really nasty symptoms like vomiting and diohrea both at once while hallucinating.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 31, 2011, 08:14:13 PM
I think there may be a broader point to be made about whether or not the potential for psychological addiction should be basis for any decision about any substance's medicinal usefulness, but I'm also not sure there's much point to debating it here. My personal opinion is that while potential physical dependency SHOULD factor into a substance's schedule and frequency of prescription, the fact that psychological addiction can be caused by virtually anything in people predisposed to have that problem means that it should NOT factor into decisions on a substance's schedule and frequency of prescription.
TITCM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 08:25:16 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2011, 08:03:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 31, 2011, 07:48:37 PM
Quote from: Vaud on March 31, 2011, 07:36:02 PM
RWHN: Thanks for the links, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything beyond psychological.
Are you reading ANYTHING he's typing in this thread, or just sticking to your script come hell or high water?
I think he's right in this case, but only really because the links RWHN gave aren't making any attempt to differentiate between physical and psychological addictions.
I can't really blame the site though, the APA insists that both kinds of addiction are things that only happen with chemical use, its only really when you look at the broad kinds of compulsive habits people form that there's any reason to consider the difference between addiction types.
Did everyone just skip over the part where I explained the difference between, say, pathological gambling and marijuana addiction?
You claimed that gambling withdrawal is not as severe. it doesn't say that anywhere in your sources.
Both are psychological addictions and the withdrawal symptoms are very similar. The severity of the symptoms is going to vary with the severity of the addiction.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on March 31, 2011, 08:29:33 PM
It's been a tool box for months.
I've been enjoying reading the links that Telarus has been putting up concerning various benefits found by different studies.
I think a weed thread is doomed to devolve into people shouting at RWHN periodically, but most likely it'll go back to being a collection of links after a while again.
Thanks to RWHN for taking a few of the questions seriously and providing some good links and counterpoints. I'm not shouting at him, and I appreciate his take on the issue.
On the NIDA, DEA and FDA issue, I have to agree that it's quite disturbing.
The primary reason, often cited, for FDA non-approval is that "you cannot replicate a consistent dose".
Probably because there are thousands and thousands of different genetic strains. Combined with different nutrient and environmental factors, and you see the problem. Hell, if vitamin C was controlled like this, ORANGE TREES would be illegal, because who knows how much Vitamin C an individual orange has, you can't standardize that.
Ok, so on top of that, the government WON'T ALLOW you to grow your own, setup your own controlled conditions, manipulate environment and nutrients. Nope, you get the (historically very 'hempy' and uncertain quality) plants that they are required to grow (Oh, yeah, did you know that the federal government is required to grow cannabis?), which they distribute to the few remaining patients in the old NIDA program. Search for "Ed Rosenthal" and you'll find a lot of information on the quality of the weed that the government forces every one to do research with.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on March 31, 2011, 11:55:50 PM
marijuana can also be taken orally without making it into a pill.
Mixing all the cannibanoids in pot might be possible, but it would be extremely expensive to make in the lab, and strikes me as awfully silly when it can be made cheaply and easily, and in a more environmentally sound way by simply growing a plant.
The public also doesn't know that Sativex, which has received FDA approval for "late stage trials", one step from ":marketing approval", is simply whole grown cannabis (grown in a hydroponic manipulated environment), and then rendered down with an oils extraction process, similar to the one you'd use when making brownies. The way they got FDA approval was to A) grow it in britian where they didn't have to deal with NIDA, B) separate the THC from the other cannabinoids during extraction, and then blend them back together (with a bit of food grade anti-freeze) to package into the aerosol dispenser at a specific THC:other ratio. "Guaranteeing" a "standardized dose", which really isn't (you have no idea what the ratios of secondary cannabinoids are).
Now, the smartest bio-science spag I know researching this is Dr. Melamede (the doctor who is organizing the research where I grabbed the pics of the Australian woman's skin cancer). This is what he says about the current state of research (~ 2004):
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox, Robert Melamede (http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/2/1/17)
QuoteThe Controversy
Cannabis use can be divided into three categories, recreational, medical, and religious. The latter will not be examined in this article. Some, including those who favor or oppose cannabis use, presume recreational and medical use are the same. On the one side, it is often claimed that any cannabis use is justified by some underlying medical need. On the other side, cannabis use is presumed to have no medical value, with the implication that those who use it are simply "getting stoned." While the former claim may be too extreme, the latter defies current scientific understanding of the biological functions of the endocannabinoids. While many people are reluctant to approve recreational cannabis use, it appears that most people support medical use. The United States Federal Government denies that there is any valid medical use for cannabis, while the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) provides marijuana on a monthly basis to a few medical users through the compassionate Investigatory New Drug (IND) program of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nevertheless, a number of states, through either legislative action or voter initiative, have approved the use of medical marijuana[3].
Current Federally Approved Medical Marijuana Uses
In order to better assess arguments for and against the medical use of marijuana, the scientific evidence for the health benefits of cannabis will be reviewed below. It should be noted that the federally supplied cannabis users have been receiving and using cannabis for 11 to 27 years with clinically demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of glaucoma, chronic musculoskeletal pain, spasm and nausea, and spasticity of multiple sclerosis [4]. Furthermore, there is no evidence that these patients have suffered any negative side effects from their cannabis use.
The Endocannabinoid System
Cannabis preparations have been used medically for thousands of years for illnesses such as epilepsy, migraine headaches, childbirth, and menstrual symptoms. However, it is only relatively recently that the active components have been identified and their mechanisms of action have begun to be understood. While delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was first synthesized by Mechoulam in 1967 [5], it was not until 1990 that the cannabinoid receptor was localized in the brain [6] and cloned [7]. Since then, discoveries in the field have proceeded at an ever-increasing pace. The discovery of cannabinoid receptors on cells naturally prompted the search for internal compounds (endogenous ligands) that would activate the receptors since it seemed unlikely that cannabis receptors had evolved so people could partake of cannabis. In 1992, anandamide was discovered [8]. This lipid metabolite was the first ligand of an ever-expanding class of molecules known as endocannabinoids (internal marijuana-like compounds) to be discovered. Endocannabinoid synthesis, degradation, transport, and receptors together form the endocannabinoid system.
The broad therapeutic potential that can result from correctly manipulating the endocannabinoid system is just beginning to be realized[9,10]. In fact, major pharmaceutical companies, and university researchers all around the world are now engaged in the cannabinoid-related research [11]. Their efforts focus on learning how the endocannabinoid system functions, and on how to manipulate it in order to increase or decrease its activity, depending on the illness or condition under consideration. GW Pharmaceuticals in Britain has been developing and testing a plant extract-based product line that is in clinical trials in Britain and Canada [12]. The results thus far have been positive to the extent that Bayer AG has entered into a 25-million-dollar distribution agreement for GW's product, Sativex which has recently been approved in Canada. In contrast, Sanofi Research has developed an antagonist that will inhibit the ability of endocannabinoids to stimulate hunger and thus potentially be useful for weight control.
Evolution of Endocannabinoids
The cannabinoid system appears to be quite ancient [13,14], with some of its components dating back about 600 million years to when the first multicellular organisms appeared. The beginnings of the modern cannabinoid system are found in mollusks [15] and hydra [16]. As evolution proceeded, the role that the cannabinoid system played in animal life continuously increased. It is now known that this system maintains homeostasis within and across the organizational scales of all animals. Within a cell, cannabinoids control basic metabolic processes such as glucose metabolism [17]. Cannabinoids regulate intercellular communication, especially in the immune [18] and nervous systems [19]. In general, cannabinoids modulate and coordinate tissues, organ and body systems (including the cardiovascular [20], digestive [16], endocrine [21], excretory [22,23], immune [18], musculo-skeletal [24], nervous [19], reproductive [25], and respiratory [26] systems). The effects of cannabinoids on consciousness are not well understood, but are well known, and underlie recreational cannabis use. These effects also have therapeutic possibilities [27].
Cannabinoids: Homeostatic Regulators
The homeostatic action of cannabinoids on so many physiological structures and processes is the basis for the hypothesis that the endocannabinoid system is nothing less than a naturally evolved harm reduction system. Endocannabinoids protect by fine-tuning and regulating dynamic biochemical steady states within the ranges required for healthy biological function. The endocannabinoid system itself appears to be up- or down-regulated as a function of need. As will be detailed later in this article, endocannabinoid levels naturally increase in the case of head injury and stroke [28], and the number of cannabinoid receptors increases in response to nerve injury and the associated pain [29]. In contrast, the number of cannabinoid receptors is reduced when tolerance to cannabinoids is induced [30].
Here's his list of medical issues where cannabis has been involved in scientific study (links to each study on his website):
http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/
Aging
CB1 Knockout Mice
THC Toxicity
Autoimmune Diseases
Arthritis
Crohn's Disease
Diabetes
Multiple Sclerosis
Behavior
Addictions
Aggression
Cancer
Breast Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Glioma
Lung Cancer
Lymphoma
Cardiovascular Disease
Artherosclerosis
Myocardial Infarct
Gastrointestinal Disorders
GERDS Gastro-intestinal Reflux Syndrome
Ulcers
Musculo-Skeletal Disorders
Osteopathic Manipulation
Osteoporosis
Neurological Disorders
ALS
Alzheimer's Disease
Epilepsy
Huntington's Disease
Tourette's
Mental Disorders
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Schizophrenia
Stress and Anxiety
Pain
Arthritic Pain
Fibromyalgia
Inflammatory and Neuropathic Pain
Migraines
Pain Processing
Reproductive System
Critical Developmental Periods
Milk
Reproductive Revew
Sperm
Uterine Receptivity
Liver Disease
Cerebral Disfunction Following Liver Failure
Respiratory System Disorders
Asthma
Broncoconstriction
Influenza
Vaporizer
Pheochromocytoma
Vision
Glaucoma
Memory
Short term memory
that is probably the most interesting AND specifically detailed account I have read of the biological basis for medicinal marijuana use. Thanks!
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 01, 2011, 07:54:07 AM
that is probably the most interesting AND specifically detailed account I have read of the biological basis for medicinal marijuana use. Thanks!
THIS.
It isn't without its side effects, however. I'm talking social side effects. Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors. AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed. (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.)
I'm not saying this as an argument against medical marijuana, per se, but pointing out that the benefits do not come without costs.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2011, 11:39:59 AM
It isn't without its side effects, however. I'm talking social side effects. Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors. AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed. (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.)
I'm not saying this as an argument against medical marijuana, per se, but pointing out that the benefits do not come without costs.
I think it can only really be viewed as a possible alternative to other forms of treatment and the costs and benefits weighed out.
It's less addictive, less physically harmful, and less expensive than narcotics. I really can't see any reason why it's not rolled out as a widescale replacement for narcotics for chronic pain relief. Not for intense recovering from surgery in a hospital pain relief, that requires the industrial strength pain relief that only a Narcotic can give, but for Fibromyalgia, Chronic back pain, and so forth.
In other cases marijuana may not be the best option, but in this case it is preferable in pretty much every way to what is commonly prescribed.
That, and as much as I agree with RWHN about the need to do everything possible to ensure that medical pot doesn't get diverted to the underage black market, I think it's still preferable to the same thing happening with opiate-based pills.
Just as an aside, what seems to have happened to this point in WA is that the legitimate medical market and the black market have almost completely split from each other, and the legal market is winning handily. Pretty much the only people still growing and selling on the black market are the scumbags who WANT to corner the underage market. Without getting in to the argument of how much of the legal use is ACTUALLY medicinal, it seems (strictly anecdotal and observational evidence on my part) that the further the WA pot market is regulated and dragged into the light, the more the black market shrivels and becomes harder to access. If you polled high school kids in the Seattle area, I almost guarantee that a majority of them would tell you that it's easier for them to get pills or coke than it is to get weed. This does not seem to be the case here in OR, which in spite of it's legalization of medical marijuana has a much less regulated and open environment. Here, the pot market is mostly still black-market (even if the cops generally don't care much) and if I wanted to cop an 8th and didn't know anyone, the first thing I'd do is head down to Franklin High to ask the boys that hang out at the bus stop. Now, Oregon is also in much closer proximity to large outdoor grow areas (southern OR/northern CA), and that may also have an effect on the nature of the market here, but it strikes me as an interesting observation.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2011, 11:39:59 AM
It isn't without its side effects, however. I'm talking social side effects. Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors. AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed. (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.)
I'm not saying this as an argument against medical marijuana, per se, but pointing out that the benefits do not come without costs.
These side effects are of criminalization, really. I live in the Netherlands, and most young people here don't use weed. One of the reasons is the kind of drug users we see: there are few artist glamorizing weed, and most of the people you see in coffeeshops are old. Housewives in their fifties. Working class men in paint speckled uniforms. Most of them are friendly and interesting people, but they're not the kind of thing young people aspire to.
I think it's time I shared this story:
My dad was diagnosed with three separate cancers at the same time. Terminal stage 4 in the colon, and also cancer in the liver and lungs and according to the oncologists, the three had sprung up independently and were not related to each other.
Needless to say, the reactors in the first generation of nuclear-powered submarines were pretty dirty and not well shielded. My dad ran the reactor on the 2nd nuke sub ever put in the water by the US Navy. They had seen his condition before, in the other guys that ran those 1st-gen nuke subs.
My dad was a combat-injured veteran. He had 100% medical coverage by the VA. His country's promise to take care of him in exchange for the services he had provided his country. When he was diagnosed, the doctors told him that with a 3 month course of experimentally intense chemotherapy, he might get another 6 good months followed by one or two bad ones before the end.
The chemo was brutal. If that was the VA doc's idea of "good months", I cringed at the thought of what the bad months might be like. They prescribed him massive amounts of morphine right from the start. 15mg IR and 60mg ER, which are like the Bentley of morphine pills. He took them at first, but they made him confused and junked out, and he HATED that. Now, he had been a recreational smoker on and off through his life, but had not been smoking for the past few years because he held a Class A CDL which requires a periodic recertification including a drug screen. He kept the morphine for the occasions when the pain got really intense, but for the most part managed his pain, nausea, and lack of appetite with pot.
As the disease ran its course, this turned into ALOT of pot.
Good pot, since he had to smoke it (couldn't be guaranteed of keeping it down long enough if he ate it) but his lungs couldn't tolerate too much of it.
Expensive pot. Even though a few of the old growers in the area who knew my dad would occasionally drop an ounce on me as a gift, I ended up spending a whole fucking lot of money on pot for my dad.
Pot the VA, as a federally-funded agency, could not and would not recommend or prescribe.
The organization that, in theory, said "don't worry, we'll take care of you as best we can" had nothing to offer but an undignified end to life clouded in a heavy morphine addiction. Which, of course, causes constipation, a condition which would have probably proved gruesomely fatal to a person with a tumor already blocking most of their lower intestine.
"Thanks for your service, here's that death of massive infection caused by a ruptured bowel that you wanted. Don't worry, though, you'll be so high on morphine you won't know what's going on. Unless you develop such a tolerance that when a pain like THAT comes along, you'll feel everything."
So the VA did what they could, and I did what I could, and my dad lived 18 months past his diagnosis and all but the last 3 or 4 months could reasonably qualify as "good" time. And I give alot of the credit for that to the marijuana, which kept the constant low-grade pain and nausea at bay and gave him an appetite for awhile. Frankly, I think that "giving the munchies" is vastly underrated as a potential medicinal property. Your body can't fight a disease if it doesn't have any fuel.
So at the end, the combination of not being able to work, having to buy all of my dad's pot out of my own savings, and the incidental expenses of his care not covered by the VA (gas to appointments, all of my own living expenses, etc.) left me completely penniless when he died. He didn't own his house, and the restaurant I had been cheffing at until I had to quit to take care of him full-time had just closed for the season, so there I was in rural Maine in November - broke, unemployed, and soon to be homeless. Funny thing, though. Even though he never really started taking the morphine regularly until the last couple months, he was still getting his monthly prescription mailed to him every month for the 18 months between his diagnosis and his death.
And in a position of desperation that might not have existed if medical marijuana were legalized at the federal level, guess how I was able to come up with the money to move 2 people and all of their stuff across the country to WA and be able to pay rent until gainful legal employment was found?
I do believe (hipsters correct me if I'm wrong) that this falls under the correct usage of the phrase "Ironic, huh?"
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1KO7jS/www.jackherer.com/archives/clip-from-family-feud-is-an-instant-pot-humor-classic-what-is-something-people-pass-around/
For me, its not an issue of kids vs. adults or medical vs. recreational. Its simply this:
My Body, My Right
I am the owner of my body. If I want to put a drug in it (or if I had a womb, take a pile of cells out of it), then the government should keep its fucking nose out of my life. If I am dying and want to visit Dr. Kovorkian then I should be allowed. If I am dying and want to get stoned then I should. If I work all day, in a stressful environment and want to come home and relax with a joint from pot I grew in my fucking basement, then where is the fault and the harm? Its not funding terrorists, its not going to little kids.
If I sell some of that to my friend, then where is the harm?
If I sell some of that to a kid.. THEN put my ass in jail.
Regarding the "Think of the Chidlren" argument: I had many chances to smoke pot when I was young. For fucksake I worked with roadies from Steppenwolf, Jesus Christ Superstar, etc etc and every fucking time I got offered a joint. However, I turned it down because my parents taught me drugs were bad. It was only after I realized every other thing they had taught me was bullshit that I tried pot. Then I found that what I'd been taught about it was bullshit too.
So was what I got taught about acid...
As for the Feds trying to argue addiction... well in a nation that produces huge tobacco crops, Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Budweiser... I can't hear the debate for all that noise of hypocrisy. How many people have died from smoking Pot? How many from Tobacco? How many from Alcohol?
In the end, I respect RWHN and what he does specifically... I don't think anyone should smoke pot until they're adults or at least until they've gotten their life off to some kind of start. The rest of this abortion of a 'drug war' has no place in a sane society.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 31, 2011, 05:30:20 PM
Psychological addictions can be very powerful and cause very real harm to an individual. And as someone who works in the field, and who's worked with people who've been addicted to marijuana, I can attest to that. Addiction is addiction. If you are using a substance to an extent, that you cannot quit it because of the withdrawal symptoms, that is addiction. Word games and pedantry don't change that fact.
I'm surprised that someone who works in your field seriously would argue that the difference between physical addiction and psychological addiction is just word games and pedantry.
I'm sure glad that "the field" over here is able to draw that distinction (I'm assuming. Some of my friends work with addicts, I'll ask).
That way we can get heroin junkies medical help, but kids addicted to online computer games can get psychological therapy.
The addictiveness of pot and online computer games is the same kind of addiction. Both psychological. It's also about just as bad, and the evidence for online computer game addiction is pretty damn strong.
Heroin, cocaine, alcohol and tobacco are addictive in a very different kind of way, which requires very different methods of treatment, and carry much larger risks of addiction.
10 cigs in two days can be enough to get addicted for life.
You can't even
begin to develop a psychological dependency in that short of a timespan (regardless if it's pot or computer games).
So I disagree that "addiction is addiction" and psychological addiction is completely different and much less dangerous than physical addiction. Still dangerous, just a couple of orders of magnitude less so.
(edit: this sort of reasoning makes me angry, what I wrote before was a less nice and more condescending version of the above. edited to improve discussion)
No shit. I didn't say anything about all addictions being treated with the same modalities of treatment. I worked in a goddamn substance abuse treatment agency, so yeah, I kind of understand that. My point, which I think was pretty damn clear, is that you just because something has a psychological addiction, doesn't mean it is the same as all kinds of psychological addiction. There are huge differences between a kid who is heavily addicted to pot and a kid who is addicted to WOW. I'm sorry but that is the goddamn truth. It isn't some "no big deal" issue. It is a very real issue with very real consequences for kids.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 02, 2011, 01:19:52 AM
No shit. I didn't say anything about all addictions being treated with the same modalities of treatment. I worked in a goddamn substance abuse treatment agency, so yeah, I kind of understand that. My point, which I think was pretty damn clear, is that you just because something has a psychological addiction, doesn't mean it is the same as all kinds of psychological addiction. There are huge differences between a kid who is heavily addicted to pot and a kid who is addicted to WOW. I'm sorry but that is the goddamn truth. It isn't some "no big deal" issue. It is a very real issue with very real consequences for kids.
There's no sense getting wrapped around the axle, RWHN. This is a matter that people are going to disagree on, no matter how sensible the arguments on either side.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 02, 2011, 01:19:52 AM
No shit. I didn't say anything about all addictions being treated with the same modalities of treatment. I worked in a goddamn substance abuse treatment agency, so yeah, I kind of understand that. My point, which I think was pretty damn clear, is that you just because something has a psychological addiction, doesn't mean it is the same as all kinds of psychological addiction. There are huge differences between a kid who is heavily addicted to pot and a kid who is addicted to WOW. I'm sorry but that is the goddamn truth. It isn't some "no big deal" issue. It is a very real issue with very real consequences for kids.
Could you explain the differences? Because the withdrawal symptoms you mentioned are the same either way.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 02, 2011, 01:19:52 AMNo shit. I didn't say anything about all addictions being treated with the same modalities of treatment. I worked in a goddamn substance abuse treatment agency, so yeah, I kind of understand that. My point, which I think was pretty damn clear, is that you just because something has a psychological addiction, doesn't mean it is the same as all kinds of psychological addiction.
What's with all the "damn" all of a sudden?
Either you can assume good faith, accept that maybe your point was not entirely clear to me,
OR you can insist that your point is "pretty damn clear" and imply I'm deliberately misrepresenting what you try to say.
One of those options is suitable in a discussion where grown-up people try to achieve a mutual understanding. The other is used when one party knows they're right, wants to say it, and doesn't really care what the other has to say.
Your point wasn't entirely clear to me. What you just wrote sounds pretty much like the opposite to "addiction is addiction" to me.
So yes I was pretty shocked what I
thought you wrote, exactly BECAUSE you worked in a substance abuse treatment agency, you know that I know that.
Listen, I
want you to explain your point of view in a way that makes sense to me. I'm not here trying to trick you, score points or anything.
QuoteThere are huge differences between a kid who is heavily addicted to pot and a kid who is addicted to WOW. I'm sorry but that is the goddamn truth.
I shouldn't have said "kids" but "people addicted to online computer games".
And it's not immediately obvious to me that a person addicted to pot is worse than a person addicted to WoW.
I've seen people addicted to both and from the perspective of addiction, it seemed pretty comparable to me. Both were in a bad spot in life, filled it up with an addiction and wasted away a year of their life and studies. Then, maybe I've never seen a "heavy" pot addict.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2011, 01:22:58 AMThere's no sense getting wrapped around the axle, RWHN. This is a matter that people are going to disagree on, no matter how sensible the arguments on either side.
I don't mind disagreeing, I just like a mutual understanding, and especially to know where exactly the disagreement lies. I really really want to know where's the "switch", why does RWHN come to a different conclusion than me? But maybe I'm having a different discussion than RWHN is having. I definitely don't want to wrap him around any axle.
I pretty much totally agree with RWHN on what he and his work are trying to accomplish, I just think the methods currently in use are totally counterproductive. For some reason, though, my extensive personal experience in these matters seems to be dismissed out of hand because there's not a published study that goes along with it, which is why I'm sometimes given to fits of rhetoric.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 08:44:31 AM
I pretty much totally agree with RWHN on what he and his work are trying to accomplish, I just think the methods currently in use are totally counterproductive. For some reason, though, my extensive personal experience in these matters seems to be dismissed out of hand because there's not a published study that goes along with it, which is why I'm sometimes given to fits of rhetoric.
RWHN believes in what he's doing, which I am sure is good work, in both senses of the term.
I just don't care. Immature monkeys are still monkeys, and I honestly don't care if they become the next Einstein or shoot themselves full of junk.
TGRR,
Misanthropy just a little out of control.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 02, 2011, 02:30:28 AM
I've seen people addicted to both and from the perspective of addiction, it seemed pretty comparable to me. Both were in a bad spot in life, filled it up with an addiction and wasted away a year of their life and studies. Then, maybe I've never seen a "heavy" pot addict.
I agree with you, I just want to add: You live in Europe, so a lot of the people that think they are addicted to weed are (also) addicted to the tobacco they put in their joints.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 02, 2011, 10:05:20 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 02, 2011, 02:30:28 AM
I've seen people addicted to both and from the perspective of addiction, it seemed pretty comparable to me. Both were in a bad spot in life, filled it up with an addiction and wasted away a year of their life and studies. Then, maybe I've never seen a "heavy" pot addict.
I agree with you, I just want to add: You live in Europe, so a lot of the people that think they are addicted to weed are (also) addicted to the tobacco they put in their joints.
One of the guys I was thinking of always smoked them pure, though. Which is a horrible idea with Dutch weed :x
My mother recently put titanium in her joints, btw.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 01, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
That, and as much as I agree with RWHN about the need to do everything possible to ensure that medical pot doesn't get diverted to the underage black market, I think it's still preferable to the same thing happening with opiate-based pills.
Philosophically, sure. But both are being diverted currently. I think this is an unfortunate turn of events. For the past 8-10 years, at least in Maine, we've been very successful in bringing the prevalence of marijuana use amongst youth down. In my county it's come down something like 24%. But my fear is that the introduction of medical marijuana is going to work against that. As it adds a new layer of acceptance and access.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 01, 2011, 07:25:41 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2011, 11:39:59 AM
It isn't without its side effects, however. I'm talking social side effects. Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors. AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed. (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.)
I'm not saying this as an argument against medical marijuana, per se, but pointing out that the benefits do not come without costs.
These side effects are of criminalization, really. I live in the Netherlands, and most young people here don't use weed. One of the reasons is the kind of drug users we see: there are few artist glamorizing weed, and most of the people you see in coffeeshops are old. Housewives in their fifties. Working class men in paint speckled uniforms. Most of them are friendly and interesting people, but they're not the kind of thing young people aspire to.
I'm not following. How can you ascribe the side effects I mentioned to criminilazation as opposed to the introduction of medical marijuana? It isn't the criminilization that makes kids think marijuana is now more acceptible. It is the fact that doctors are now prescribing it that kids think this. This has nothing to do with the criminilazation of the substance.
QuoteWhat's with all the "damn" all of a sudden?
Either you can assume good faith, accept that maybe your point was not entirely clear to me,
OR you can insist that your point is "pretty damn clear" and imply I'm deliberately misrepresenting what you try to say.
Well, I was a little put off by the commentary you added at the end to your edit.
Quotewhat I wrote before was a less nice and more condescending version of the above
If something is unclear you can ask me but if you are going to be "condescending" about it then yeah, it's gonna tick me off a bit.
QuoteQuote
There are huge differences between a kid who is heavily addicted to pot and a kid who is addicted to WOW. I'm sorry but that is the goddamn truth.
I shouldn't have said "kids" but "people addicted to online computer games".
And it's not immediately obvious to me that a person addicted to pot is worse than a person addicted to WoW.
I've seen people addicted to both and from the perspective of addiction, it seemed pretty comparable to me. Both were in a bad spot in life, filled it up with an addiction and wasted away a year of their life and studies. Then, maybe I've never seen a "heavy" pot addict.
That's just it. I have seen them. Where I worked before we had a residential treatment center. I've met the kids and heard their stories and there are far too many who've got stuck because of heavy dependency on marijuana. Of course, many of these kids also eventually "graduate" to heavier substances. A kids who gets addicted to video games or the internet certainly also experiences some negatives in their life. But they simply are not on-par, nor as common, with someone who becomes addicted to marijuana and other drugs.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 08:44:31 AM
I pretty much totally agree with RWHN on what he and his work are trying to accomplish, I just think the methods currently in use are totally counterproductive. For some reason, though, my extensive personal experience in these matters seems to be dismissed out of hand because there's not a published study that goes along with it, which is why I'm sometimes given to fits of rhetoric.
I dunno, the methods we are currently using to prevent substance abuse amongst youth have been pretty successful. The strategic plan I wrote for one of the Maine counties has resulted in reduced rates of underage drinking, marijuana use, prescription drug abuse, and binge drinking. The work we are doing here in my county has had similar results. So I can't agree with that based upon my experience with the work.
I understand that, but you seem to be taking the narrow scope of your work (limited and isolated geographical area combined with the fact that the very nature of your work means that you tend to see a MUCH higher percentage of "worst-case scenarios") as the be-all and end-all of what directions the entirety of american drug policy should be. I say "seem" because I have no idea if that's what's going on in your head, just how it comes across when you write about it. As though the ONLY thing that should matter in drug policy is how it might affect some fucked-up kids in Maine, most of whom would just get fucked up on ACB if there were no drugs available.
I think where our views on the matter diverge the hardest is that I think any policy decisions on the federal level about scheduling and medicinal usefulness should be made STRICTLY based on the actual potential of the substance in question to alleviate suffering and treat/manage the conditions it is useful for. That some medical pot might get diverted to kids is unfortunate, but it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be used as a factor when deciding whether to legalize it medicinally at the federal level.
And I know you won't believe me, but FYI kids don't give a shit about whether or not pot is viewed as acceptable or not. In fact, in alot of cases it IS the criminalization of it that makes it seem rebellious and glamorous. Just like with so many other things, telling a young teenaged kid not to do something is a sure way to get them to try it.
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
I was just about to post that while I don't have much to add to this discussion I'm glad to see the change in tone this larger PD topic. For one thing this thread and the others like it have made me cringe whenever I hear people casually talking about it IRL, especially the LEGALIZE IT NAO crowd.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 02, 2011, 02:46:36 PM
Well, I was a little put off by the commentary you added at the end to your edit. Quotewhat I wrote before was a less nice and more condescending version of the above
If something is unclear you can ask me but if you are going to be "condescending" about it then yeah, it's gonna tick me off a bit.
But that's why I made the edit. First version I wrote in a bit more emotional state. Which I edited
because I didn't want to tick you off. The commentary was because I always try to write the reason for an edit below the edit, for clarity. You should interpret it as "the condescending version was wrong, I shouldn't have written it, so I edited it". Feel better?
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
Whenever I drop in this thread, I'm always pleasantly surprised at how the discussion is always carefully maintained, and how both sides have very good points that I agree with. :)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
So, discussions and arguments that don't lead to agreement or mutual understanding on your approved timetable should be abandoned?
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
So, discussions and arguments that don't lead to agreement or mutual understanding on your approved timetable should be abandoned?
No, I just don't see the point in everybody repeating themselves and generating a 100 page thread with no content in it.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 11:51:47 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 10:21:48 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
So, discussions and arguments that don't lead to agreement or mutual understanding on your approved timetable should be abandoned?
No, I just don't see the point in everybody repeating themselves and generating a 100 page thread with no content in it.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 01, 2011, 08:00:40 PM
I think it's time I shared this story:
My dad was diagnosed with three separate cancers at the same time. Terminal stage 4 in the colon, and also cancer in the liver and lungs and according to the oncologists, the three had sprung up independently and were not related to each other.
Needless to say, the reactors in the first generation of nuclear-powered submarines were pretty dirty and not well shielded. My dad ran the reactor on the 2nd nuke sub ever put in the water by the US Navy. They had seen his condition before, in the other guys that ran those 1st-gen nuke subs.
My dad was a combat-injured veteran. He had 100% medical coverage by the VA. His country's promise to take care of him in exchange for the services he had provided his country. When he was diagnosed, the doctors told him that with a 3 month course of experimentally intense chemotherapy, he might get another 6 good months followed by one or two bad ones before the end.
The chemo was brutal. If that was the VA doc's idea of "good months", I cringed at the thought of what the bad months might be like. They prescribed him massive amounts of morphine right from the start. 15mg IR and 60mg ER, which are like the Bentley of morphine pills. He took them at first, but they made him confused and junked out, and he HATED that. Now, he had been a recreational smoker on and off through his life, but had not been smoking for the past few years because he held a Class A CDL which requires a periodic recertification including a drug screen. He kept the morphine for the occasions when the pain got really intense, but for the most part managed his pain, nausea, and lack of appetite with pot.
As the disease ran its course, this turned into ALOT of pot.
Good pot, since he had to smoke it (couldn't be guaranteed of keeping it down long enough if he ate it) but his lungs couldn't tolerate too much of it.
Expensive pot. Even though a few of the old growers in the area who knew my dad would occasionally drop an ounce on me as a gift, I ended up spending a whole fucking lot of money on pot for my dad.
Pot the VA, as a federally-funded agency, could not and would not recommend or prescribe.
The organization that, in theory, said "don't worry, we'll take care of you as best we can" had nothing to offer but an undignified end to life clouded in a heavy morphine addiction. Which, of course, causes constipation, a condition which would have probably proved gruesomely fatal to a person with a tumor already blocking most of their lower intestine.
"Thanks for your service, here's that death of massive infection caused by a ruptured bowel that you wanted. Don't worry, though, you'll be so high on morphine you won't know what's going on. Unless you develop such a tolerance that when a pain like THAT comes along, you'll feel everything."
So the VA did what they could, and I did what I could, and my dad lived 18 months past his diagnosis and all but the last 3 or 4 months could reasonably qualify as "good" time. And I give alot of the credit for that to the marijuana, which kept the constant low-grade pain and nausea at bay and gave him an appetite for awhile. Frankly, I think that "giving the munchies" is vastly underrated as a potential medicinal property. Your body can't fight a disease if it doesn't have any fuel.
So at the end, the combination of not being able to work, having to buy all of my dad's pot out of my own savings, and the incidental expenses of his care not covered by the VA (gas to appointments, all of my own living expenses, etc.) left me completely penniless when he died. He didn't own his house, and the restaurant I had been cheffing at until I had to quit to take care of him full-time had just closed for the season, so there I was in rural Maine in November - broke, unemployed, and soon to be homeless. Funny thing, though. Even though he never really started taking the morphine regularly until the last couple months, he was still getting his monthly prescription mailed to him every month for the 18 months between his diagnosis and his death.
And in a position of desperation that might not have existed if medical marijuana were legalized at the federal level, guess how I was able to come up with the money to move 2 people and all of their stuff across the country to WA and be able to pay rent until gainful legal employment was found?
I do believe (hipsters correct me if I'm wrong) that this falls under the correct usage of the phrase "Ironic, huh?"
Nope, no content here. Nossir, not in this thread.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:49:12 PM
I understand that, but you seem to be taking the narrow scope of your work (limited and isolated geographical area combined with the fact that the very nature of your work means that you tend to see a MUCH higher percentage of "worst-case scenarios")
Well, actually, that is not true. I deal with the full spectrum of kids. From the kids who don't use, to the kids who experiment, to the kids who use moderately, to the kids who are heavy users. That's because I don't work in treatment, I work in prevention. In prevention, we look at the broad picture and we tackle the issue through environmental strategies. Treatment focuses in on the "narrow" picture that are the worst-case scenarios. I, deal with the big picture.
Quoteas the be-all and end-all of what directions the entirety of american drug policy should be. I say "seem" because I have no idea if that's what's going on in your head, just how it comes across when you write about it. As though the ONLY thing that should matter in drug policy is how it might affect some fucked-up kids in Maine, most of whom would just get fucked up on ACB if there were no drugs available.
There is nothing special about kids in Maine vs. kids in the rest of the country. What IS different is how the state deals with the issue. Until Lepage came into office, Maine has been a very progressive state when it comes to addressing substance abuse, and particularly substance abuse amongst adolescents. Again, this is because of the environmental approach. I mean, my specific job tasks me with preventing substance abuse in my community. (Which, to stroke my ego, I've done a pretty good job as the grant isn't over and I've already exceeded my goals). Though, I do serve on a few state-wide organizations that look at the big picture. But, as a professional in the field, I certainly have an interest in the national scene with this issue as certainly the federal regulations effect the work I do here and they effect the people in my community, whom I serve.
QuoteI think where our views on the matter diverge the hardest is that I think any policy decisions on the federal level about scheduling and medicinal usefulness should be made STRICTLY based on the actual potential of the substance in question to alleviate suffering and treat/manage the conditions it is useful for. That some medical pot might get diverted to kids is unfortunate, but it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be used as a factor when deciding whether to legalize it medicinally at the federal level.
I think it is foolish to not consider the social impacts especially when the science is still uncertain with regards to the usefulness of pot.
QuoteAnd I know you won't believe me, but FYI kids don't give a shit about whether or not pot is viewed as acceptable or not.In fact, in alot of cases it IS the criminalization of it that makes it seem rebellious and glamorous. Just like with so many other things, telling a young teenaged kid not to do something is a sure way to get them to try it.
I don't believe it because my experience in this work tells me that opinion is flat out wrong. I've had kids flat out tell me that they use because their parents use and say it is okay. There are parents in this community who will light up right along with their kids. I work very closely with a couple of seasoned and well experienced substance abuse counselors who tell me that many of the clients they see have parents who have a very permissive attitude when it comes to alcohol and marijuana. So I know that it is indeed a factor, despite what you may have experienced.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government. Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding. The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 02, 2011, 02:33:11 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 01, 2011, 07:25:41 PM
These side effects are of criminalization, really. I live in the Netherlands, and most young people here don't use weed. One of the reasons is the kind of drug users we see: there are few artist glamorizing weed, and most of the people you see in coffeeshops are old. Housewives in their fifties. Working class men in paint speckled uniforms. Most of them are friendly and interesting people, but they're not the kind of thing young people aspire to.
I'm not following. How can you ascribe the side effects I mentioned to criminalization as opposed to the introduction of medical marijuana? It isn't the criminalization that makes kids think marijuana is now more acceptable. It is the fact that doctors are now prescribing it that kids think this. This has nothing to do with the criminalization of the substance.
You talked about social problems, mainly about minors getting weed. I responded why you don't see these problems as much in the Netherlands.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2011, 11:39:59 AM
Such as medical marijuana being diverted to non-prescribed users, including minors.
Coffeeshops check exactly who gets entry, and the low profits people get from selling these days means that minors getting weed is about the same level of being a problem as minors getting alcohol is. When I was seventeen I couldn't get weed, because I couldn't get into the coffeeshops. Remember: the Netherlands has a lower rate of use.
Even where there is medical marijuana in the states there is still a large amount of illegal selling, because there are still adults that buy there weed from there. High school kids don't have enough money to support someones drug-dealer lifestyle, especially if weed gets cheaper (because it's available legally).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 01, 2011, 11:39:59 AM
AND, the message it (intentionally or unintentionally) to youth which is that it is okay to use because it is prescribed. (even though it hasn't been prescribed to them.)
And the message in the Netherlands sends is that weed isn't good (we get a lot of anti-drug propaganda at the schools), and that smoking weed isn't cool (which is almost impossible to send about something that you only really hear about celebrities and rebel kids using).
I guess I didn't really make my point clear earlier.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 03, 2011, 12:30:59 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:49:12 PM
I understand that, but you seem to be taking the narrow scope of your work (limited and isolated geographical area combined with the fact that the very nature of your work means that you tend to see a MUCH higher percentage of "worst-case scenarios")
Well, actually, that is not true. I deal with the full spectrum of kids. From the kids who don't use, to the kids who experiment, to the kids who use moderately, to the kids who are heavy users. That's because I don't work in treatment, I work in prevention. In prevention, we look at the broad picture and we tackle the issue through environmental strategies. Treatment focuses in on the "narrow" picture that are the worst-case scenarios. I, deal with the big picture.
Quoteas the be-all and end-all of what directions the entirety of american drug policy should be. I say "seem" because I have no idea if that's what's going on in your head, just how it comes across when you write about it. As though the ONLY thing that should matter in drug policy is how it might affect some fucked-up kids in Maine, most of whom would just get fucked up on ACB if there were no drugs available.
There is nothing special about kids in Maine vs. kids in the rest of the country. What IS different is how the state deals with the issue. Until Lepage came into office, Maine has been a very progressive state when it comes to addressing substance abuse, and particularly substance abuse amongst adolescents. Again, this is because of the environmental approach. I mean, my specific job tasks me with preventing substance abuse in my community. (Which, to stroke my ego, I've done a pretty good job as the grant isn't over and I've already exceeded my goals). Though, I do serve on a few state-wide organizations that look at the big picture. But, as a professional in the field, I certainly have an interest in the national scene with this issue as certainly the federal regulations effect the work I do here and they effect the people in my community, whom I serve.
QuoteI think where our views on the matter diverge the hardest is that I think any policy decisions on the federal level about scheduling and medicinal usefulness should be made STRICTLY based on the actual potential of the substance in question to alleviate suffering and treat/manage the conditions it is useful for. That some medical pot might get diverted to kids is unfortunate, but it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT be used as a factor when deciding whether to legalize it medicinally at the federal level.
I think it is foolish to not consider the social impacts especially when the science is still uncertain with regards to the usefulness of pot.
QuoteAnd I know you won't believe me, but FYI kids don't give a shit about whether or not pot is viewed as acceptable or not.In fact, in alot of cases it IS the criminalization of it that makes it seem rebellious and glamorous. Just like with so many other things, telling a young teenaged kid not to do something is a sure way to get them to try it.
I don't believe it because my experience in this work tells me that opinion is flat out wrong. I've had kids flat out tell me that they use because their parents use and say it is okay. There are parents in this community who will light up right along with their kids. I work very closely with a couple of seasoned and well experienced substance abuse counselors who tell me that many of the clients they see have parents who have a very permissive attitude when it comes to alcohol and marijuana. So I know that it is indeed a factor, despite what you may have experienced.
Fair enough! I can't really find fault with much in that, and I do appreciate the clarification of your position on the matter (and the scope of your work; I should have remembered that you were in the prevention side of things and not the treatment side of things since some of my opinions were erroneously based on that).
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as far as the certainty of the science regarding the medical usefulness of pot.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 03, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government. Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding. The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E
What fascinates me the most about these threads is how you, RWHN, ignore the evidence that undermines the government's credibility and argument—you don't even dismiss it because first you'd need to
acknowledge it. Like it or not, the government impedes and ignores science, hobbles and destroys families more than the drug itself, and wastes vast amounts of public funds in the process.
I don't think you just missed my posts repeatedly, but if for some reason you did, here's a reiteration so you don't have to go digging for it:
1. We need to keep marijuana illegal for any use with severe penalties because "we don't know" if it has significant medical value according to the FDA.
2. In order to prove it has medical value to the FDA, scientists must have access to it.
3. Obstructionism by the NIDA and the DEA prevent and pervert the accumulation of scientific evidence in the US.
4. Evidence that slips by the obstruction or is conducted in other countries is completely ignored.
5. So, "the science is uncertain" is declared and we're back to step one.
You have offered no rebuttal and appear to toe the line of ignoring inconvenient facts.
Instead of engaging the strongest empirical arguments against your position, you revert back to trumpeting tautology about harm to kids while the elephant in the room tramples their parents and poops on the evidence.
Déformation professionnelle, much?
The problem with these threads is that people tend to forget what they are arguing. RWHN seems to be arguing that marijuana can cause real harm to families and especially to children, and NET seems to be arguing that the laws forbidding marijuana are ridiculous and not based on scientific evidence. Both of which I agree with.
(I'm just arguing that everything is better where I'm from :D)
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 04, 2011, 12:21:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 03, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government. Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding. The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E
What fascinates me the most about these threads is how you, RWHN, ignore the evidence that undermines the government's credibility and argument—you don't even dismiss it because first you'd need to acknowledge it. Like it or not, the government impedes and ignores science, hobbles and destroys families more than the drug itself, and wastes vast amounts of public funds in the process.
I don't think you just missed my posts repeatedly, but if for some reason you did, here's a reiteration so you don't have to go digging for it:
1. We need to keep marijuana illegal for any use with severe penalties because "we don't know" if it has significant medical value according to the FDA.
2. In order to prove it has medical value to the FDA, scientists must have access to it.
3. Obstructionism by the NIDA and the DEA prevent and pervert the accumulation of scientific evidence in the US.
4. Evidence that slips by the obstruction or is conducted in other countries is completely ignored.
5. So, "the science is uncertain" is declared and we're back to step one.
You have offered no rebuttal and appear to toe the line of ignoring inconvenient facts.
Instead of engaging the strongest empirical arguments against your position, you revert back to trumpeting tautology about harm to kids while the elephant in the room tramples their parents and poops on the evidence.
Déformation professionnelle, much?
MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences. Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming. They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California. So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest.
I'm also curious about their funding. They make it seem it is all coming from people who visit their website but it costs a lot of money to do any kind of clinical research. Do you happen to know where their funding comes from?
Quote from: el sjaako on April 04, 2011, 12:37:33 PM
The problem with these threads is that people tend to forget what they are arguing. RWHN seems to be arguing that marijuana can cause real harm to families and especially to children, and NET seems to be arguing that the laws forbidding marijuana are ridiculous and not based on scientific evidence. Both of which I agree with.
(I'm just arguing that everything is better where I'm from :D)
I'm not denying or ignoring the harm marijuana can cause in children though.
RWHN doesn't even acknowledge the damage marijuana laws do to parents that in turn harms their children. It's hard to be a mom or dad when you're ill AND locked up, or ill and the only effective relief is denied to you, or ill and now out of a house you used to own because you grew a small amount for your own consumption.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 03, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 12:45:24 PM
So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest.
:lulz:
RWHN, don't take me too seriously here, but you have to admit this is pretty funny.
Also, I didn't just dismiss your government link as biased because it was from the government. I dismissed it because it was
written with obvious bias, and next to no scientific argument. I say next to none, because
some of the citations seem credible, though I haven't honestly fully digested them yet.
The following is from the evil DEA's position paper on medical marijuana. Located here: http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position_july10.pdf Please note the citations.
The DEA and the federal government are not alone in viewing smoked marijuana as having no documented medical value. Voices in the medical community likewise do not accept smoked marijuana as medicine:
The American Medical Association (AMA) has always endorsed ―well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients with serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease.‖ In November 2009, the AMA amended its policy, urging that marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed ―with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.‖ The AMA also stated that ―this should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for prescription drug product.‖6
The American Society of Addiction Medicine's (ASAM) public policy statement on ―Medical Marijuana,‖ clearly rejects smoking as a means of drug delivery. ASAM further recommends that ―all cannabis, cannabis-based products and cannabis delivery devices should be subject to the same standards applicable to all other prescription medication and medical devices, and should not be distributed or otherwise provided to patients ...‖ without FDA approval. ASAM also ―discourages state interference in the federal medication approval process.‖7
The American Cancer Society (ACS) ―does not advocate inhaling smoke, nor the legalization of marijuana,‖ although the organization does support carefully controlled clinical studies for alternative delivery methods, specifically a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) skin patch.8
The American Glaucoma Society (AGS) has stated that ―although marijuana can lower the intraocular pressure, the side effects and short duration of action, coupled with the lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma, preclude recommending this drug in any form for the treatment of glaucoma at the present time.‖9
July 2010 5
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believes that ―[a]ny change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents.‖ While it supports scientific research on the possible medical use of cannabinoids as opposed to smoked marijuana, it opposes the legalization of marijuana.10
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) has stated that it could not recommend medical marijuana be made widely available for people with multiple sclerosis for symptom management, explaining: ―This decision was not only based on existing legal barriers to its use but, even more importantly, because studies to date do not demonstrate a clear benefit compared to existing symptomatic therapies and because side effects, systemic effects, and long-term effects are not yet clear.‖11
The British Medical Association (BMA) voiced extreme concern that downgrading the criminal status of marijuana would ―mislead‖ the public into believing that the drug is safe. The BMA maintains that marijuana ―has been linked to greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema.‖12 The 2004 Deputy Chairman of the BMA's Board of Science said that ―[t]he public must be made aware of the harmful effects we know result from smoking this drug.‖13
In 1999, The Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a landmark study reviewing the supposed medical properties of marijuana. The study is frequently cited by ―medical‖ marijuana advocates, but in fact severely undermines their arguments.
-After release of the IOM study, the principal investigators cautioned that the active compounds in marijuana may have medicinal potential and therefore should be researched further. However, the study concluded that ―there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.‖14
-For some ailments, the IOM found ―...potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC, for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.‖15 However, it pointed out that ―[t]he effects of cannabinoids on the symptoms studied are generally modest, and in most cases there are more effective medications [than smoked marijuana].‖16
-The study concluded that, at best, there is only anecdotal information on the medical benefits of smoked marijuana for some ailments, such as muscle spasticity. For other ailments, such as epilepsy and glaucoma, the study found no evidence of medical value and did not endorse further research.17
-The IOM study explained that ―smoked marijuana . . . is a crude THC delivery system that also delivers harmful substances.‖ In addition, ―plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect.‖ Therefore, the study concluded that ―there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.‖18
July 2010 6
-The principal investigators explicitly stated that using smoked marijuana in clinical trials ―should not be designed to develop it as a licensed drug, but should be a stepping stone to the development of new, safe delivery systems of cannabinoids.‖19
Thus, even scientists and researchers who believe that certain active ingredients in marijuana may have potential medicinal value openly discount the notion that smoked marijuana is or can become "medicine."
The Drug Enforcement Administration supports ongoing research into potential medicinal uses of marijuana's active ingredients. As of May 2010:
-There are 119 researchers registered with DEA to perform studies with marijuana, marijuana extracts, and non-tetrahydrocannabinol marijuana derivatives that exist in the plant, such as cannabidiol and cannabinol.
-Studies include evaluation of abuse potential, physical/psychological effects, adverse effects, therapeutic potential, and detection.
-Eighteen of the researchers are approved to conduct research with smoked marijuana on human subjects.20
Quote from: Vaud on April 04, 2011, 01:02:24 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 03, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 12:45:24 PM
So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest.
:lulz:
RWHN, don't take me too seriously here, but you have to admit this is pretty funny.
Also, I didn't just dismiss your government link as biased because it was from the government. I dismissed it because it was written with obvious bias, and next to no scientific argument. I say next to none, because some of the citations seem credible, though I haven't honestly fully digested them yet.
Umm, see, what I did is look at their website, did some of my own research, and actually demonstrated how they are being dishonest. Like purporting to be the only organization in the US doing clinical research on medical marijuana when they aren't. Also, it seems pretty clear they are being less than forthwright when it comes to talking about where their funding comes from. You can't fund clinical research solely from donations from website viewers. Clinical research costs big bank.
But you've yet to demonstrate the "obvious bias" because you haven't "fully digested" the evidence. So my assertion comes from actual details and information while yours is coming from.... :?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 04, 2011, 12:49:28 PM
RWHN doesn't even acknowledge the damage marijuana laws do to parents that in turn harms their children. It's hard to be a mom or dad when you're ill AND locked up, or ill and the only effective relief is denied to you, or ill and now out of a house you used to own because you grew a small amount for your own consumption.
I agree wholeheartedly that keeping it illegal does more harm than good, but legalization should have shitall to do with medicinal use. If we're talking about full grown adults, it's a matter of personal liberty.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 04, 2011, 12:49:28 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 04, 2011, 12:37:33 PM
The problem with these threads is that people tend to forget what they are arguing. RWHN seems to be arguing that marijuana can cause real harm to families and especially to children, and NET seems to be arguing that the laws forbidding marijuana are ridiculous and not based on scientific evidence. Both of which I agree with.
(I'm just arguing that everything is better where I'm from :D)
I'm not denying or ignoring the harm marijuana can cause in children though.
RWHN doesn't even acknowledge the damage marijuana laws do to parents that in turn harms their children. It's hard to be a mom or dad when you're ill AND locked up, or ill and the only effective relief is denied to you, or ill and now out of a house you used to own because you grew a small amount for your own consumption.
This only happens in states with draconian sentencing guidelines. In my state, adults and kids alike have the option of drug courts, with the obvious caveat being that they are non-violent offenders and not trafficking. They will not go to jail, unless they decide to turn that option down. But then, the outcomes are on them because they made that choice.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 04, 2011, 12:21:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 03, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 02, 2011, 08:40:38 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 02, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
I'd also like to point out to the rest of the board that in spite of how some thread topics are stereotyped as being useless to pursue on this board, we've had an 18-page thread about this subject so far that has been almost entirely reasoned discussion between knowledgeable people with differing viewpoints on the subject.
The problems with threads like this isn't that discussions turn into poop flinging, its that pretty much everybody involved (on both sides, including me) just start repeating the same arguments, and it gets to the point that if a new argument is presented, it'll be totally ignored, because it can't be addressed with more repetition.
The thing that bugs me the most about these threads is when a link I post is dismissed out of hand because it comes from the government. Like it or not, a lot of what we've learned about substance abuse is because of government funding. The private sector does fuck all about this and when they do you get bullshit like that "Intervention" show on A & E
What fascinates me the most about these threads is how you, RWHN, ignore the evidence that undermines the government's credibility and argument—you don't even dismiss it because first you'd need to acknowledge it. Like it or not, the government impedes and ignores science, hobbles and destroys families more than the drug itself, and wastes vast amounts of public funds in the process.
I don't think you just missed my posts repeatedly, but if for some reason you did, here's a reiteration so you don't have to go digging for it:
1. We need to keep marijuana illegal for any use with severe penalties because "we don't know" if it has significant medical value according to the FDA.
2. In order to prove it has medical value to the FDA, scientists must have access to it.
3. Obstructionism by the NIDA and the DEA prevent and pervert the accumulation of scientific evidence in the US.
4. Evidence that slips by the obstruction or is conducted in other countries is completely ignored.
5. So, "the science is uncertain" is declared and we're back to step one.
You have offered no rebuttal and appear to toe the line of ignoring inconvenient facts.
Instead of engaging the strongest empirical arguments against your position, you revert back to trumpeting tautology about harm to kids while the elephant in the room tramples their parents and poops on the evidence.
Déformation professionnelle, much?
MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences. Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming. They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California. So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest.
I'm also curious about their funding. They make it seem it is all coming from people who visit their website but it costs a lot of money to do any kind of clinical research. Do you happen to know where their funding comes from?
They don't claim to have a monopoly on clinical research. The MAPS claim is in regards to FDA criteria:
Quote
MAPS is currently the only organization working to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of botanical marijuana as a prescription medicine for specific medical uses to the satisfaction of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
I don't know the source of their funding, however the claims I referenced from MAPS can all be substantiated.
Here's what is claimed in the PDF from the justice.gov site you just copied and pasted from:
"There is no sound scientific evidence that smoked marijuana can be used safely and effectively as medicine." It's on the first page and it's bolded.
That's simply not true:
http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 01:09:50 PM
In my state, adults and kids alike have the option of drug courts, with the obvious caveat being that they are non-violent offenders and not trafficking. They will not go to jail, unless they decide to turn that option down. But then, the outcomes are on them because they made that choice.
Are you saying you think it is acceptable/justifiable that an adult has to go to drug courts, take classes, pay fines, and get assraped by the state because they smoke herb?
QuoteThere are thousands additional articles, some with opposing results
You will also note that the DEA is talking about
smoked marijuana. And if you read what I posted, you will see that the DEA has approved many research projects concerning medical marijuana. I've made pretty clear in this thread, and in other threads, that I believe marijuana has a place as a medicine, in a non-smoked form. And the pill-based delivery systems can be very effective. My mother-in-law was rooming with someone who had terminal cancer this past week in the hospital. She was given one of the marijuana pills, it might've been marinol, not sure. Anyway, it was very effective in getting her appetite back and fighting the pain she was experiencing. I'm definitely all for the research that can lead to these kinds of medications.
Quote from: Vaud on April 04, 2011, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 01:09:50 PM
In my state, adults and kids alike have the option of drug courts, with the obvious caveat being that they are non-violent offenders and not trafficking. They will not go to jail, unless they decide to turn that option down. But then, the outcomes are on them because they made that choice.
Are you saying you think it is acceptable/justifiable that an adult has to go to drug courts, take classes, pay fines, and get assraped by the state because they smoke herb?
Please explain to me how someone gets "assraped" by the state when they go to Drug Court.
Okay, thanks for clarifying that you think adults should go to Drug Court for smoking marijuana.
I have no further interest in this conversation, as I suspect I will get a bit too riled otherwise.
Won't answer the question? I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you aren't actually overly familiar with the Drug Court model.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 01:45:21 PM
Won't answer the question? I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that you aren't actually overly familiar with the Drug Court model.
As far as I'm concerned, no one has the right to make me do a fucking thing over what I smoke.
I tend to take shit like that personally. Please, carry on, I'm just done.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 12:45:24 PM
MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences. Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming. They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California. So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest.
I'm also curious about their funding. They make it seem it is all coming from people who visit their website but it costs a lot of money to do any kind of clinical research. Do you happen to know where their funding comes from?
Weren't you just saying we shouldn't discount evidence from the government just because the government has an agenda?
No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas. Further, again, I point out that when I post things from the government, they are cited. So they are backed up by voices, researchers, outside of the government. And if their is a quarrel with an individual point, there is an avenue to do further research on that individual point.
Instead, it seems people just want to dismiss it out of hand without actually looking at where the information comes from. I mean, there are people in this very thread dismissing things and in the same breath saying they haven't actually digested or read the source. I mean, if people want to counter, have at it. I can handle that, but can it at least be based upon the information I posted and not some superficial angst for the Big Bad Government Boogeyman?
I'm still waiting for the report that shows that the freedom to do with your body as you wish is unscientific.... ;-)
(just trying to lighten the mood a bit)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 04:33:51 PM
No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas.
This is the same government that runs the BLS?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 04:47:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 04:33:51 PM
No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas.
This is the same government that runs the BLS?
Would I ever lie to you?
\
(http://www.freepress.net/files/images/latest_obama.jpg)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 04:47:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 04:33:51 PM
No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas.
This is the same government that runs the BLS?
Let me rephrase, you shouldn't discount evidence, out of hand, that comes from the government.
I don't know about other agencies because I don't deal with them, but agencies like SAMHSA and NIDA release funding to organizations like mine to do the work. The government doesn't do the research, they just pay for it. We do the work. We do the research. They package it and put it out into the public. I just think it is too easy to say because it has NIDA's name on it, or the DEA's name on it, or SAMHSA's name on it, that it is automatically tainted beef. Are they perfect? Of course not, they are made up of monkeys like the rest of us, and they contract with monkeys like me to do their work, but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down.
Quotebut neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down.
That's kind of self-centered in the extreme, if you think about it.
People working in jobs like RWHN's: "Doo dee doo dee doo, doing my work."
Hippies: "YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP ME DOWN, MAN!"
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 05:04:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 04:47:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 04:33:51 PM
No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas.
This is the same government that runs the BLS?
Let me rephrase, you shouldn't discount evidence, out of hand, that comes from the government.
I don't know about other agencies because I don't deal with them, but agencies like SAMHSA and NIDA release funding to organizations like mine to do the work. The government doesn't do the research, they just pay for it. We do the work. We do the research. They package it and put it out into the public. I just think it is too easy to say because it has NIDA's name on it, or the DEA's name on it, or SAMHSA's name on it, that it is automatically tainted beef. Are they perfect? Of course not, they are made up of monkeys like the rest of us, and they contract with monkeys like me to do their work, but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down.
And what are the chances you'll keep getting that funding if your research shows something different from what the people writing the checks want it to show?
Such as?
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 04, 2011, 05:52:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 05:04:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 04:47:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 04:33:51 PM
No, I said you shouldn't discount evidence that comes from the government, I said nothing about agendas.
This is the same government that runs the BLS?
Let me rephrase, you shouldn't discount evidence, out of hand, that comes from the government.
I don't know about other agencies because I don't deal with them, but agencies like SAMHSA and NIDA release funding to organizations like mine to do the work. The government doesn't do the research, they just pay for it. We do the work. We do the research. They package it and put it out into the public. I just think it is too easy to say because it has NIDA's name on it, or the DEA's name on it, or SAMHSA's name on it, that it is automatically tainted beef. Are they perfect? Of course not, they are made up of monkeys like the rest of us, and they contract with monkeys like me to do their work, but neither are they these sinister people sitting around thinking about how they are going to keep the hippies down.
And what are the chances you'll keep getting that funding if your research shows something different from what the people writing the checks want it to show?
While I'm not slamming RHWN, I have to say that government funding in ALL areas is largely supplied so that the government can hear what it wants to hear, and cut funding off from people who say things that disagree with them. The Department of Energy is notorious for this, as is anything having to do with the DHS.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:07:55 PM
Such as?
I can post some links tonight, if you'd like (this comp doesn't search well on account of nannywall), or I can give you some anecdotal incidents with respect to the DOE right now.
No, I'm asking Laughing Jude to suggest, specifically, what I might find in my work that would get my funding cut off. It's never happened to me and I've not heard of it happening to any colleagues. I'm just curious as to what he/she thinks is being suppressed.
No, usually our funding gets cut off when Tea Bag Governors or Senators decide that money should be used to fill budget holes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
No, I'm asking Laughing Jude to suggest, specifically, what I might find in my work that would get my funding cut off. It's never happened to me and I've not heard of it happening to any colleagues. I'm just curious as to what he/she thinks is being suppressed.
No, usually our funding gets cut off when Tea Bag Governors or Senators decide that money should be used to fill budget holes.
Oh, I thought we were talking about pot research in general.
We were but LJ asked me about the chance of my funding getting cut off if I found something contrary to what the government "wanted to see." Thus my specific question in response. I just want to know what it is that I could possibly discover that would be contrary. That marijuana isn't been abused by kids? That it isn't bad for kids? That it isn't the #1 reason for treatment admissions?
But yes, if someday it turns out that someone discovers it really isn't a big deal, yes, they will cut off the funding. As they should. Because we shouldn't be funding non-existent issues.
However, with adolescent marijuana abuse, it very much is a big deal.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:32:05 PM
We were but LJ asked me about the chance of my funding getting cut off if I found something contrary to what the government "wanted to see." Thus my specific question in response. I just want to know what it is that I could possibly discover that would be contrary. That marijuana isn't been abused by kids? That it isn't bad for kids? That it isn't the #1 reason for treatment admissions?
But yes, if someday it turns out that someone discovers it really isn't a big deal, yes, they will cut off the funding. As they should. Because we shouldn't be funding non-existent issues.
However, with adolescent marijuana abuse, it very much is a big deal.
The question I have for you is if -
hypothetically - you WERE to report that most marijuana issues were overblown, with supporting data, you'd get your funding axed?
If there was specific funding for marijuana abuse prevention, and I demonstrated there wasn't a need, then yes, that funding would be axed, or, they wouldn't fund any programs to prevent marijuana abuse, because the need isn't there.
But the kind of funding I get covers multiple substances. So if we were to determine there was no need for programming around marijuana, we simply redirect funding into other substances. They wouldn't shut us off just because we didn't have a problem with a particular substance. But of course, we do have a problem with marijuana abuse amongst our youth. One of the biggest problems being the permissive attitude of parents and other adults in the community.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:48:23 PM
If there was specific funding for marijuana abuse prevention, and I demonstrated there wasn't a need, then yes, that funding would be axed, or, they wouldn't fund any programs to prevent marijuana abuse, because the need isn't there.
But the kind of funding I get covers multiple substances. So if we were to determine there was no need for programming around marijuana, we simply redirect funding into other substances. They wouldn't shut us off just because we didn't have a problem with a particular substance. But of course, we do have a problem with marijuana abuse amongst our youth. One of the biggest problems being the permissive attitude of parents and other adults in the community.
Please allow me to restate the question: I understand that your data supports the government's position on Marijuana. However, if it did not, and you reported your findings, do you believe that you would lose your funding
across the board, regardless of the other substances still being reported as dangerous/undesireable, not because of necessity, but rather to get you out of the way?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
Please allow me to restate the question: I understand that your data supports the government's position on Marijuana. However, if it did not, and you reported your findings, do you believe that you would lose your funding across the board, regardless of the other substances still being reported as dangerous/undesireable, not because of necessity, but rather to get you out of the way?
Is that even necessary? If people showing that something isn't a problem get their funding cut off, then obviously reports indicating problems will be published more. You don't even have to assume malice.
And when you look for malice it's real easy to find. From way back when it was first made illegal: there was a study where they had monkeys breathe nothing but smoke for several minutes, and they found brain damage afterwards (this study was cited at least into the nineties by federally funded programmed); to right now: The Drug czar's job is to prevent legalization (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/)
I'm not saying all federally funded studies are bullshit, I'm just saying the government doesn't have a good track record and we should be very wary of bias.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 04, 2011, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
Please allow me to restate the question: I understand that your data supports the government's position on Marijuana. However, if it did not, and you reported your findings, do you believe that you would lose your funding across the board, regardless of the other substances still being reported as dangerous/undesireable, not because of necessity, but rather to get you out of the way?
Is that even necessary? If people showing that something isn't a problem get their funding cut off, then obviously reports indicating problems will be published more. You don't even have to assume malice.
Read the question again. He deals with more than marijuana addiction.
I know I wouldn't lose that funding. And honestly, currently, marijuana is down on the list of priorities, behind alcohol (which always tops the list) and prescription drug abuse. So it really isn't that big a deal if a community finds that marijuana isn't a problem. That funding will just go towards underage drinking and Rx abuse prevention.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 07:05:48 PM
I know I wouldn't lose that funding.
Whoo boy, I could tell you some stories.
As I say, with underage drinking and Rx abuse being such big problems, it isn't a big deal to the feds if a community doesn't identify it as a priority. In fact, more and more communities are decreasing their focus on marijuana, because of reduced funding. Underage drinking is always #1. Rx because it is emerging has basically become #2. MJ prevention and inhalant abuse prevention gets whatever scraps are left.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 07:27:11 PM
As I say, with underage drinking and Rx abuse being such big problems, it isn't a big deal to the feds if a community doesn't identify it as a priority. In fact, more and more communities are decreasing their focus on marijuana, because of reduced funding. Underage drinking is always #1. Rx because it is emerging has basically become #2. MJ prevention and inhalant abuse prevention gets whatever scraps are left.
I'd bet that perscription drug abuse, even if not as prevalent as marijuana use, leads to more physical problems and fatalities.
Yes.
So?
As far as Marinol vs medical use of actual marijuana I really only see two advantage to Marinol. It's just THC, and it is easy to measure dosage which allows for easier control of dosing.
On the down side the other cannibanoids seem to have medical value as well, especcially when used together, also marijuana can be ingested by smoking or orally, marinol can only be ingested orally which can be a problem when it is being used to control nausea. Marinol is also much more expensive to produce.
I think that Marinol is a good option to have out there, but I can't see it being used often if marijuana were available in a standard, by perscription sort of way.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Not a valid argument. We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
But, see, it has to be illegal because, um,
won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Not a valid argument. We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.
Sorry perhaps that was unclear....
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 01:59:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
But, see, it has to be illegal because, um, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?
Personally, I think it should be legal, but that you should have to move to someplace like Maine or maybe Arkansas to smoke it.
Mostly because 99% of the world annoys the fuck out of me, and 99% of that 99% are even worse on pot.
The 1% of 1% that can pull it off without giving me murder thoughts can get away with it anyway, laws or no laws.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 02:01:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Not a valid argument. We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.
Sorry perhaps that was unclear....
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Well, we don't know how many of those trephinations were done because the recipient was annoyingly stoned, do we?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 02:02:52 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 02:01:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Not a valid argument. We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.
Sorry perhaps that was unclear....
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Well, we don't know how many of those trephinations were done because the recipient was annoyingly stoned, do we?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
POINT!
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 01:59:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
But, see, it has to be illegal because, um, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?
:kingmeh:
Just because it doesn't kill them doesn't mean it won't alter their brain at a crucial time of development that may or may not have a negative impact on the rest of their lives.
I remember reading a post from RWHN from an older pot thread saying that humanity may look back one day and see this period as being the most drugged up and hazy of them. That struck me hard because if you look around for two seconds it's totally true. We are almost all of us in some way willingly numbing ourselves to the reality around us, and while most Discordians have varied opinions about everything many here feel that we should at least TRY to look at reality in the most real way possible. Which drugs and alcohol can prevent substantially. That's given me something to think about for months now.
Now I'm not one for strict sobriety and I dont feel hindered by society in my use, but I sure am glad that SOME PEOPLE do give a shit about the way children's heads are toyed with chemically AND I'm such way that isn't self-centered, egotistical and merely a tag line for bored, conservative stay at home mothers use to feel like they're contributing to society the way that line was intended.
Quote from: Alty on April 05, 2011, 03:48:07 AM
I remember reading a post from RWHN from an older pot thread saying that humanity may look back one day and see this period as being the most drugged up and hazy of them.
This is incorrect. We will be even more fucked up in the future, for the same reason RWHN is basically trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon.
Ask me why. Go ahead.
Why?
*Never shys away from the horrible truth.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2011, 03:52:38 AM
Why?
*Never shys away from the horrible truth.
PILLZ HERE!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Donald Coyote on April 05, 2011, 03:58:14 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2011, 03:52:38 AM
Why?
*Never shys away from the horrible truth.
PILLZ HERE!!!!!!!!!
THIS. More complexity means monkeys need more filters. More filters mean more drugs, booze, or weird religion.
This will increase, so long as civilization endures.
I agree and like to think I do what I can in my own small ways to speed that process up, not that my help is needed. More and more tiny pieces of reality will be clouded over until the most reprehensible things we can imagine become commonplace. People won't even be able to look at the holocaust as a minor atrocity because they won't know what it was.
But we will BE DAMNED if you don't have shiny toys to play with. I fear that the only thing that will keep our sagging meat moving towards progress as our souls are crushed into the dust of history will be shiny toys.
Though, as grim as my personal outlook is I still have more respect for people who shovel with a spoon than those who would simply shout clever little ironies to the one's doing the shoveling IF that shoveling is full of the passion that is one of the few things I value in humans and one of the thing that we can't produce and disappears more and more every day. Especially if that clever little irony is hackneyed and misplaced.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
As far as the prohibitionists are concerned, there will never be enough data. The deity of your choice could come down to Earth tomorrow and say, "Hey, smoke this shit!" and they'd still say the matter needed to be studied more. They're not motivated by reason or science. They're motivated by profit and control.
Quote from: Alty on April 05, 2011, 03:48:07 AM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 01:59:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
But, see, it has to be illegal because, um, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?
:kingmeh:
Just because it doesn't kill them doesn't mean it won't alter their brain at a crucial time of development that may or may not have a negative impact on the rest of their lives.
I remember reading a post from RWHN from an older pot thread saying that humanity may look back one day and see this period as being the most drugged up and hazy of them. That struck me hard because if you look around for two seconds it's totally true. We are almost all of us in some way willingly numbing ourselves to the reality around us, and while most Discordians have varied opinions about everything many here feel that we should at least TRY to look at reality in the most real way possible. Which drugs and alcohol can prevent substantially. That's given me something to think about for months now.
Now I'm not one for strict sobriety and I dont feel hindered by society in my use, but I sure am glad that SOME PEOPLE do give a shit about the way children's heads are toyed with chemically AND I'm such way that isn't self-centered, egotistical and merely a tag line for bored, conservative stay at home mothers use to feel like they're contributing to society the way that line was intended.
I don't think kids should be smoking weed. At all. You don't need to be fucking with your brain chemistry when you're going through puberty. They probably shouldn't be on most of the prescription drugs they're on either. But that's not what I was getting at.
What I'm referring to is the argument that drugs should be illegal for adults to use in order to protect children. That's just asinine. Unfortunately, it's also an argument that a lot of people buy into. Not everything in the world has to be appropriate for the under-18 crowd, and it's passive-aggressive bullshit for adults to be labeled "bad role models" for exercising their right to live as they see fit so long as they're not hurting anyone. Children don't run this planet. They're not even the majority of the humans living on it. Society shouldn't cater to them at the expense of the freedoms of adults or "protect" people at one age by robbing them of rights once they reach another. But that's another subject entirely.
I do find the idea that drugs make experiences less "real" to be interesting, though I can see flaws in it. Obviously our sober senses are inaccurate, so it's not like we're fully experiencing "real" reality from the start. While it's true that some drugs either introduce unfounded sensory data or cause us to further misperceive that data, it's also true that some drugs enhance the senses--cannabis, for example, enhances taste, which I suppose could be used to argue that it makes experiences more "real."
Oh ok. I would have preferred reading that the first time around, but you can't have everything in life. :lulz:
I agree with you partially. Especailly this:
QuoteNot everything in the world has to be appropriate for the under-18 crowd, and it's passive-aggressive bullshit for adults to be labeled "bad role models" for exercising their right to live as they see fit so long as they're not hurting anyone.
Dunno about the rest. Gotta think about that.
I also see what you mean about the reality thing. Obviously beer is real and being drunk is pretty fucking real, but it's one of those things that easily fuck your vision up and shouldn't be taken lightly, especially when it comes to children. But I see television the same way.
Deadly as the democrats, that empty out our stores. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-up5VVReeM)
Doing my part to get to page 30.
Also, could someone explain to me how being a care provider for multiple individuals means you're allowed to have a huge grow operation in your garage that is so potent the smell wafts 3 houses away and the cops respond with a resounding meh?
Yes, I live up the hill from a huge grower. Hooray medicinal blue states!
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 01:59:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
But, see, it has to be illegal because, um, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?
Hold the fucking phone. Jesus dude, did you come up with that all by yourself? I have to tell you, in all of the times I've discussed this topic here and elsewhere, that has to be singlehandedly the most original line I've ever heard. I mean, shit, you completely slayed me with that. That is some Grade A original satire right there. I bet John Stewart calls you every night to check his jokes for him. Am I right?
You're a goddamn rock star dude!
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 02:01:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Not a valid argument. We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.
Sorry perhaps that was unclear....
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
That isn't completely true: In Massachussetts for example https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2008/047_MA_State.html
Now, if you want to say that 80 marijuana involved deaths in 2007, really isn't a big deal. That's your things. But it isn't true to say that there aren't any documented marijuana-involved deaths.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 05:14:28 AM
As far as the prohibitionists are concerned, there will never be enough data. The deity of your choice could come down to Earth tomorrow and say, "Hey, smoke this shit!" and they'd still say the matter needed to be studied more. They're not motivated by reason or science. They're motivated by profit and control.
Yep. You should see the Mercedes in my yard from all of the mad bank I'm making. Oh, and the Gold Plated toilet. You've not taken a dump until you've sat on one of those babies.
QuoteWhat I'm referring to is the argument that drugs should be illegal for adults to use in order to protect children. That's just asinine. Unfortunately, it's also an argument that a lot of people buy into. Not everything in the world has to be appropriate for the under-18 crowd, and it's passive-aggressive bullshit for adults to be labeled "bad role models" for exercising their right to live as they see fit so long as they're not hurting anyone. Children don't run this planet. They're not even the majority of the humans living on it. Society shouldn't cater to them at the expense of the freedoms of adults or "protect" people at one age by robbing them of rights once they reach another. But that's another subject entirely.
That's what happens when you live in an authoritative country. You have freedom, within limits. And it is precisely that way in order to promote a well functioning society. Or, as well functioning as you can get given that you have a bunch of monkeys running the thing. And the reality is that drugs aren't illegal solely because of children. That does happen to be why I think they should remain illegal. But I'm only one person in this fight. In the end, we have to way the cost and benefit of any policy. I personally don't think the benefit of adults being able to smoke up in their living room outweighs the costs that will be shouldered by our youth. You can mock that line of thinking all you want, and just cast it off like its some bullshit Hallmark greeting. But I would humbly suggest that you should volunteer some of your time at your local adolescent substance abuse treatment agency or residential facility, and talk to real kids who've been impacted by substance abuse. It's easy to just sit back and throw out the usual cliches, but I think perhaps you'd see it a bit differently if you looked beyond the NORML line of thought.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 05:14:28 AM
I don't think kids should be smoking weed. At all. You don't need to be fucking with your brain chemistry when you're going through puberty.
You know, if you would just get over your self-righteous soapbox, you'd see that you agree with RWHN, and with what he's doing.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 12:18:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 02:01:13 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes.
So?
Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality. At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
Not a valid argument. We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.
Sorry perhaps that was unclear....
Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?
That isn't completely true: In Massachussetts for example https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2008/047_MA_State.html
Now, if you want to say that 80 marijuana involved deaths in 2007, really isn't a big deal. That's your things. But it isn't true to say that there aren't any documented marijuana-involved deaths.
Wow, very interesting. What is the basis for those numbers? Is there detail to that report?
Probably, but I don't really have the time to go digging for it right now. I imagine you can find the information somewhere at DAWN.
I shouldn't be dragging myself back into the conversation, but I can't help but smell the bullshit.
As I read the numbers there, the key phrase seems to be SINGLE-DRUG DEATHS... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret that as Marijuana ONLY, and of course the documented number remains at ZERO, as it has been forever. Funny thing is, this is EXACTLY the same way that Anti-marijuana advertisements twist the numbers. They don't mention the complete overlap in EVERY documented case in which death occurs; that there was another substance present.
We spend over a billion a year to keep users in prison, and how many arrests are there a year now, just in the US? Last I looked, it was nearing 1 mil a year. What's gonna fix that? More drug courts?
Ah yep, found the full report... but I'm not sure what to think about it:
https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2007/ME_07_Complete.pdf
QuoteFindings in this publication focus on two major categories of drug-related deaths, based on the manner of death as
determined by the ME/C.
(1) Drug-related deaths (other than drug-related suicide deaths) include the following:
,, Natural or accidental deaths with drug involvement. These two categories capture deaths involving medical
use, nonmedical use, overuse, and misuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications and drug abuse.
,, Homicide by drug. This category was designed to capture malicious poisonings; that is, the decedent was
administered a drug(s) by another person for a malicious purpose.
,, Deaths with drug involvement when manner of death denoted by the ME/c was "could not be
determined" (cNbD). This manner of death is assigned by the ME/C when a definitive ruling of suicide,
homicide, natural, or accidental death is not possible.
(2) Drug-related suicide deaths include suicide deaths with drug involvement. The determination of suicide is
made by the ME/C. Because of the broad eligibility criteria for determining DAWN cases, drug-related suicide
deaths include more than deaths due to overdoses. A reported drug may not be the cause of the suicide death
even if only one drug was involved. Drug(s) must be a contributing factor, though.
Findings reported in this publication are based on concluded investigations that were submitted by May 12, 2008,
for deaths that occurred during 2007. Death investigations that were not concluded by the ME/C by the end of the
data collection period are excluded.
From what the report says, it appears that if someone dies and the tox screen tests positive for pot, DAWN lists it as a pot related death. Is that correct or am I missing something?
I think it would be dependent on the nature of the death. For example, if it was an automobile accident, and there were high levels of pot in the system, then you can cite pot as a contributor to the death. Or perhaps if someone drowned and they had high amounts in their system. So there would have to be a logical link. I mean, if someone were in a fatal bus accident, that they weren't driving, and they were found to have pot in their system, you wouldn't be able to attribute the pot to the cause of death because it obviously had no bearing on the death.
Quote from: Vaud on April 05, 2011, 04:52:09 PM
I shouldn't be dragging myself back into the conversation, but I can't help but smell the bullshit.
As I read the numbers there, the key phrase seems to be SINGLE-DRUG DEATHS... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret that as Marijuana ONLY, and of course the documented number remains at ZERO, as it has been forever. Funny thing is, this is EXACTLY the same way that Anti-marijuana advertisements twist the numbers. They don't mention the complete overlap in EVERY documented case in which death occurs; that there was another substance present.
Actually, the dashes represent a number less than 4. If it were zero, there would be a zero there as it is in other substances. Also, the numbers are a rate. So it is the number of deaths per 100,000 people. So just keep that in mind.
QuoteWe spend over a billion a year to keep users in prison, and how many arrests are there a year now, just in the US? Last I looked, it was nearing 1 mil a year. What's gonna fix that? More drug courts?
[citation needed]
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 05, 2011, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 05:14:28 AM
I don't think kids should be smoking weed. At all. You don't need to be fucking with your brain chemistry when you're going through puberty.
You know, if you would just get over your self-righteous soapbox, you'd see that you agree with RWHN, and with what he's doing.
I (and I suspect Jude as well) support what RWHN does regardless of the legality of marijuana (medicinal or otherwise), it would make his job harder, but Jude's entire point is that the ends don't justify the means.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 04:57:11 PM
I think it would be dependent on the nature of the death. For example, if it was an automobile accident, and there were high levels of pot in the system, then you can cite pot as a contributor to the death. Or perhaps if someone drowned and they had high amounts in their system. So there would have to be a logical link. I mean, if someone were in a fatal bus accident, that they weren't driving, and they were found to have pot in their system, you wouldn't be able to attribute the pot to the cause of death because it obviously had no bearing on the death.
But pot stays in the system a long time... I haven't smoked in days and I'm sure that tests would show elevated THC. I mean, I'm not trying to naysay the data, I'm just not sure what the data is actually saying based on the report.
I was assuming, I guess, that these were instances where pot directly contributed to a death, rather than being present in the system of someone that died. I am sure a lot of depressed people smoke pot because they're depressed and then may go on to kill themselves, this report lists those as pot related death, but that doesn't really seem honest to me. It 'could' be a contributing factor, or it could be that the poor sod was gonna kill themselves anyway... it seems kind of ambiguous to me. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm not an ME/Coroner or a drug expert.
I can only speak to Maine MEs, as part of my training for my profession involved a few presentations by the Chief ME for the State. And the impression I got, is that if they can't conclusively say from the medical evidence and the police reports that something contributed to a death, they don't list it as part of the COD. It certainly will still be part of the tox screen, but it only gets listed as a contributing factor if the evidence says it is. And FTR, that same report for Maine did have zero deaths.
There's fairly good evidence that pot has a negative effect on cognitive abilities for up to a month after a user quits (especially for heavy users), so I'm not entirely sure its wrong to call a deadly accident weed related just based on the tox screen.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2011, 05:03:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 05, 2011, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 05:14:28 AM
I don't think kids should be smoking weed. At all. You don't need to be fucking with your brain chemistry when you're going through puberty.
You know, if you would just get over your self-righteous soapbox, you'd see that you agree with RWHN, and with what he's doing.
I (and I suspect Jude as well) support what RWHN does regardless of the legality of marijuana (medicinal or otherwise), it would make his job harder, but Jude's entire point is that the ends don't justify the means.
The same can be said for legalizing marijuana.
Let's just cut through all the bullshit, here.
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Sound off.
Who thinks pot is fine? Sound off.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? Sound off.
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)? Sound off.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Sound off.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? Sound off.
Just so we can get a feel for where people stand without a pack of loaded words and inflammatory crap. We've had this discussion about 10 million times, and EVERY TIME it becomes rancorous. Let's see if FOR ONCE, we can continue the conversation without half of the participants pissing off the other half, and without the usual condescending "I'm talking to an idiot" nonsense.
The way to do this is to establish WHERE everyone stands, so we can cut out the appeal to assbaggery arguments.
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Yes
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Yes
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? God no.
(other questions left out for redundancy)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 05:16:53 PM
I can only speak to Maine MEs, as part of my training for my profession involved a few presentations by the Chief ME for the State. And the impression I got, is that if they can't conclusively say from the medical evidence and the police reports that something contributed to a death, they don't list it as part of the COD. It certainly will still be part of the tox screen, but it only gets listed as a contributing factor if the evidence says it is. And FTR, that same report for Maine did have zero deaths.
Yeah I noticed that as well... some states have 0 deaths and some have like 80... which seems like a really crazy difference. So maybe each state has a different basis for what they report to DAWN?
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Sound off. Yes
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Sound off. Yes
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? I think pot is a bad idea for some people... just like alcohol or coffee. Or in TGRR's case beans. I also think its bad for young people, or anyone who uses it as an escape.
Who thinks pot is fine? I think pot is fine for me, and for most everyone I know that enjoys it and still holds down a real job and can handle their responsibilities.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? If someone sells to minors, they should go to prison.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? I think this is probably the best solution.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? I would love to be allowed to grow my own, but I accept that its extremely unlikely in the US for the government to allow that kind of unregulated behavior.
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Yup.
Who thinks pot is fine? Probably not.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? No.
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)? Yes.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? At the very least.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? No.
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS:
Have you ever gotten high? Yes.
If 'yes', were you a frequent user (1+ times a week)? Yes.
Do you still get high, if you used to? No.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2011, 05:17:59 PM
There's fairly good evidence that pot has a negative effect on cognitive abilities for up to a month after a user quits (especially for heavy users), so I'm not entirely sure its wrong to call a deadly accident weed related just based on the tox screen.
I think there are a lot of competing studies which agree, disagree and wander off into left field... which are you referencing?
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? It's a bad idea for kids because it fucks them up during a crucial time of development. And given that brain development continues into the mid 20s or later, I think it is generally a bad idea for young adults as well. But of course, we have the long history of allowing young adults to consume alcohol, so socially, it's probably a moot point.
Who thinks pot is fine? Philosophically, I think it is fine for adults. Practically, there is no way to legalize it for adults in a way that doesn't impact kids by increasing access.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? If they are trafficking or commit a violent offense, yes. If it is simple possession, no.
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)? I advocate for Drug Courts for individuals who are assessed to have a dependency on marijuana. For those who don't meet that threshold and are more casual users, I'd be okay with a graduated fine structure and community service, where the community service must be with an organization that works in the field of substance abuse prevention or treatment.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? No way. I'd like to keep that toothpaste in the tube.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? Would end very badly.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 05:27:13 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2011, 05:17:59 PM
There's fairly good evidence that pot has a negative effect on cognitive abilities for up to a month after a user quits (especially for heavy users), so I'm not entirely sure its wrong to call a deadly accident weed related just based on the tox screen.
I think there are a lot of competing studies which agree, disagree and wander off into left field... which are you referencing?
Don't have the citations on me, and its a pain in the ass to look through the drug research database. But basically they split a bunch of people who agreed to quit into groups based on usage level (where heavy users showed worse cognitive performance than light users) then marked improvement over the course of a month (by which time there was no difference between heavy users and light users). The study was repeated later (with slightly different results thanks to the addition of a very heavy users category, who didn't catch up to the light users).
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Pot can be a bad idea. Just like alcohol, or bungee jumping.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Almost: I'd add the no advertising clause that tobacco has. Also, Alcohol and Weed should not be sold from the same places, and probably shouldn't be consumed at the same public places. Split up the weed cafes and bars.
To be clear: I think that pot should be legal for anyone who can get himself blown up for his country (18+) because:
Keeping it illegal costs a lot of money, and making it legal could raise tax money. The cost of treatment won't go up much, because experience has shown usage wont go up much.
The government telling me I can't inhale certain things is bullshit.
Making something legal does not equal sending an approving message, and even if it did:
The Government sending a prodrug message wont make much of a difference, Hollywood and the music industry have been sending that message for years, and they are way more influential.
Making pot legal might create more respect for the people that solve murders. I'm not an anarchist, and I think the police does a lot of stuff I agree needs to be done. But for now: fuck the police.
(I can't understand anyone not agreeing with anything I say below this point, and if you do I'd love to understand)
I think pot is less bad for people than alcohol is.
I think that there should be as many treatment facilities as needed, and that there will be fewer facilities needed than for alcohol.
I think making it illegal causes more harm than good. Especially if you include the violence in Mexico. Even more so if you don't consider young black people, in prison for drug charges, used as slave labor to be an advantage.
Some people really enjoy pot.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 05, 2011, 07:03:22 PM
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Pot can be a bad idea. Just like alcohol, or bungee jumping.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Almost: I'd add the no advertising clause that tobacco has. Also, Alcohol and Weed should not be sold from the same places, and probably shouldn't be consumed at the same public places. Split up the weed cafes and bars.
To be clear: I think that pot should be legal for anyone who can get himself blown up for his country (18+) because:
Keeping it illegal costs a lot of money, and making it legal could raise tax money. The cost of treatment won't go up much, because experience has shown usage wont go up much.
The government telling me I can't inhale certain things is bullshit.
Making something legal does not equal sending an approving message, and even if it did:
The Government sending a prodrug message wont make much of a difference, Hollywood and the music industry have been sending that message for years, and they are way more influential.
Making pot legal might create more respect for the people that solve murders. I'm not an anarchist, and I think the police does a lot of stuff I agree needs to be done. But for now: fuck the police.
(I can't understand anyone not agreeing with anything I say below this point, and if you do I'd love to understand)
I think pot is less bad for people than alcohol is.
I think that there should be as many treatment facilities as needed, and that there will be fewer facilities needed than for alcohol.
I think making it illegal causes more harm than good. Especially if you include the violence in Mexico. Even more so if you don't consider young black people, in prison for drug charges, used as slave labor to be an advantage.
Some people really enjoy pot.
I can buy into most of that.
Mostly because I think the individual outweighs society.
I will just point out that the "legalize it and tax it" idea is no good. I can say that from the experience of alcohol and tobacco. I think we can agree that alcohol and tobacco sales are considerable. Yet, they really aren't very big revenue generators for States and certainly aren't enough to support budgets and keep them in the black.
Further, history also shows that those revenues don't go towards treatment or prevention. Instead, Governors will make sure that revenue goes into their general funds, and nary a dime of it will go into treatment or prevention. Fuck, my state has a fund that comes from the big Tobacco settlement from a decade ago. Funds that are supposed to be specifically for prevention and treatment for tobacco, substance abuse, and other health areas. Even THOSE dedicated funds are being stolen and put into the general fund.
Based upon this experience alone, I can say the "tax it" idea just doesn't hold up.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
I will just point out that the "legalize it and tax it" idea is no good. I can say that from the experience of alcohol and tobacco. I think we can agree that alcohol and tobacco sales are considerable. Yet, they really aren't very big revenue generators for States and certainly aren't enough to support budgets and keep them in the black.
Further, history also shows that those revenues don't go towards treatment or prevention. Instead, Governors will make sure that revenue goes into their general funds, and nary a dime of it will go into treatment or prevention. Fuck, my state has a fund that comes from the big Tobacco settlement from a decade ago. Funds that are supposed to be specifically for prevention and treatment for tobacco, substance abuse, and other health areas. Even THOSE dedicated funds are being stolen and put into the general fund.
Based upon this experience alone, I can say the "tax it" idea just doesn't hold up.
I don't think most of the current proponents of tax it think the money should go to treatment... most of the arguments I've heard are about dumping it into the state budget.
However, the tax issue is moot for me because, for me, its an issue of freedom for the individual.
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? No
Who thinks pot is fine? Yes
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? No
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)? No
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Fucking yes
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? No
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
I will just point out that the "legalize it and tax it" idea is no good. I can say that from the experience of alcohol and tobacco. I think we can agree that alcohol and tobacco sales are considerable. Yet, they really aren't very big revenue generators for States and certainly aren't enough to support budgets and keep them in the black.
Further, history also shows that those revenues don't go towards treatment or prevention. Instead, Governors will make sure that revenue goes into their general funds, and nary a dime of it will go into treatment or prevention. Fuck, my state has a fund that comes from the big Tobacco settlement from a decade ago. Funds that are supposed to be specifically for prevention and treatment for tobacco, substance abuse, and other health areas. Even THOSE dedicated funds are being stolen and put into the general fund.
Based upon this experience alone, I can say the "tax it" idea just doesn't hold up.
Balls. Arizona makes a killing on tobacco and booze.
We have, however, never pretended that it would go to prevention, as that would eliminate a source of income (And the only source of income Arizona doesn't like is corporate taxes, because we're retarded.).
Instead, we just have our congressmen shovel it into their pet contractors/contributor's pockets. It's easier that way, cuts out the middlemen.
Utah makes even more of a killing on Booze, it helps that the state has an (admittedly shrinking) monopoly on Liquor stores.
I can just see the state run head shops now. :lol:
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Nope. Well yes, but like smartassed, impatient women with attitude problems it's the kind of bad I like. I'm not concerned about other adults in this regard but I've been an insomniac since I hit puberty and didn't smoke till I was 18. I'd actually like to keep off it and I've succeeded as far as failing to fall into deep sleep for days at a time and I hate pills a lot. Though I am beginning to become concerned that certain chemical patterns may set in my brain, patterns that will be hard to undo should I so desire later in life.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? In certain circumstances involving children, violent crime.
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)? For personal use, most certainly.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? I do.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? I do not. It would be nice if we could live in a world without stoplights, amirite?
It does appear certain that allowing legalization would increase availability and usage in the underage, however I remember an incident in PA where a 10 year old child took his child sized 12 gauge shotgun and shot his stepmother dead when he found out she was pregnant. My point is there's all kinds of dangerous shit out there available to children, something that are a lot worse for them than pot. That is NOT to say that prevention isn't important because shit's bad. I'm only saying it makes me uncertain that keeping it illegal is the best option. I'm still thinking about it.
QuoteWho thinks pot is probably a bad idea?
For kids, yeah. Any mind-altering substance is a bad idea when you're young. And you probably shouldn't be smoking it every day any more than you should be drinking every day. But it's harmless as a once in a while thing.
QuoteWho thinks pot should land someone in prison?
Fuck no. The government has no business telling any adult what s/he puts in his/her body. That's effectively the government having the power to regulate your mental state; another term for that is "thought-crime." Of course, our drug laws have nothing to with rationality or science and everything to do with 1) busybodies who want to press their moral sensibilities on everyone else using the law as a cudgel, 2) keeping pharmaceutical companies' profits high and 3) pumping money into the ever-expanding prison-industrial complex.
QuoteWho thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)?
Fuck no. Again, it's thought-crime legislation. There should be no punishment at all for adult possession or consumption of cannabis.
QuoteWho thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way?
I'd be fine with sale of cannabis being restricted to those 18 and over. (Note: I also think the drinking age should be lowered to 18 as it's completely retarded for a society that considers 18 "adulthood" to not allow someone who can be drafted, get married, etc. to have a beer. And I don't even have a horse in that race as I don't drink at all. It's a simple rights issue for me.) Growing cannabis for personal use should be considered legally no different from growing your own vegetables.
I think you're misusing the phrase "thoughtcrime," as it was defined by Orwell.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 05, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
I think you're misusing the phrase "thoughtcrime," as it was defined by Orwell.
Right, smoking pot is more than thought...
Oh hey that rhymed.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 12:27:53 PM
That's what happens when you live in an authoritative country. You have freedom, within limits. And it is precisely that way in order to promote a well functioning society. Or, as well functioning as you can get given that you have a bunch of monkeys running the thing. And the reality is that drugs aren't illegal solely because of children. That does happen to be why I think they should remain illegal. But I'm only one person in this fight. In the end, we have to way the cost and benefit of any policy. I personally don't think the benefit of adults being able to smoke up in their living room outweighs the costs that will be shouldered by our youth. You can mock that line of thinking all you want, and just cast it off like its some bullshit Hallmark greeting. But I would humbly suggest that you should volunteer some of your time at your local adolescent substance abuse treatment agency or residential facility, and talk to real kids who've been impacted by substance abuse. It's easy to just sit back and throw out the usual cliches, but I think perhaps you'd see it a bit differently if you looked beyond the NORML line of thought.
This is the only thing that has really bugged me about the line that you are arguing. That the only benefit that you can see to legalization is an increase in freedom for some adults in a way that isn't that important.
If the only benefit of legalization were the ability of smokers to partake recreationally without fear of consequences then I wouldn't really care personally. However there is a lot more going on than that. Leaving medical aside since that can be addressed without actually dismantling the war on weed there is the fact that marijuana is a huge income source for organized crime. The cartels in Mexico get the majority of their income from pot and currently they are a threat to the very existence of the Mexican Government. There's also the gateway drug effect. because weed is illegal if you know someone that sells weed you probably know someone that sells something else, if the weed dealer doesn't he knows someone that does. Also once you start smoking weed you've passed the psychological barrier of "doing an illegal drug" and any other illegal drug is much easier to decide to experiment with. And then there's the financial costs of the war on weed. We spend a huge amount of money catching people and even more imprisoning them. We really can't afford that right now.
These are the benefits that motivate me to argue for legalization. That I might be able to buy an eighth at the local gas station is really not the motivating factor for me.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 05, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
I think you're misusing the phrase "thoughtcrime," as it was defined by Orwell.
Yeah, me too.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 05, 2011, 05:24:22 PM
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? I think pot is a bad idea for some people... just like alcohol or coffee. Or in TGRR's case beans. I also think its bad for young people, or anyone who uses it as an escape.
Who thinks pot is fine? I think pot is fine for me, and for most everyone I know that enjoys it and still holds down a real job and can handle their responsibilities.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? If someone sells to minors, they should go to prison.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? I think this is probably the best solution.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? I would love to be allowed to grow my own, but I accept that its extremely unlikely in the US for the government to allow that kind of unregulated behavior.
You are allowed to brew your own alcohol.
I'm in favor of weed being regulated like alcohol personally. Tax the hell out of it, make it a serious crime to sell to minors, to drive under the influence, or to distribute without a license.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
I will just point out that the "legalize it and tax it" idea is no good. I can say that from the experience of alcohol and tobacco. I think we can agree that alcohol and tobacco sales are considerable. Yet, they really aren't very big revenue generators for States and certainly aren't enough to support budgets and keep them in the black.
Further, history also shows that those revenues don't go towards treatment or prevention. Instead, Governors will make sure that revenue goes into their general funds, and nary a dime of it will go into treatment or prevention. Fuck, my state has a fund that comes from the big Tobacco settlement from a decade ago. Funds that are supposed to be specifically for prevention and treatment for tobacco, substance abuse, and other health areas. Even THOSE dedicated funds are being stolen and put into the general fund.
Based upon this experience alone, I can say the "tax it" idea just doesn't hold up.
I disagree. Not because a state can balance its budget on sin taxes, they can't. But because even a negligible source of income is much better than the substance being a huge expenditure, which weed is currently and which alcohol was during prohibition.
Rog, thank you for the wonderful re-direct.
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea?
For some people (including children), yes it's a bad idea. The most direct effect on daily consciousness cycles is on the melatonin levels (it has been shown to increase efficiency in re-up-taking serotonin, something Big Pharm is very leery of as that eats directly into SSRI profits, but that's a benefit, for adults, and we're taking about negatives here). Messing with your melatonin cycles is best done after a long time practicing meditation. This is why in the Chakra based sytem, lower chakras are practiced and refined first and then the energy is lead up to the third eye (pineal glands produce most of the body's melatonin) and crown chakra. This IS NOT HEALTHY for a young developing consciousness still in flux.
Who thinks pot is fine?
For some people, yes. Carl Sagan did pretty damn well. Zoroaster and Jesus (allegedly) did pretty well. Shiva used it (bhang, soma) to defeat the demon king, and I'm hoping Dr. Melamede will 'prove' that we can use it to kill skin cancer.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison?
Possession, use? Absolutely not. Distribution? Here's where it get's interesting. Land-owning Rastas are required to grow more than they can personally use and freely offer it to other clergy, as well as making land available for any lay member in the community to grow on. There is a Cal Supreme Court case about this right now. There is also a longstanding legal precedent that religiously motivated behaviors carry equal weight in the courts eyes as they exact same behavior motivated by medical reasons (the clearest case being a muslim firefighter who sued to keep his beard because a co-worker got a medical waiver from that part of the dress code). As such, recognized Pharmakia (licensed distributors, pharmacies) and recognized Clergy (often hospice workers) should be exempt from suspicion based on large quantities. Sales to children should be a criminally chargeable offense. Driving with massively elevated Melatonin levels should be studied further to determine risk, and until then probably not allowed.
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)?
Anything is better than the current penal approach (except maybe Sigapore's execution approach, eh?).
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol?
Probably the most feasible solution which recognizes that adult humans have indigenous relationships with certain plants that stretch back past the invention of 3rd circuit recorded history. Prohibition causes crime. RWHN sees the addiction level fallout in his local community, but the fact is that this Prohibition has been an excuse on both sides (gov/criminal gangs) to escalate violence as a means to profit. This means we are exporting war levels violence to the children of Juarez Mexico. That is unacceptable to me.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way?
Definitely won't happen. Personal deregulation may (grow your own, use your own doesn't effect interstate commerce, SC douchebags of yesteryear), but any publicly marketed products will have to be regulated.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2011, 08:10:56 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 05, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
I will just point out that the "legalize it and tax it" idea is no good. I can say that from the experience of alcohol and tobacco. I think we can agree that alcohol and tobacco sales are considerable. Yet, they really aren't very big revenue generators for States and certainly aren't enough to support budgets and keep them in the black.
Further, history also shows that those revenues don't go towards treatment or prevention. Instead, Governors will make sure that revenue goes into their general funds, and nary a dime of it will go into treatment or prevention. Fuck, my state has a fund that comes from the big Tobacco settlement from a decade ago. Funds that are supposed to be specifically for prevention and treatment for tobacco, substance abuse, and other health areas. Even THOSE dedicated funds are being stolen and put into the general fund.
Based upon this experience alone, I can say the "tax it" idea just doesn't hold up.
I disagree. Not because a state can balance its budget on sin taxes, they can't. But because even a negligible source of income is much better than the substance being a huge expenditure, which weed is currently and which alcohol was during prohibition.
[citation and defining "huge expenditure" needed]
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? No.
Who thinks pot is fine? Yes.
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? No.
Who thinks pot should carry a lesser sentence (fine, etc)? No
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Yes.
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? No. It should be regulated similar to beer, including homebrew laws. Individuals can have up to 10 adult plants and unlimited seedlings.
Also, I'd like to add that anyone who dies in an automobile accident and doesn't have any drugs in their bloodstream was clearly killed by sobriety.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/ (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/)
I know it's MPP, but the scientists who did the analysis are reliable and its endorsed by 3 Nobel laureates. According to that paper we'd save 2.4 billion at the federal level and 5.3 billion at the local and state levels. I know that 5.3 would be spread out over a lot of localities, but that is still a lot of money.
I've been going back and forth on whether or not drug laws are thought-crime for a while, and my thinking goes something like this:
Modern American society is very geared toward making you think in certain ways. Our public educational system, for example, is designed not just to make students believe certain things but to teach them to think about things in a certain way, along a line from A to B to C, with no deviation from that path. From an authoritarian perspective, it's best if certain thoughts just plain don't occur to people because their long-adapted mental pathways don't pass any places where certain concepts are a part of the scenery. You don't have to debate an objection to the way society is run if that objection never comes up because no one can think along the lines necessary to voice it.
The problem is that some people have those thoughts anyway, and those people are a threat (although generally a tiny and laughable one) to the establishment. Being able to slip out of the groove your brain has been trained to follow since childhood takes a lot of effort and discipline, and backsliding is both easy and potentially frequent. But use of certain drugs can be a shortcut to that process (though, I have to stress, that shortcut can leave you wanting for the skills you would have developed by getting there on your own and it's not a permanent solution). If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state. Probably not, but the possibility's there, and that sort of threat to the status quo scares the piss out of the authoritarians.
To avoid the possible effects of a nation consuming natural substances that might help them think outside the box once in a while, the government bans drugs that might encourage that kind of wrong-thinking. Just to make it clear that it's the effects of those substances they're concerned about, they also pre-emptively outlaw any substances yet to be discovered or invented that mimic those effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analog_Act). That should make it as clear as day that the government isn't so much outlawing the substances themselves as doing everything in their power to legally prevent people from achieving the psychological states such substances provide. In other words, the authoritarians are so afraid of you thinking certain things that they've done everything in their power to throw up roadblocks between you and those mental states.
So perhaps a better way to phrase that would be to say that drug use leads to "thought-crime" in the eyes of the authoritarians; "thought-crime" in this sense being "seeing the world in a way other than how they want you to see it." Like I said, that's one I'm still working on.
QuoteThere's also the gateway drug effect. because weed is illegal if you know someone that sells weed you probably know someone that sells something else, if the weed dealer doesn't he knows someone that does. Also once you start smoking weed you've passed the psychological barrier of "doing an illegal drug" and any other illegal drug is much easier to decide to experiment with.
While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/) It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.
QuoteYou are allowed to brew your own alcohol.
But you are, so long as you're not selling it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing)
My official position is "who gives a shit".
There are kids in this country who have two choices if they want to escape poverty: join the military, or sell drugs.
I really don't want to take away their best option.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 08:54:54 PM
If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state.
I like the way you think.
But you're wrong.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 08:54:54 PM
If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state.
I like the way you think.
But you're wrong.
That's why the next line after that is:
QuoteProbably not, but the possibility's there, and that sort of threat to the status quo scares the piss out of the authoritarians.
Who thinks pot is probably a bad idea? Sound off. A bad idea when driving? Yes. A bad idea always, like heroin? No.
Who thinks pot is fine? Sound off. Yes? Isn't this just the opposite of the previous question or am I missing a nuance here?
Who thinks pot should land someone in prison? Sound off. No. Maybe if you sell it to children, though.
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Sound off. Yeah. Well, not entirely. 16 years (you know, when kids are allowed to drink beer) is too young, better make it 18 (when they're allowed to drink hard liquor and drive a car).
Who thinks pot should be completely unregulated in any way? Sound off. I dunno.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 09:37:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 05, 2011, 09:04:08 PM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 08:54:54 PM
If increasing numbers of people start thinking outside the government-approved box, the authoritarian-dominated society could start to break down. People might start to postulate that A doesn't necessarily lead to B, and if it does, it could also further lead to D or E instead of C. They might question the Protestant work ethic and wonder why real wages have been stagnant for twenty years, or they might get pissed off about living in glorified police state.
I like the way you think.
But you're wrong.
That's why the next line after that is:
QuoteProbably not, but the possibility's there, and that sort of threat to the status quo scares the piss out of the authoritarians.
Yeah, saw that, but I get a big boot out of telling people they're wrong. :lulz:
TGRR,
Like the pope, only way younger.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 05, 2011, 10:25:14 PM
Who thinks pot should be legal under the same conditions as alcohol? Sound off. Yeah. Well, not entirely. 16 years (you know, when kids are allowed to drink beer) is too young, better make it 18 (when they're allowed to drink hard liquor and drive a car).
In the states, drinking age is usually 21.
Quote from: Jenkem and Bubble Baths on April 06, 2011, 03:39:08 AM
In the states, drinking age is usually 21.
In the Netherlands it isn't :P.
Also, good idea Roger. Now we are actually discussing something, instead of firing off opinions about pot and disagreeing.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 05, 2011, 08:54:24 PM
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/ (http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/)
I know it's MPP, but the scientists who did the analysis are reliable and its endorsed by 3 Nobel laureates. According to that paper we'd save 2.4 billion at the federal level and 5.3 billion at the local and state levels. I know that 5.3 would be spread out over a lot of localities, but that is still a lot of money.
Quote•Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.
It would've been helpful if this study had been a cost/benefit analysis. The study, for example, does not factor in the increased health care costs that are associated with addiction. Or the increased cost to employers when they have addicted employees. Both in terms of lost productivity, but the costs they incur when they have to fire employees and go through the time-consuming process of hiring new employees.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 08:54:54 PM
While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/) It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.
It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
The other piece with marijuana is its social acceptance. Despite the name of this thread, the "REEFER MADNESS" attitude towards marijuana in our society doesn't exist anymore. It is much more accepted and this has unfortunately even trickled down to some permissive attitudes on the part of parents when it comes to youth using it. They consider it a "rite of passage" and don't really think too much about it. Unfortunately, we do see that what starts MJ leads to other drugs, and in many cases poly-drug use. Just the combination of alcohol and marijuana alone can cause serious issues with kids, particularily when it comes to judgement and behavior.
I also would like to point out that a lot of the discussion around the Mexican cartels is a little conflationary. In the sense that those cartels are increaslingly becoming involved in the illegal prescription drug trade. Whether it is trafficking or creating knock-offs and working them into the system. Legalizing marijuana may take care of a few small time operations that are solely focusing on marijuana, but the large crime organizations are diversified enough, that it won't really make that big of an impact. And so you really won't be saving a whole helluva lot of money in that area. Just something to think about.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 08:54:54 PM
QuoteThere's also the gateway drug effect. because weed is illegal if you know someone that sells weed you probably know someone that sells something else, if the weed dealer doesn't he knows someone that does. Also once you start smoking weed you've passed the psychological barrier of "doing an illegal drug" and any other illegal drug is much easier to decide to experiment with.
While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/) It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.
I don't think Jude was talking about the traditional "I tried pot, now I might as well try cocaine" effect, but more the accessibility effect. If you smoke illegal drugs you know where you can get illegal drugs. Many times people that will sell you pot will also sell you MDMA, or will know where you can get MDMA. If you legalize drugs, and license the sellers, and make them lose their licence without warnng if they discuss harder drugs, it becomes harder to find these things.
QuoteIt is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
What the article said was that marijuana is not a gateway drug:
Quote
There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
Do you not trust the article or do you not agree with their definition of gateway drugs?
There is a kind of social gateway drug effect, of course. But like I've argued before, the best way to change pot culture is to legalize pot. That way you get a bigger gap between pot and other drugs.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 02:34:04 PM
I don't think Jude was talking about the traditional "I tried pot, now I might as well try cocaine" effect, but more the accessibility effect. If you smoke illegal drugs you know where you can get illegal drugs. Many times people that will sell you pot will also sell you MDMA, or will know where you can get MDMA. If you legalize drugs, and license the sellers, and make them lose their licence without warnng if they discuss harder drugs, it becomes harder to find these things.
Thats putting the cart before the horse. Kids don't move on to harder drugs just because the drug dealer has them. They move on to harder drugs as they develop a tolerance and they don't get the same kick they were getting. This is especially pronounced with kids who are self-medicating and using drugs to escape from some real or perceived negative in their life. That the dealer has those harder drugs certainly greases the wheels, but it is not the primary influence behind that pattern of behavior.
QuoteWhat the article said was that marijuana is not a gateway drug:
Quote
There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
Do you not trust the article or do you not agree with their definition of gateway drugs?
There is a kind of social gateway drug effect, of course. But like I've argued before, the best way to change pot culture is to legalize pot. That way you get a bigger gap between pot and other drugs.
Yes, I disagree with that definition and I explained in my previous post the more accurate definition of gateway drug. And I'm sorry but the notion that legalizing pot is giong to change the culture is unfounded. Kids are risk takers by nature but they don't take the risk of drug use because of its illegality. They do it to take risks with their body or to rebel against parents. Legalizing does nothing to change either one of those. Indeed, if you read the work of Hawkins and Catalano, you will see that the illegality and enforcement of that illegality is an important protective factor when it comes to preventing youth substance abuse. Communities that set standards and enforce the rules when it comes to alcohol and other drugs are communities that will generally see less youth substance abuse. Because it sets a certain value system for a community and in turn provides for an environment that is more conducive to positive youth deveopment and education.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 02:48:31 PM
Thats putting the cart before the horse. Kids don't move on to harder drugs just because the drug dealer has them. They move on to harder drugs as they develop a tolerance and they don't get the same kick they were getting. This is especially pronounced with kids who are self-medicating and using drugs to escape from some real or perceived negative in their life. That the dealer has those harder drugs certainly greases the wheels, but it is not the primary influence behind that pattern of behavior.
I wasn't claiming that. But pot being legal would create another barrier between wanting something harder and getting something harder. I know people that want MDMA and can't get it, and thus don't use it. These people have never learned how to buy illegal drugs.
It wouldn't stop those who really want it, but nothing will.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 02:48:31 PM
Yes, I disagree with that definition and I explained in my previous post the more accurate definition of gateway drug.
I'm sorry, could you please restate it? The closest I could find was:
QuoteGateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.
In your posts you seem to assume that legalizing pot will increase usage, or perhaps even availability. There is no evidence that usage will go up, see: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/07/prop-19-analysis-will-marijuana-legalization-increase use/
That article mentions that in the Netherlands usage did go up a little in the start, but that this was probably due to marketing. This is why I think there should be rules against marketing, like the Netherlands has now implemented.
And availability, at least for high school age kids, is already near 100%. It can't go up much more.
The thing that really bugs me is that alcohol is more harmful in every way I know of than pot. Why don't we make pot legal and alcohol illegal? Oh yeah, because making alcohol illegal causes violent gangs to form, makes treatment harder, and loses taxes to the state. I forgot.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 03:12:13 PM
I'm sorry, could you please restate it? The closest I could find was:
QuoteGateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
QuoteIn your posts you seem to assume that legalizing pot will increase usage, or perhaps even availability. There is no evidence that usage will go up, see: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/07/prop-19-analysis-will-marijuana-legalization-increase use/
That article doesn't actually declare that consumption won't go up. It basically says, "we don't know", which isn't exactly no. It also doesn't address the fact that a price drop is certainly going to increase access to minors. It also doesn't address the fact that legalizing would invariably lead to more adults having marijuana in the home which will also increase access to youth.
QuoteThat article mentions that in the Netherlands usage did go up a little in the start, but that this was probably due to marketing. This is why I think there should be rules against marketing, like the Netherlands has now implemented.
And given the marketing and advertising culture in America, do you think that would really happen? Tobacco and Alcohol companies still find very clever ways to market to youth, despite regulations. You put up a hurdle, they find a way around it. And they are pretty good at that too.
QuoteAnd availability, at least for high school age kids, is already near 100%. It can't go up much more.
How do you come to that figure? Surveys I see show that it is far less than 100% of kids who think marijuana is easy to get. So while it certainly is accessible, it is incorrect to say availability is at 100%.
QuoteThe thing that really bugs me is that alcohol is more harmful in every way I know of than pot. Why don't we make pot legal and alcohol illegal? Oh yeah, because making alcohol illegal causes violent gangs to form, makes treatment harder, and loses taxes to the state. I forgot.
I don't agree with the notion that the merits of the legalization debate of marijuana have to be measure against alcohol. I always see that as a bit of obfuscation and basically a smoke screen. (pun unintended). Yes, certainly, alcohol is pretty damaging to youth and families, but I don't see how that means we should go ahead and legalize another substance, just because it seems to be less harmful. It still is not harmless.
Please separate the legalization for MEDICAL use from the legalization for RECREATIONAL use. Two completely different issues which get tangled up all too often.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name?
That article doesn't actually declare that consumption won't go up. It basically says, "we don't know", which isn't exactly no. It also doesn't address the fact that a price drop is certainly going to increase access to minors. It also doesn't address the fact that legalizing would invariably lead to more adults having marijuana in the home which will also increase access to youth.
I was very careful with my wording. There is no evidence it will go up. Many teenagers report that pot is easier to get than alcohol, so one could argue that availability will go down. There is no real evidence either way, except that past experience in the Netherlands has shown that usage or availability won't change much (for minors at least).
Quote
And given the marketing and advertising culture in America, do you think that would really happen? Tobacco and Alcohol companies still find very clever ways to market to youth, despite regulations. You put up a hurdle, they find a way around it. And they are pretty good at that too.
But it's no longer very effective is it? It all pales in comparison to the current Hollywood marketing of pot, which won't change much.
Quote
How do you come to that figure? Surveys I see show that it is far less than 100% of kids who think marijuana is easy to get. So while it certainly is accessible, it is incorrect to say availability is at 100%.
That same article:
Quote
Meanwhile, according to national surveys, high school students continue to report that marijuana is universally available, purity has increased and prices have fallen.
I remember when I was 16. It was hard to find pot, in fact I don't think I managed even once (sometimes friends had some, but I never had any for myself). It was way easier to get alcohol at 16. I doubt there are many children in the US who want pot, but can't get it.
Quote
I don't agree with the notion that the merits of the legalization debate of marijuana have to be measure against alcohol. I always see that as a bit of obfuscation and basically a smoke screen. (pun unintended). Yes, certainly, alcohol is pretty damaging to youth and families, but I don't see how that means we should go ahead and legalize another substance, just because it seems to be less harmful. It still is not harmless.
What I meant is that the law is ridiculous, and many of the same consequences that were seen when booze was illegal are seen today with pot. Do you think alcohol should be made illegal? Why not? Those are probably the same reasons I think pot should be legal.
Quote from: Luna on April 06, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Please separate the legalization for MEDICAL use from the legalization for RECREATIONAL use. Two completely different issues which get tangled up all too often.
I never really got this. To me, medical marijuana should be legal because it can make life better for sick people, and recreational marijuana can improve life for people that enjoy marijuana. I can't think of any downside of recreational marijuana that doesn't also happen with medical marijuana (although sometimes on a smaller scale.)
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 04:09:01 PM
medical marijuana should be legal because it can make life better for sick people,
This part I agree with. The fear of and the fact that it will be (and IS) abused doesn't keep morphine from being legal, for example.
Quoteand recreational marijuana can improve life for people that enjoy marijuana. I can't think of any downside of recreational marijuana that doesn't also happen with medical marijuana (although sometimes on a smaller scale.)
There are downsides to a lot of prescription medications. Hell, listen to the list of, "warning, these pills here will fucking your shit" disclaimers on ads for the shit. (And why the FUCK do we need ADS for prescription medication, anyway? But that's a whole different bitchfest.)
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?
Yes. And as I stated marijuana isn't the only gateway drug, but it is one of the more popular ones amongst youth. Rx drugs and inhalants are also gateway drugs, in that it is the drug that many youth will experiment with first. It's basically the substance that is the gate between experimentation and regular use/dependency. And generally, it is going to be your more easily accessible drugs. It is rare you are going to see a kid start at cocaine or heroin. Sugar is not a gateway drug because you don't see very many kids who move from regular sugar buzzes to injecting heroin in their arms.
Now, caffeinated beverages (non-coffee) is another story, and probably another thread. I do believe that has some gateway attributes and I predict 10 years from now, or sooner, we will see studies that link regular consumption of those beverages to other forms of drug use.
QuoteI was very careful with my wording. There is no evidence it will go up. Many teenagers report that pot is easier to get than alcohol, so one could argue that availability will go down. There is no real evidence either way, except that past experience in the Netherlands has shown that usage or availability won't change much (for minors at least).
I don't see a valid argument for how it could go down. Especially if the price drops. And especially if you are going to see it in more homes. Retail and social access are fundamental factors in substance abuse. Legalizing is going to increase both.
QuoteQuote
And given the marketing and advertising culture in America, do you think that would really happen? Tobacco and Alcohol companies still find very clever ways to market to youth, despite regulations. You put up a hurdle, they find a way around it. And they are pretty good at that too.
But it's no longer very effective is it? It all pales in comparison to the current Hollywood marketing of pot, which won't change much.
No longer effective? Of course its effective. Not to mention that any MJ marketing companies would certainly be in bed with Hollywood to push the product as alcohol and tobacco companies have been.
QuoteQuote
How do you come to that figure? Surveys I see show that it is far less than 100% of kids who think marijuana is easy to get. So while it certainly is accessible, it is incorrect to say availability is at 100%.
That same article:
Quote
Meanwhile, according to national surveys, high school students continue to report that marijuana is universally available, purity has increased and prices have fallen.
I remember when I was 16. It was hard to find pot, in fact I don't think I managed even once (sometimes friends had some, but I never had any for myself). It was way easier to get alcohol at 16. I doubt there are many children in the US who want pot, but can't get it.
Well, there must be, because surveys don't show 100% of kids saying marijuana is easily accessible. The number is high, certainly, but it isn't 100%.
Quote
What I meant is that the law is ridiculous, and many of the same consequences that were seen when booze was illegal are seen today with pot. Do you think alcohol should be made illegal? Why not? Those are probably the same reasons I think pot should be legal.
It's not something I think about because that toothpaste is already out of the tube, and it isn't going back in. The marijuana toothpaste is still in the tube, and I think any possible benefits of freeing that toothpaste, our considerably outweighed by the social and economic costs. Not to mention that the world is very different than it was back in the days of prohibition. I don't believe in this 1-to-1 comparison of alcohol prohibition and marijuana prohibition. To borrow the Black Iron Prison motif, it ignores a lot of bars.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 04:09:01 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 06, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Please separate the legalization for MEDICAL use from the legalization for RECREATIONAL use. Two completely different issues which get tangled up all too often.
I never really got this. To me, medical marijuana should be legal because it can make life better for sick people, and recreational marijuana can improve life for people that enjoy marijuana. I can't think of any downside of recreational marijuana that doesn't also happen with medical marijuana (although sometimes on a smaller scale.)
Medical Marijuana may have some promise, but as is suggested here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26546.msg1026472#msg1026472) there is no consensus on that promise being in the smoked form.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 04:09:01 PM
Quote from: Luna on April 06, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Please separate the legalization for MEDICAL use from the legalization for RECREATIONAL use. Two completely different issues which get tangled up all too often.
I never really got this. To me, medical marijuana should be legal because it can make life better for sick people, and recreational marijuana can improve life for people that enjoy marijuana. I can't think of any downside of recreational marijuana that doesn't also happen with medical marijuana (although sometimes on a smaller scale.)
Medical Marijuana may have some promise, but as is suggested here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=26546.msg1026472#msg1026472) there is no consensus on that promise being in the smoked form.
Hell, if that's the best way to get it into the system (I hold no opinion on that, as I haven't bothered to do the research), they can roll 'em in dollar bills and shove it up their asses for all I care. I just object to the research being borked because of hysteria regarding, "ooh, but people might ENJOY it! And it's BAD for them!"
I also tend to be snotty about the fact that non-THC bearing hemp is ALSO banned in the USA, when the stuff is so damn useful.
And my problem is with the promises being overstated and oversold. I agree that the debate does get muddied by the debate over recreational use, but it cuts both ways. I think some (I stress the word some) are using medical marijuana as a way to further legitimize marijuana itself, by proxy. And yes, certainly some people are very puritanical and don't want any medical marijuana research. I'm fairly moderate on that and see no problem researching it. I am just wary with how results are presented and how it is sold to the general public.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:36:13 PM
And my problem is with the promises being overstated and oversold. I agree that the debate does get muddied by the debate over recreational use, but it cuts both ways. I think some (I stress the word some) are using medical marijuana as a way to further legitimize marijuana itself, by proxy. And yes, certainly some people are very puritanical and don't want any medical marijuana research. I'm fairly moderate on that and see no problem researching it. I am just wary with how results are presented and how it is sold to the general public.
Hence me griping about it being two separate issues, agreed.
My own take... It SHOULD be investigated and legalized for medical use. Honest to fuck, if it brings ANY relief to people dying of cancer, does it really matter what the long-term effects are? These people may not HAVE a long term...
Recreational use? Having lived with a recreational user, the stuff's less dangerous for people to use than alcohol, I suppose, simply based on the fact that you rarely hear about somebody getting stoned and beating the fuck out of their partner and/or kids, or of getting stoned, getting behind a wheel, and taking out a dozen pedestrians. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but I'd like to see studies done comparing it to alcohol, rather than harder drugs.
I think if it makes terminally ill people feel better, it's nobody else's fucking business to raise points of contention over any other aspect of it in regards to being legally available for medicinal use at the federal level.
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
As far as I can tell, marijuana is vastly less damaging than alcohol.
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
As far as I can tell, marijuana is vastly less damaging than alcohol.
But not as Holy™ as cactus.
It's also cheaper than alcohol.
I don't think I know more than a couple of people who don't smoke pot, and they don't because they don't really like it, not because they have any particular qualms about using it.
If my kids were to choose between pot and alcohol, I'd rather they smoke pot. I'm also honest with them that some drugs are WAY worse than others. I really think the "war on drugs" fucked up badly by equating pot with crack, and the whole "gateway drug" thing. All that taught kids is that adults are liars.
I think there may be a bit of a regional cultural difference between Maine and Oregon, though.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
As far as I can tell, marijuana is vastly less damaging than alcohol.
But not as Holy™ as cactus.
I gotta try that stuff sometime!
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
As far as I can tell, marijuana is vastly less damaging than alcohol.
But not as Holy™ as cactus.
I gotta try that stuff sometime!
It makes me extra Holy™, but usually results in property damage and surprise long-term relationships.
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
As far as I can tell, marijuana is vastly less damaging than alcohol.
Sure. But it can still be fairly damaging in its own right. Juist ask any mother, father, son, daughter of an addict.
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:52:28 PM
If my kids were to choose between pot and alcohol, I'd rather they smoke pot. I'm also honest with them that some drugs are WAY worse than others. I really think the "war on drugs" fucked up badly by equating pot with crack, and the whole "gateway drug" thing. All that taught kids is that adults are liars.
I think there may be a bit of a regional cultural difference between Maine and Oregon, though.
Maybe, but the gateway effect is true. It isn't a "lie". But as I explained earlier, marijuana isn't the one and only gateway drug. It just happens to be one of the more popular ones amongst youth.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2011, 04:53:53 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:52:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:48:12 PM
As far as I can tell, marijuana is vastly less damaging than alcohol.
But not as Holy™ as cactus.
I gotta try that stuff sometime!
It makes me extra Holy™, but usually results in property damage and surprise long-term relationships.
:lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:59:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 04:52:28 PM
If my kids were to choose between pot and alcohol, I'd rather they smoke pot. I'm also honest with them that some drugs are WAY worse than others. I really think the "war on drugs" fucked up badly by equating pot with crack, and the whole "gateway drug" thing. All that taught kids is that adults are liars.
I think there may be a bit of a regional cultural difference between Maine and Oregon, though.
Maybe, but the gateway effect is true. It isn't a "lie". But as I explained earlier, marijuana isn't the one and only gateway drug. It just happens to be one of the more popular ones amongst youth.
I think there is a difference between "gateway drug" as you are using it and "gateway drug" as was used to warn me and others.
Gateway Drug as in making it less psychologically difficult to break the law if you have already broken the law: Sure!
Gateway Drug as in smoking pot soon becomes Not Enough so you have to graduate on to heavier drugs to get your high: Probably bullshit.
I was taught the latter, but I think you're using it more in line with the former, correct?
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2011, 05:42:00 PM
I think there is a difference between "gateway drug" as you are using it and "gateway drug" as was used to warn me and others.
Gateway Drug as in making it less psychologically difficult to break the law if you have already broken the law: Sure!
Gateway Drug as in smoking pot soon becomes Not Enough so you have to graduate on to heavier drugs to get your high: Probably bullshit.
I was taught the latter, but I think you're using it more in line with the former, correct?
No, it's not really either one of those, though the latter is part of it and is most definitely not bullshit. It is a fundamental in the stages of addiction. Does that mean that everyone who starts down the marijuana path is going to graduate to harder drug use? Obviously not. But it doesn't negate the gateway effect. It isn't an absolute and isn't put out as an absolute today. But if a person's motivation for drug use is escapism and self-medicating, they definitely are going to be prone to it as they develop tolerances.
The other component of the gateway effect is access as I've described. Marijuana does have a gateway effect tied to it, but it is not the only drug with those properties. Inhalants and Rx drugs also can be gateway drugs based upon them being easily available in the home. An obvious difference is that inhalants and Rx drugs can be deadly or seriously damaging on the first try.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
Quote from: Laughin Jude on April 05, 2011, 08:54:54 PM
While I agree with most of your post, I'd like to add that the "gateway drug" effect has been largely debunked in study after study. (http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/) It's one of those correlation does not equal causation things; while people who are going to use hard drugs will generally use cannabis as well, most cannabis users seem to have no interest in using hard drugs.
It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
The other piece with marijuana is its social acceptance. Despite the name of this thread, the "REEFER MADNESS" attitude towards marijuana in our society doesn't exist anymore. It is much more accepted and this has unfortunately even trickled down to some permissive attitudes on the part of parents when it comes to youth using it. They consider it a "rite of passage" and don't really think too much about it. Unfortunately, we do see that what starts MJ leads to other drugs, and in many cases poly-drug use. Just the combination of alcohol and marijuana alone can cause serious issues with kids, particularily when it comes to judgement and behavior.
Social acceptance is one side of the gateway drug issue, the other side is illegality.
If a drug is socially accepted but not illegal (alcohol, tobacco) it's not generally a gateway drug.
Same if it is illegal but generally not socially accepted (salvia, in those states that have made it illegal, just to name of a relatively mild intoxicant)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
I also would like to point out that a lot of the discussion around the Mexican cartels is a little conflationary. In the sense that those cartels are increaslingly becoming involved in the illegal prescription drug trade. Whether it is trafficking or creating knock-offs and working them into the system. Legalizing marijuana may take care of a few small time operations that are solely focusing on marijuana, but the large crime organizations are diversified enough, that it won't really make that big of an impact. And so you really won't be saving a whole helluva lot of money in that area. Just something to think about.
They do make money from other sources, RX drugs as well as cocaine are big sources of income. However they make the majority of their income from weed.
Legalization would likely not eliminate the cartels, but it would weaken them considerably. Even if they managed to capture the entire black market in the US for RX drugs, Cocaine, Heroin and Meth (and meth is highly unlikely since it is easier for locals to produce it in most cases) this wouldn't be as large a market as the pot market.
QuoteIf a drug is socially accepted but not illegal (alcohol, tobacco) it's not generally a gateway drug.
Are you INSANE?
A brief history of LMNO:
Underage drinking at 12
Drinking leads to smoking at 17, because all my drinking friends smoked.
That led to pot at 18, because all my drinking and smoking friends got high.
That led to speed, because some of my drinking/smoking/stoner friends were popping pills.
That led to LSD, Percosets, Coke, Crack (only twice), and all sorts of other shit because fuck -- at that point, why not?
Never did heroin, though.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?
A gateway drug is a drug that the usage of which increases the likelihood of using other, harder drugs.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing for sugar as a gateway drug, although I do think it has caused more suffering on a widespread scale than any of the other white powders (being one of the major reasons for the triangle slave trade) sugar usage is so universal that you can't really identify a control group of non sugar users. Heavy sugar usage is certainly linked with obesity, diabetes, tooth decay and other health problems, but I have never seen any studies that correlate it with the use of other drugs, aside from those medically perscribed to deal with those health problems.
In the US marijuana usage does nearly always precede the use of other, harder drugs. I'd agree with the prevention community that it is, in fact, a gateway drug, because of the issue of access and the psychological barrier of having used illegal drugs. Correlation does not equal causation and I suppose there is a decent arguement for it not being a gateway drug at all, but I don't think that particularly helps the arguement for legalization.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?
Yes. And as I stated marijuana isn't the only gateway drug, but it is one of the more popular ones amongst youth. Rx drugs and inhalants are also gateway drugs, in that it is the drug that many youth will experiment with first. It's basically the substance that is the gate between experimentation and regular use/dependency. And generally, it is going to be your more easily accessible drugs. It is rare you are going to see a kid start at cocaine or heroin. Sugar is not a gateway drug because you don't see very many kids who move from regular sugar buzzes to injecting heroin in their arms.
Now, caffeinated beverages (non-coffee) is another story, and probably another thread. I do believe that has some gateway attributes and I predict 10 years from now, or sooner, we will see studies that link regular consumption of those beverages to other forms of drug use.
I don't know about gateway attributes of caffeine, I do know that caffeine abuse, by which I mean beyond even addiction where withdrawal is severe enough to cause migraine headaches, is a real problem. An overdose of caffeine can stop the heart, it can also cause explosive vomiting and diorhea combined with hallucinations.
Coffee and soda are not the usual intake method when this level of overdose is reached. It's caffeine pills. Kids to take these for an easy to get legal buzz and they have died from it. I know it's been going on for at least 20~ years since when I was a teenager being counselled for alcohol and marijuana usage the counselor warned me about the effects of overdoses of caffeine. Recognizing I suppose tat with my usual methods of escape removed I might branch out.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
The reason I think it should be compared to other drugs is that people tend to have a certain amount of time and money to devote to recreational drug use. Some people have a certain favorite, they're going to do that drug and not any other. Most people though, especcially light drug users are going to use what is cheap and easily available. Currently that's alcohol.
On a point by point comparison weed is less harmful to the user and less dangerous to the surrounding community than alcohol. If it were equally expensive and equally available to alcohol it would steal some market share from alcohol and that would be a good thing.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 06, 2011, 07:39:51 PM
QuoteIf a drug is socially accepted but not illegal (alcohol, tobacco) it's not generally a gateway drug.
Are you INSANE?
A brief history of LMNO:
Underage drinking at 12
Drinking leads to smoking at 17, because all my drinking friends smoked.
That led to pot at 18, because all my drinking and smoking friends got high.
That led to speed, because some of my drinking/smoking/stoner friends were popping pills.
That led to LSD, Percosets, Coke, Crack (only twice), and all sorts of other shit because fuck -- at that point, why not?
Never did heroin, though.
RWHN hasn't mentioned alcohol once as a gateway drug, so I am going to assume that your experience was statistically abnormal.
He hasn't mentioned it, because (in his words) "the toothpaste is already out of the tube" on that one.
I think it certainly can be considered a gateway drug. Again, I think it's anything that is going to be easily accessible to a kid. If mom and dad do a good job of locking up the Windex and the OxyCodone, but isn't too hot on locking up the Vodka, that's likely where a kid who wants to experiment is going to start. And I should be clear that I don't think it really is all that important to focus on the gateway argument as involves marijuana and its illegality. It is there, but I don't really view that as the prominent reason for keeping it illegal. I don't look at it as this dam that is holding back the torrents of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. My stance is that the marijuana use and abuse itself is reason to not legalize the drug. Irrespective of whether or not it leads to harder drug use.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2011, 07:48:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
The reason I think it should be compared to other drugs is that people tend to have a certain amount of time and money to devote to recreational drug use. Some people have a certain favorite, they're going to do that drug and not any other. Most people though, especcially light drug users are going to use what is cheap and easily available. Currently that's alcohol.
On a point by point comparison weed is less harmful to the user and less dangerous to the surrounding community than alcohol. If it were equally expensive and equally available to alcohol it would steal some market share from alcohol and that would be a good thing.
What you say has some validity, from an adult perspective. Youth have entirely different motivations when it comes to drug use. What you are talking about is almost a drug connoisseur. Kids aren't thinking like that, they just want to put into their body whatever will push the magic buttons in their head that will make them feel different and/or forget about the world of shit they live in.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2011, 07:34:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
I also would like to point out that a lot of the discussion around the Mexican cartels is a little conflationary. In the sense that those cartels are increaslingly becoming involved in the illegal prescription drug trade. Whether it is trafficking or creating knock-offs and working them into the system. Legalizing marijuana may take care of a few small time operations that are solely focusing on marijuana, but the large crime organizations are diversified enough, that it won't really make that big of an impact. And so you really won't be saving a whole helluva lot of money in that area. Just something to think about.
They do make money from other sources, RX drugs as well as cocaine are big sources of income. However they make the majority of their income from weed.
Legalization would likely not eliminate the cartels, but it would weaken them considerably. Even if they managed to capture the entire black market in the US for RX drugs, Cocaine, Heroin and Meth (and meth is highly unlikely since it is easier for locals to produce it in most cases) this wouldn't be as large a market as the pot market.
I don't know about that. I think the cartels would instead look at synthetics and variations to marijuana to compete with the regulated versions. Either way, I think the point stands that they cartels will still be significant operations, and thus, really isn't going to be the silver bullet to solve the cartel violence/crime issue.
As an aside, one thing I've noticed about the older Discordians is that we've all seriously slowed our roll on drugs and alcohol as we've aged.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 06, 2011, 08:10:08 PM
As an aside, one thing I've noticed about the older Discordians is that we've all seriously slowed our roll on drugs and alcohol as we've aged.
I've drank more in the last year than I have in my entire life to date, I think I can safely say. But there are factors.
Less drugs, more sex and rock'n'roll.
And then, in the end, it's just more rock'n'roll.
RWHN enjoys a nice adult beverage every now and again. That's about it.
RWHN,
Sex, Puns, and Heavy Metal!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?
Yes. And as I stated marijuana isn't the only gateway drug, but it is one of the more popular ones amongst youth. Rx drugs and inhalants are also gateway drugs, in that it is the drug that many youth will experiment with first. It's basically the substance that is the gate between experimentation and regular use/dependency. And generally, it is going to be your more easily accessible drugs. It is rare you are going to see a kid start at cocaine or heroin. Sugar is not a gateway drug because you don't see very many kids who move from regular sugar buzzes to injecting heroin in their arms.
I am now going to stay out of the debate, as I'm not going to change my opinion (because I've had too many good times on weed, and all the people I have seen that were really fucked up on pot would have been that way whether or not it was illegal), and you are also not going to change your opinion.
I am still curious on what exactly you mean with gateway drug, though. Could you phrase it as a definition? For example:
Definition: A drug is a gateway drug if and only if it's effects and social status cause users to start using other drugs.
Are you fucking retarded, or have you finally burned out your last cognitive braincell?
The last three pages are more or less devoted to what a gateway drug "is".
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 08:04:06 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2011, 07:48:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
The reason I think it should be compared to other drugs is that people tend to have a certain amount of time and money to devote to recreational drug use. Some people have a certain favorite, they're going to do that drug and not any other. Most people though, especcially light drug users are going to use what is cheap and easily available. Currently that's alcohol.
On a point by point comparison weed is less harmful to the user and less dangerous to the surrounding community than alcohol. If it were equally expensive and equally available to alcohol it would steal some market share from alcohol and that would be a good thing.
What you say has some validity, from an adult perspective. Youth have entirely different motivations when it comes to drug use. What you are talking about is almost a drug connoisseur. Kids aren't thinking like that, they just want to put into their body whatever will push the magic buttons in their head that will make them feel different and/or forget about the world of shit they live in.
I'd prefer the kids were pushing those buttons with weed rather than inhalants, RX drugs, DXM or Alcohol.
Yeah, I'd prefer it even more if they were pushing them with exercise, video games, or masturbation but I think some of them are going to turn to drugs no matter what and I'd really prefer that drug were weed to any other option I can think of.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 08:06:53 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2011, 07:34:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
I also would like to point out that a lot of the discussion around the Mexican cartels is a little conflationary. In the sense that those cartels are increaslingly becoming involved in the illegal prescription drug trade. Whether it is trafficking or creating knock-offs and working them into the system. Legalizing marijuana may take care of a few small time operations that are solely focusing on marijuana, but the large crime organizations are diversified enough, that it won't really make that big of an impact. And so you really won't be saving a whole helluva lot of money in that area. Just something to think about.
They do make money from other sources, RX drugs as well as cocaine are big sources of income. However they make the majority of their income from weed.
Legalization would likely not eliminate the cartels, but it would weaken them considerably. Even if they managed to capture the entire black market in the US for RX drugs, Cocaine, Heroin and Meth (and meth is highly unlikely since it is easier for locals to produce it in most cases) this wouldn't be as large a market as the pot market.
I don't know about that. I think the cartels would instead look at synthetics and variations to marijuana to compete with the regulated versions. Either way, I think the point stands that they cartels will still be significant operations, and thus, really isn't going to be the silver bullet to solve the cartel violence/crime issue.
:cn:
When pot was legalized in the Netherlands, the rate of usage fell, then rose above previous levels, then returned to about the same rate.
The people who studied this said, IIRC, that the drop was due to people not knowing where to go to get their weed as legit businesses replaced the black market dealers. They can't compete with a nice reliable, respectable business.
The
temporary rise was associated with people who decided to experiment with it who weren't curious enough to try it when it was illegal. If you're aware that this was temporary, RWHN, then it seems dishonest to leave out that crucial fact.
But after this temporary rise it returned to the same levels before it was legalized (rates in line with regional trends, regardless of legalization status), which is usually left out as a lie by omission by anti-drug types. That increase that you're harping on is temporary and arguably offset by the preceding transition period where people use it less because it is harder to find. People who don't like pot aren't going to suddenly like pot when it becomes legal. People with no interest aren't going to suddenly decide to do it because the laws changed.
And why would they? If pot was made legal tomorrow, would you go out and try some?
Furthermore, the drug war harms entire families more than marijuana is ever capable of. How are taking parent's houses, locking up parents, putting parent's deep into debt, and preventing kids from receiving financial aid not severe costs? These things effect children in much more profound ways since it disrupts their family's ability to provide for them as well as putting higher education farther out of reach.
When kids are getting high, it doesn't prevent them from having a roof over their heads, it doesn't prevent them from affording medical care, it doesn't place their parent behind bars, it doesn't remove food from their mouths, it doesn't place their family in suffocating debt. It can damage them for sure, but let's compare the actual damage done by the drug to the actual damage done to entire families by the drug laws.
IMO the legalization issue is far less pertinent to keeping kids off drugs than repairing the social, emotional, and economic damage that leads to kids who want to use drugs.
I'm in Portland. Weed is EVERYWHERE here. I've had people knock on my door offering me weed. Most of it is grown locally or in California, and it's dirt cheap.
My kids can probably get weed more easily than alcohol. They get mimosas on major holidays but it's just not that available to them. Well, unless they steal my wine, but since I haven't been drinking much lately, and not at home at all, there isn't any for them to steal. I bet, though, that within a year or two the older ones will know someone who's dealing pot. So, my job as a parent is to provide them with information, productive hobbies and activities, an education, and emotional support in the hopes that when they decide to experiment with drugs and alcohol, they do it in a way that is safe, limited, and not detrimental to their overall development. For instance, my line on pot is that it's not bad in and of itself, but people often overuse it and that interferes with their lives and doing things they want to do. My line on meth, however, is that it is poison and will ruin your life, or at the very least your personality.
I am betting that in ten years, my kids will have tried alcohol and pot, but not meth, cocaine, or anything that goes in a needle. I am betting none of them will be addicts, or use any drugs to a detrimental degree.
Get back to me in ten years, and we'll see if my methods were effective.
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 09:01:52 PM
IMO the legalization issue is far less pertinent to keeping kids off drugs than repairing the social, emotional, and economic damage that leads to kids who want to use drugs.
I'm in Portland. Weed is EVERYWHERE here. I've had people knock on my door offering me weed. Most of it is grown locally or in California, and it's dirt cheap.
My kids can probably get weed more easily than alcohol. They get mimosas on major holidays but it's just not that available to them. Well, unless they steal my wine, but since I haven't been drinking much lately, and not at home at all, there isn't any for them to steal. I bet, though, that within a year or two the older ones will know someone who's dealing pot. So, my job as a parent is to provide them with information, productive hobbies and activities, an education, and emotional support in the hopes that when they decide to experiment with drugs and alcohol, they do it in a way that is safe, limited, and not detrimental to their overall development. For instance, my line on pot is that it's not bad in and of itself, but people often overuse it and that interferes with their lives and doing things they want to do. My line on meth, however, is that it is poison and will ruin your life, or at the very least your personality.
I am betting that in ten years, my kids will have tried alcohol and pot, but not meth, cocaine, or anything that goes in a needle. I am betting none of them will be addicts, or use any drugs to a detrimental degree.
Get back to me in ten years, and we'll see if my methods were effective.
:mittens:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
I think it should be totally legal to sell and own fully automatic weapons. This is, however, a whole different issue that I don't think really has much correlation with the current discussion.
I think Nigel nailed the major point to be made in regards to the arguments for and against total legalization:
It should not be the government's job to tell me what I can or can't do to my own body, and it should not be the government's job to restrict MY rights (pursuit of happiness IS still in there somewhere, yes?) based on the notion that me indulging in my rights might make it slightly more likely that children whose parents are ineffective at THEIR job might experiment with drugs at an age that can have long-term consequences.
Fuck, if the parents are so fucking numb-headed that they can't even keep their kids from ruining their lives WITH POT, then maybe it's just as well we let those kids do all the dumb shit they want and get those genes out of the pool sooner rather than later.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 08:04:06 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 06, 2011, 07:48:05 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
The reason I think it should be compared to other drugs is that people tend to have a certain amount of time and money to devote to recreational drug use. Some people have a certain favorite, they're going to do that drug and not any other. Most people though, especcially light drug users are going to use what is cheap and easily available. Currently that's alcohol.
On a point by point comparison weed is less harmful to the user and less dangerous to the surrounding community than alcohol. If it were equally expensive and equally available to alcohol it would steal some market share from alcohol and that would be a good thing.
What you say has some validity, from an adult perspective. Youth have entirely different motivations when it comes to drug use. What you are talking about is almost a drug connoisseur. Kids aren't thinking like that, they just want to put into their body whatever will push the magic buttons in their head that will make them feel different and/or forget about the world of shit they live in.
My pharmacist friend backs this up; many people coming in with addiction issues get off and move straight onto some kind of medical drug that they've been trying to self medicate for.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 06, 2011, 10:48:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:48:11 PM
I don't believe it should be determined by comparison to other drugs, but that it should be determined on its own merits. Marijuana use does contribute to behavioral issues and can contribute to deaths as is indicated in statistics I posted earlier in the thread. That some can use it safely, alone, IMO, does not give justification for legalization. Much that some can use an automatic weapons safely, for recreational use, can justify legalizing the sale and ownership of such weapons. (And no, I'm obviously aware of the differences in lethality of the two, but it is an appropriate analogy if we are looking at it through the personal freedom lens.)
I think it should be totally legal to sell and own fully automatic weapons. This is, however, a whole different issue that I don't think really has much correlation with the current discussion.
And this is part if why I'm happy to live in Australia.
Quote from: Nigel on April 06, 2011, 09:01:52 PM
IMO the legalization issue is far less pertinent to keeping kids off drugs than repairing the social, emotional, and economic damage that leads to kids who want to use drugs.
I agree that this is a more fundamental issue, but IMO changing marijuana laws is a smaller step in that process, and therefore relevant.
Social, emotional and economic damage is only exacerbated by absurdly disproportionate punishments related to growing, selling and using marijuana.
Well, this has been one of the most sane discussions on the topic yet... :)
That being said, I'm not sure I find any of the arguments presented here to support the current state of prohibition at all convincing, or based on any sort of objective view. I respect RWHN and his work to fix kids that are broken (not to mention that I like the damned punner)... so I am gonna step out of the discussion before I say something that offends him.
ETA: Well fuck, I was wrong... one more question:
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/2011-04-06-synthetic-drugs_N.htm
How many people get this ill on pot, and would there be a market for "legal synthetics" if actual pot were legal?
To me this seems like the "bathtub gin" issue of Prohibition days.
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 08:35:02 PM
I am now going to stay out of the debate, as I'm not going to change my opinion (because I've had too many good times on weed, and all the people I have seen that were really fucked up on pot would have been that way whether or not it was illegal), and you are also not going to change your opinion.
I am still curious on what exactly you mean with gateway drug, though. Could you phrase it as a definition? For example:
Definition: A drug is a gateway drug if and only if it's effects and social status cause users to start using other drugs.
A gateway drug is when you put your drugs on the gate, and open it, and then it becomes a jar.
I dunno man, I've been pretty thorough explaining what a gateway drug is. Are you having trouble with it because it isn't fitting your perception of the issues? I really don't know how else to put it out there.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 06, 2011, 08:47:10 PM
When pot was legalized in the Netherlands, the rate of usage fell, then rose above previous levels, then returned to about the same rate.
The people who studied this said, IIRC, that the drop was due to people not knowing where to go to get their weed as legit businesses replaced the black market dealers. They can't compete with a nice reliable, respectable business.
The temporary rise was associated with people who decided to experiment with it who weren't curious enough to try it when it was illegal. If you're aware that this was temporary, RWHN, then it seems dishonest to leave out that crucial fact.
But after this temporary rise it returned to the same levels before it was legalized (rates in line with regional trends, regardless of legalization status), which is usually left out as a lie by omission by anti-drug types. That increase that you're harping on is temporary and arguably offset by the preceding transition period where people use it less because it is harder to find. People who don't like pot aren't going to suddenly like pot when it becomes legal. People with no interest aren't going to suddenly decide to do it because the laws changed.
And why would they? If pot was made legal tomorrow, would you go out and try some?
Furthermore, the drug war harms entire families more than marijuana is ever capable of. How are taking parent's houses, locking up parents, putting parent's deep into debt, and preventing kids from receiving financial aid not severe costs? These things effect children in much more profound ways since it disrupts their family's ability to provide for them as well as putting higher education farther out of reach.
When kids are getting high, it doesn't prevent them from having a roof over their heads, it doesn't prevent them from affording medical care, it doesn't place their parent behind bars, it doesn't remove food from their mouths, it doesn't place their family in suffocating debt. It can damage them for sure, but let's compare the actual damage done by the drug to the actual damage done to entire families by the drug laws.
First off, I'm not really cool with even a temporary increase in usage. That means more kids who weren't using marijuana would now be using marijuana. I personally don't believe that gamble is an appropriate trade-off for making it legal for adults to use.
Secondly, we have to consider a considerable difference between the Netherlands and America. Culture. The most immediate of which is the advertising culture. The Netherlands were successful in banning advertising. You try to do that in America, you've got a Freedom of Speech battle on your hands that will most likely be won by the advertisers. And then all bets are off. Based on that alone, it's difficult to accept the Dutch model as a one-to-one comparison to what would happen in the U.S. if we followed the same policy.
I should also note from what I've read, the Dutch are starting to become a bit jaded and upset with the marijuana policy. Mostly because it is inviting "drug tourists" to their country from neighboring European countries. I've also read that quite a few municipalities in the Netherlands have refused to allow their coffeeshops to supply marijuana. So it seems like the jury is still out in some respects.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 06, 2011, 11:29:56 PM
Well, this has been one of the most sane discussions on the topic yet... :)
That being said, I'm not sure I find any of the arguments presented here to support the current state of prohibition at all convincing, or based on any sort of objective view. I respect RWHN and his work to fix kids that are broken (not to mention that I like the damned punner)... so I am gonna step out of the discussion before I say something that offends him.
First, I need to clarify, again, that I don't "fix kids". I am not treatment, I am prevention. I work on the issue in a broader context, focusing on programming and policies. I suspect this is why, not that you've done this, others in this thread keep talking about "profit." I make no profit from what I do. Hell, I'm definitely not going to be acquiring any yachts with my salary. I'd probably have to take out a loan just to buy a fucking row boat.
And it wasn't even a job I had planned for my career. In a way I kind of fell into it. But I definitely believe in the work and believe in the cause. But I also pride myself in making sure that everything I do is based upon evidence. Not just a blind acceptance of information, but information that I gather and that I consider and process using my own thought process. If something doesn't make sense to me, I don't use it. When someone is selling a bad bill of goods, I reject them, even when the State says I should. I'm nobody's puppet, despite where my funding comes from. I'm fortunate in that I have a Director who works the same way and allows me that breathing space.
So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective. It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 12:49:17 PM
So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective. It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research.
I think it seems that way to you.
No, it IS that way. I mean, I DO have a Master's Degree in Public Policy. I was trained and taught by some of the best minds in the country when it comes to research and public policy. I do know what I'm doing.
And with that I'm out of this thread for now. I can see where it's going as my credibility is starting to be questioned. So I'll leave you all at it while I get back to my work. I have to go to my regularly scheduled brainwashing at the DEA office.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 02:43:08 PM
And with that I'm out of this thread for now. I can see where it's going as my credibility is starting to be questioned. So I'll leave you all at it while I get back to my work. I have to go to my regularly scheduled brainwashing at the DEA office.
Its not an issue of credibility... its an issue of the BiP. Unless you're telling me that the BiP doesn't apply to you on this topic. I mean, come on RWHN, you've made statements in the past as fact, which were in the end not fact. You're quoting "deaths due to pot" as numbers with no idea whats actually behind the numbers. How is that objective?
I actually pretty thoroughly laid out my idea of what is behind the numbers, including that which I learned from my training by the Chief ME of Maine.
Annnnnnd this thread is a toolbox again.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 07, 2011, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 12:49:17 PM
So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective. It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research.
I think it seems that way to you.
That was pretty fucked up.
Your idea of what is behind the numbers... is an idea, based on what an ME in Maine taught you (where zero deaths were reported). How is that objective?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 03:19:18 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 07, 2011, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 12:49:17 PM
So yes, my professional view on the legal status of marijuana is indeed quite objective. It isn't blind acceptance, it comes from a careful and considered approach to the information available and from my own research.
I think it seems that way to you.
That was pretty fucked up.
Yes, it why I should have stuck with my previous comment and left the discussion then. In fact, I should take that advice now.
Having this thread end amicably was too much to hope for.
Nah, only speaking for myself, I'm not upset or angry with anyone. It is what it is with this particular issue. Hell, we never really talk about it, but I'm pretty sure my wife is closer to most of you spags on this issue than she is with me. We're very Carville & Matlin on this matter.
I have this engineer, his name is Mike. I believe I've mentioned him. He is a chemical engineer, but he has a PE, so in his mind, he's competent in all things, and everyone else is stupid.
He spends about a quarter of his day trying to tell me - or one of my guys - HOW to fix things, and/or how a mechanical system should work. He is universally wrong, but that doesn't even slow him down.
Myself, and all of my guys, have been properly trained in the work we do, and none of us has less than 15 years experience (except for the two apprentices). But we are constantly told by some guy - who has no training in our field - that we're wrong, because our view of the world contradicts the way he WANTS things to be.
Because expertise and training in a given field is, you know, just an opinion.
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck if it's legalized recreationally. In fact, I kind of like it being illegal because it means if I ever lose my job and end up flat broke, I'll have a way to make some quick loot.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
Wasn't trying to say that RWHN is infallible. Hell, in my analogy, WE'RE not infallible...But the fact remains, if I am told that I'm doin' it wrong because some Robert Persig fan saw an anecdote about a story that was tangentially related to the work I was doing, I'd be pissed off.
Likewise, if I was involved in substance abuse prevention for teenagers, and cared about what I did (I wouldn't, but let's pretend I would, for the sake of argument.), I'd be more than a little annoyed when someone came on board and said that I chose to see the world incorrectly, because it failed to jibe with that persons view of how things ought to be.
FACT #1: The only argument for outright legalization of weed is from a civil liberty standpoint. No other "facts" are necessary.
Fact #2: Anyone that pretends that pot isn't a problem for teens/developing adults has their head up their arse, probably reading a copy of
High Times from the collection they store in their prostate.
Fact #3: I have never heard of a death caused directly by pot, and RWHN's link didn't seem to show any. However, I know of at least one death caused by driving while stoned, which WAS by definition a pot-related death. Pot hits everyone a little differently. You may be able to drive while stoned, I am not.
Conclusion: This thread is a fucking toolbox. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for this argument to go two pages without the ad hominem bullshit poking its way in, mostly - but not entirely - on the part of the pro-pot evangelists.
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
Agreed.
My only bone of contention is that one side of the argument - on a national level - has the force of law making the decisions FOR us, which pisses me off, even though I don't use pot, and wouldn't if it were legal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 06:30:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
Agreed.
My only bone of contention is that one side of the argument - on a national level - has the force of law making the decisions FOR us, which pisses me off, even though I don't use pot, and wouldn't if it were legal.
Yup. There's that.
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 06:30:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
Agreed.
My only bone of contention is that one side of the argument - on a national level - has the force of law making the decisions FOR us, which pisses me off, even though I don't use pot, and wouldn't if it were legal.
Yup. There's that.
ATTN, CITIZENS: YOUR ELECTED MODS HAVE LOCKED THE THREAD. ARGUMENT OVER, PROHIBITION WINS. ANY FURTHER RESEARCH WILL BE CONDUCTED OR VETTED BY THE PROHIBITIONISTS. WE HAVE TO KEEP AMERICA NICE FOR THE CHILDREN THAT USE IT FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH FOR HOMEWORK. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL MEAN 5-15 YEARS IN TU.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 06:41:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 06:30:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
Agreed.
My only bone of contention is that one side of the argument - on a national level - has the force of law making the decisions FOR us, which pisses me off, even though I don't use pot, and wouldn't if it were legal.
Yup. There's that.
ATTN, CITIZENS: YOUR ELECTED MODS HAVE LOCKED THE THREAD. ARGUMENT OVER, PROHIBITION WINS. ANY FURTHER RESEARCH WILL BE CONDUCTED OR VETTED BY THE PROHIBITIONISTS. WE HAVE TO KEEP AMERICA NICE FOR THE CHILDREN THAT USE IT FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH FOR HOMEWORK. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL MEAN 5-15 YEARS IN TU.
Dammit, Roger, I was staying out of this, mostly, but now I'm downright REQUIRED to come in here and stir the pot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 06:41:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 06:30:21 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
Agreed.
My only bone of contention is that one side of the argument - on a national level - has the force of law making the decisions FOR us, which pisses me off, even though I don't use pot, and wouldn't if it were legal.
Yup. There's that.
ATTN, CITIZENS: YOUR ELECTED MODS HAVE LOCKED THE THREAD. ARGUMENT OVER, PROHIBITION WINS. ANY FURTHER RESEARCH WILL BE CONDUCTED OR VETTED BY THE PROHIBITIONISTS. WE HAVE TO KEEP AMERICA NICE FOR THE CHILDREN THAT USE IT FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH FOR HOMEWORK. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL MEAN 5-15 YEARS IN TU.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
I don't think that is accurate from my side of the fence. On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged. I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences. However, where I have some agreement with the "other side" is in the area of sentencing. I believe that we should have a more sensible approach when it comes to the sentencing of all non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders, no matter what the substance is. A person who is addicted to crack needs help, not a prison cell. Same with a person addicted to marijuana. If you live in a state where they are locking up casual users, you should be hollering about that. It is a misuse of resources. I don't agree with that either. So I think there is some overlap in that area.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Heh, "soft science". Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Heh, "soft science". Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists.
I wouldn't say soft sciences are any less a "real" science than hard sciences. More difficult, actually...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:41:33 PM
On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged. I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences.
So is letting monkeys run around with pistols, and that hasn't ended civilization.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Heh, "soft science". Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists.
nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 04:07:49 PM
Nah, only speaking for myself, I'm not upset or angry with anyone. It is what it is with this particular issue. Hell, we never really talk about it, but I'm pretty sure my wife is closer to most of you spags on this issue than she is with me. We're very Carville & Matlin on this matter.
That has to kind of suck if it ever erupts. Disagreements on policy are one thing, but they're way harder if your significant other is actually working for the side you are opposed to.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:41:33 PM
On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged. I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences.
So is letting monkeys run around with pistols, and that hasn't ended civilization.
I don't think something has to end civilization to be awful.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 08:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Heh, "soft science". Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists.
nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.
So, when we study elephants it is concrete science but when we study humans it isn't concrete science. Or is the study of animals now a soft science too? Just seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 08:30:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:41:33 PM
On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged. I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences.
So is letting monkeys run around with pistols, and that hasn't ended civilization.
I don't think something has to end civilization to be awful.
Lots of awful things happen in a free society.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 08:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Heh, "soft science". Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists.
nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.
So, when we study elephants it is concrete science but when we study humans it isn't concrete science. Or is the study of animals now a soft science too? Just seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me.
If we're studying elephant anatomy, I'd consider it a "hard" science. If we're studying elephant behavior, I'd consider it a "soft" science.
In my head, anyway, "soft" science means, "this should be measured, but damn me if we can figure out the fucking yardstick, yet."
The distinction between "hard" and "soft" sciences isn't some radical new concept; the terms have been floating around the scientific community for years. It mostly comes down to hard science being the study of physically existing phenomena where objective measurements can be taken (physics, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) vs. soft science being arenas of study involving subjective observation, often of emergent patterns within an individual or group's behavior, where your conclusions are generally more a matter of interpretation (sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, etc.).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:26:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:15:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 07, 2011, 05:08:54 PM
Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.
As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.
I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.
Hence my Fact #1.
The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.
Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.
That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.
Which?
That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.
I don't think that is accurate from my side of the fence. On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged. I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences. However, where I have some agreement with the "other side" is in the area of sentencing. I believe that we should have a more sensible approach when it comes to the sentencing of all non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders, no matter what the substance is. A person who is addicted to crack needs help, not a prison cell. Same with a person addicted to marijuana. If you live in a state where they are locking up casual users, you should be hollering about that. It is a misuse of resources. I don't agree with that either. So I think there is some overlap in that area.
8):hi5::)
Do you think rescheduling marijuana would help guide more sensible sentencing policies?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 08:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 07, 2011, 04:49:50 PM
I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.
The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.
I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.
Heh, "soft science". Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists.
nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.
So, when we study elephants it is concrete science but when we study humans it isn't concrete science. Or is the study of animals now a soft science too? Just seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me.
If you're studying human or elephant
physiology, that's a hard science. If you're studying human or elephant
behavior, that's a soft science. Surely you can see the distinction I'm trying to make? I get the feeling that you're kind of intent on taking that point as an insult it wasn't meant to be.
No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied.
Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research. So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 06, 2011, 08:41:43 PM
Are you fucking retarded, or have you finally burned out your last cognitive braincell?
No I met him with Rumckle in Utrecht a few weeks ago and he's a pretty smart dude, lacking any evidence of retardation whatsoever. :|
What's your problem man? Is it impossible to have this discussion without people getting yelled at for asking simple questions?
Quote
The last three pages are more or less devoted to what a gateway drug "is".
There, I made those quotes a bit bigger in order to better reflect what those past three pages were actually talking about.
I believe he was asking for a definition. Which I can understand, because those same three pages used a very broad spectrum of meanings for "gateway drug", and a lot of moving goalposts between them.
Bullshit makes the pot plants grow.
I made it pretty damn clear what I was talking about.
But here is a pithy little definition for everyone:
It's a gateway drug because kids can easily get it and it is where many drug addicts transition from experimentation to regular use and addiction. Other gateway drugs include alcohol, Rx drugs, and inhalants.
Everyone happy now?
Ok, maybe I was over the top, but still. To read over the last few pages and then ask that question says two things to me:
1) You haven't been comprehending the conversation.
2) You're looking for a "gotcha" -- that is, you're trying to pigeonhole the term in some way that, instead of increasing understanding, you can twist and poke holes in as a way to 'win' the conversation.
If, after all that's been said, he still wants a definition of "gateway drug", then he should start the process himself, laying out a potential framework.
You know, I'll start.
From what I understand, "Gateway Drug" seems to mean the following:
- The drug is easy to obtain, and moderately inexpensive.
- The drug is perceived as "only a little" dangerous.
- The drug shares social mindspace with other drugs.
Lets take that as a starting point. So as it's been said, pot is easy to find, can be cheap (if you like dirt weed; it's also fairly easy to grow), and a typical social circle of pot smokers will often contain people who do other drugs as well.
Let's also get pseudo-Beysean here and say that none of this means a 100% chance of using other drugs. But it looks to me like there is an increases probability that if someone begins using a gateway drug, the odds of them using another drug go up sigificantly.
So, of course you can have anectdotal evidence that "my brother smokes pot, and nothing else, doesn't even drink". But you can also have anectdotal evidence that says "I started smoking pot at 18, and 4 years later I was doing LSD every other week."
[edit: it appears RWHN has already answered this.]
Yes, and I also want to reiterate what I said during that discussion about gateway drugs which is that I don't think it is a particularly important point to focus on regarding the legalization debate. My stance of not wanting to legalize marijuana is on the merits of the drug itself. Not whether or not it leads to harder drugs. Not whether or not it is "safer" than alcohol. My focus is on what marijuana, itself, does to young people who become addicted to it.
The fact that it is a gateway drug is important to me in my work of education and raising awareness. But when it comes to the question of legalization, I really don't think it is something to get hung up on one way or the other.
Quote from: LMNOOk, maybe I was over the top, but still. To read over the last few pages and then ask that question says two things to me:
1) You haven't been comprehending the conversation.
2) You're looking for a "gotcha" -- that is, you're trying to pigeonhole the term in some way that, instead of increasing understanding, you can twist and poke holes in as a way to 'win' the conversation.
If, after all that's been said, he still wants a definition of "gateway drug", then he should start the process himself, laying out a potential framework.
I disagree. When I read that question, I thought "good question", why? Because a number of times someone said "gateway drugs is X / does Y" which RWHN countered with example but still not said what it exactly
is. Yet his definition is the one that matters because he brought it up in the first place, plus being the expert on drug prevention/treatment/councelling/etc.
And while I don't doubt his intentions, it's still kind of hard to talk about it if one of the people in the discussion keeps going "no, not
quite, because ...". After three pages of that, I don't think it's retarded
at all to just get the question out on the table and ask for a definition straight up.
So yes, there was three pages about what a gateway drug "is", but no, after those three pages, the question wasn't exactly answered at all.
And if you can't give a definition without fearing someone might poke a hole in it to "win" the conversation, then I really, really wonder why we were quoting scientific papers a few pages back. Cause without definitions, those are just, like, your opinion, man :| Come on, really? Those papers were in fact using definitions to describe exactly what they were talking about (the good ones, at least).
And for "gateway drug", it's not that hard either. You put down a definition and stick with it. Something doesn't fall under the definition? Then it's not a "gateway drug". Does that mean it's suddenly a-okay? Of course not. Not at all. How again is this going to "win" someone a conversation? Because all I'm seeing is everybody getting more out of the conversation and understanding eachothers viewpoints better because everybody is speaking the same language.
I for one,
hate this conversation, and even if I somehow "won" it, I wouldn't have it because it smells.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 02:17:44 PM
I made it pretty damn clear what I was talking about.
That's the second time you said that, after shitting on someone that had the bloody nerve to ask for clarification.
QuoteEveryone happy now?
:kingmeh:
this is why I hate these discussions.
I don't know why everybody is so lyrical about this thread compared to the other ones about pot. I'm seeing the same pattern, people get shot down for asking questions, and nobody gets any wiser for it. Maybe the others were even worse, but this one isn't better.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 12:37:51 PM
Secondly, we have to consider a considerable difference between the Netherlands and America. Culture. The most immediate of which is the advertising culture. The Netherlands were successful in banning advertising. You try to do that in America, you've got a Freedom of Speech battle on your hands that will most likely be won by the advertisers. And then all bets are off. Based on that alone, it's difficult to accept the Dutch model as a one-to-one comparison to what would happen in the U.S. if we followed the same policy.
Serious question, you still have cigarette and tobacco commercials on TV in America?
QuoteI should also note from what I've read, the Dutch are starting to become a bit jaded and upset with the marijuana policy. Mostly because it is inviting "drug tourists" to their country from neighboring European countries. I've also read that quite a few municipalities in the Netherlands have refused to allow their coffeeshops to supply marijuana. So it seems like the jury is still out in some respects.
This is only partly correct in the sense that what you describe is happening, but not for those reasons.
Yes the conservative parties in NL still don't like weed and crack down on the coffeeshops whenever they get the chance (like a majority in a municipality). This has exactly zero to do with any jury being out on anything (even if we had juries in NL). The decisions are not exactly based on any sort of numbers or research or anything, just conservative gut-feeling. If they were based on numbers, they'd know that closing a coffeeshop only makes the neighbourhood *seem* better, but in fact pushes the problem elsewhere, as well as making it worse (part of the crowd will go to the criminal circuit). It's NIMBY politics, plain and simple.
As for drug tourism, yeah that's a nuisance. In some cities near the border they are trying to fix it with a kind of card you need to show to be able to buy weed. Which I think is an incredibly stupid idea for reasons of privacy and such.
But it
does show, however, that they'd rather try and solve the actual
problem instead of thinking it'll go away if they'd just ban weed or close some more coffeeshops. Cause again, that'll only push the problem elsewhere. And fortunately this sort of stuff is handled on a provincial level, which has a bit more of a tendency to look at numbers than the municipal council.
What sources did you get that reasoning from?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 07, 2011, 03:55:42 PM
Having this thread end amicably was too much to hope for.
I don't see the problem, everything I wrote in any of these threads has been met with hostility. For asking questions, mind you.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 08, 2011, 03:15:08 PM
I disagree. When I read that question, I thought "good question", why? Because a number of times someone said "gateway drugs is X / does Y" which RWHN countered with example but still not said what it exactly is. Yet his definition is the one that matters because he brought it up in the first place, plus being the expert on drug prevention/treatment/councelling/etc.
And while I don't doubt his intentions, it's still kind of hard to talk about it if one of the people in the discussion keeps going "no, not quite, because ...". After three pages of that, I don't think it's retarded at all to just get the question out on the table and ask for a definition straight up.
So yes, there was three pages about what a gateway drug "is", but no, after those three pages, the question wasn't exactly answered at all.
It was answered. Did I put it in a pithy little sentence? No, because it is something that has a couple of different components to it which I did thoroughly explain. the bit about access and the bit about transitioning from experimentation to addiction. That information was presented when asked for and in more than one post.
QuoteQuote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 02:17:44 PM
I made it pretty damn clear what I was talking about.
That's the second time you said that, after shitting on someone that had the bloody nerve to ask for clarification.
It didn't feel that way to me. It felt like someone searching for a definition they could agree with. It felt like the definitions I was giving, didn't quite click with a person's view of things and so I was being asked to reword it, and reword it, until it fit into their world view.
QuoteQuote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 07, 2011, 12:37:51 PM
Secondly, we have to consider a considerable difference between the Netherlands and America. Culture. The most immediate of which is the advertising culture. The Netherlands were successful in banning advertising. You try to do that in America, you've got a Freedom of Speech battle on your hands that will most likely be won by the advertisers. And then all bets are off. Based on that alone, it's difficult to accept the Dutch model as a one-to-one comparison to what would happen in the U.S. if we followed the same policy.
Serious question, you still have cigarette and tobacco commercials on TV in America?
No. But they more than make up for that with the advertising they do in publications, convenience stores, ballparks and other event arenas. Meanwhile, we are plastered with beer and liquor ads.
QuoteQuoteI should also note from what I've read, the Dutch are starting to become a bit jaded and upset with the marijuana policy. Mostly because it is inviting "drug tourists" to their country from neighboring European countries. I've also read that quite a few municipalities in the Netherlands have refused to allow their coffeeshops to supply marijuana. So it seems like the jury is still out in some respects.
This is only partly correct in the sense that what you describe is happening, but not for those reasons.
Yes the conservative parties in NL still don't like weed and crack down on the coffeeshops whenever they get the chance (like a majority in a municipality). This has exactly zero to do with any jury being out on anything (even if we had juries in NL). The decisions are not exactly based on any sort of numbers or research or anything, just conservative gut-feeling. If they were based on numbers, they'd know that closing a coffeeshop only makes the neighbourhood *seem* better, but in fact pushes the problem elsewhere, as well as making it worse (part of the crowd will go to the criminal circuit). It's NIMBY politics, plain and simple.
As for drug tourism, yeah that's a nuisance. In some cities near the border they are trying to fix it with a kind of card you need to show to be able to buy weed. Which I think is an incredibly stupid idea for reasons of privacy and such.
But it does show, however, that they'd rather try and solve the actual problem instead of thinking it'll go away if they'd just ban weed or close some more coffeeshops. Cause again, that'll only push the problem elsewhere. And fortunately this sort of stuff is handled on a provincial level, which has a bit more of a tendency to look at numbers than the municipal council.
What sources did you get that reasoning from?
Most recently from an article from CBS News.
By the way, it was Laughing Jude who brought up Gateway Drugs, not me. Just so we have the record straight.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 01:39:49 PM
It is only a myth in as much as marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug. But it certainly does serve as a gateway drug. Gateway drugs have less to do with the drug itself and more to do with access. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it is fairly easy for a young person to get. All experimentation starts with drugs that are easy to get. Inhalants and Rx are also gateway drugs, because a kid can get them right in their house without paying anybody for them. These are particularily scary gateway drugs in that the first use can kill or cause serious brain damage.
Note that in this post for talking about gateway drugs I talk about access and experimentation. So, okay, I could've been a little clearer talking about the experimentation piece, but then I did:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 04:15:48 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 06, 2011, 03:56:47 PM
I'm still not sure what a gateway drug is. Do you mean a gateway drug is a drug that is easy to get? Could you please give a definition that I can apply that proves marijuana is a gateway drug but sugar isn't?
Yes. And as I stated marijuana isn't the only gateway drug, but it is one of the more popular ones amongst youth. Rx drugs and inhalants are also gateway drugs, in that it is the drug that many youth will experiment with first. It's basically the substance that is the gate between experimentation and regular use/dependency. And generally, it is going to be your more easily accessible drugs. It is rare you are going to see a kid start at cocaine or heroin. Sugar is not a gateway drug because you don't see very many kids who move from regular sugar buzzes to injecting heroin in their arms.
There it is again. access and transition from experimentation to addiction. And then later in a response to Ratatosk I say:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 06, 2011, 06:01:52 PM
No, it's not really either one of those, though the latter is part of it and is most definitely not bullshit. It is a fundamental in the stages of addiction. Does that mean that everyone who starts down the marijuana path is going to graduate to harder drug use? Obviously not. But it doesn't negate the gateway effect. It isn't an absolute and isn't put out as an absolute today. But if a person's motivation for drug use is escapism and self-medicating, they definitely are going to be prone to it as they develop tolerances.
The other component of the gateway effect is access as I've described. Marijuana does have a gateway effect tied to it, but it is not the only drug with those properties. Inhalants and Rx drugs also can be gateway drugs based upon them being easily available in the home. An obvious difference is that inhalants and Rx drugs can be deadly or seriously damaging on the first try.
There it is again. Access and part of the transition from experimentation to addiction.
So I don't think it is really fair, or accurate, to say that I was not offering a definition, or that I was moving goalposts. I was very consistent with my definition of access and transition.
Thanks RWHN for your answers.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 03:33:31 PM
It didn't feel that way to me. It felt like someone searching for a definition they could agree with. It felt like the definitions I was giving, didn't quite click with a person's view of things and so I was being asked to reword it, and reword it, until it fit into their world view.
It probably helps if you know el Sjaako has a background in physics, and the "if and only if" part of his question is a mathematical phrase, meaning a kind of equivalence, as used in definitions in most exact sciences. But I suppose that if you don't know the phrase, and interpret it as literal English, it sounds kind of weird, perhaps like someone fishing for something.
As you can see in the posts you just quoted he also asked for examples
and counterexamples of gateway drugs, because that's how "if and only if" works. But never mind.
Reading your quotes of explanations, I'm trying to figure it out. Maybe it's pretty clear to you but it's a tricky subject to me. Please tell me if I got it right this time:
So "gateway" is not just a property of the drug in itself, but also depends on the context in which it is being used?
Someone smokes marijuana with his friends and they are "bad" friends, because through them he experiments with other drugs, and then he gets addicted to the other drugs. Then marijuana is the gateway drug (and his friends, if you like, are "gateway friends" :) ).
But if someone smokes marijuana twice a month and doesn't even drink, etc. Then in that case marijuana is NOT a gateway drug?
Or is it that marijuana in general is always considered a gateway drug because it has the possibility of being a "gateway" to harder drugs?
Cause I was thinking of the latter, and so it seems was el Sjaako, but reading your explanations it's more like an after-the-fact thing like "yeah he got addicted to meth and marijuana was his gateway drug".
So it's more like "marijuana
can (often) be a gateway drug"? (depending on context)
It doesn't really matter but I think that's what some of the confusion came from, maybe.
QuoteNo. But they more than make up for that with the advertising they do in publications, convenience stores, ballparks and other event arenas. Meanwhile, we are plastered with beer and liquor ads.
Okay same here.
Now that I think about it, you're right, I do remember learning in school that it's also specifically illegal to advertise pot. I never really thought about it, though. It seems natural. Actually, to be fair, I'm happy with ANY limits on advertising whatsoever, regardless of what for :)
Yes, it can be a gateway drug but isn't always. But again, as I said, I don't think it is really important to the question of legalizing. I think a young person being addicted to marijuana, in and of itself, is a negative, even if they don't move on to harder drugs. That dependency, itself, can cause a lot of turmoil and seriously disrupt a young person's life. Same thing with alcohol. And of course with alcohol you have to deal with a fairly wide spectrum of potency, where just being addicted to alcohol can be pretty serious especially if it ends up being an addiction to particularly strong forms of alcohol.
Would it help to say that pot is currently in the [set] of drugs that are [easily accessable and increase the percentage risk of experimentation and addiction]; and that [set] is labeled "Gateway Drugs"?
Because it appears some of your questions are asking about if pot "is" a GD, as if there is some ON/OFF switch in the drug itself that leads to experimentation and addiction ("When is pot a gateway drug, and when isn't it?" (to paraphrase)).
It seems to me that RWHN is talking about two separate things:
1) The chemical structure in pot has been shown to cause addiction (using the broad definition), and inhibit proper development of the brain in children.
2) Pot currently fits into the [set] of Gateway Drugs.
RWHN, let me know if I'm off base here.
No, that pretty much nails it.
The chemical structure in pot has been shown to cause addiction"...
I have not seen this documented. I would be interested to though. It was my understanding that the addiction was psychological (and still very real for people that experience it) but was not due to the chemical structure of pot. Any references :)
Also, RWHN, I want to apologize for sounding like I was questioning your integrity.
Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".
A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.
So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).
I hope you can agree with that. If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.
*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.
Well, that seems unnecessarily vague, but I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with it in the context stated. :)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 08, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".
A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.
So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).
I hope you can agree with that. If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.
*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 10:29:36 AM
No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied.
Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research. So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all.
As long as you are
interpreting that quantitative research and how it applies to human behavior, then yes, it IS a soft science. I didn't make these terms up. They're fairly well-defined and established.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 10:29:36 AM
No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied.
Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research. So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all.
Okay.
Give me an accurate measurement of, say, a human's intelligence.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 08, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".
A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.
So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).
I hope you can agree with that. If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.
*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.
Bullshit. It is NOT a false dichotomy in the context of whether or not a substance should be legalized. The idea that we should ban things to protect people who
might have a propensity for psychological addiction is absolutely fucking absurd.
ECH,
suggests we ban PD.com next
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 08, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".
A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.
So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).
I hope you can agree with that. If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addicitive.
*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.
It's an important dichotomy though because Psychological addiction includes things that do not actually go into your body, like gambling, WoW and masturbation. Addiction to weed is in the same class as those addictions, and not addiction to Heroin or Cocaine and that is important partly because treatment is very different. Whether that should factor into decisions regarding legality is a point that can be argued back and forth, I think addictive potential is a relatively minor factor, but it does make a drug far less dangerous if you can't die from withdrawal, which, if the addiction is purely psychological, you cannot.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 08, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 10:29:36 AM
No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied.
Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research. So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all.
As long as you are interpreting that quantitative research and how it applies to human behavior, then yes, it IS a soft science. I didn't make these terms up. They're fairly well-defined and established.
As well-defined as a colloquialism can be.
Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories.
I maintain that it is an artificial and arbitrary distinction.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 08, 2011, 06:01:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 08, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
Rat, I believe any confusion should be cleared up when you take into account the phrase "(using the broad definition)".
A reasonable interpretation of "Broad Definition" would necessarily include both physical and psychological addiction*.
So: The chemical structure of pot is what gets you high, and the desire to repeatedly get high can lead to addiction (broad).
I hope you can agree with that. If pot didn't get you high, it would probably not be very psychologically addictive.
*As an aside, it has been mentioned that this is a false dichotomy, as psychological addiction is created by physical changes to brain structure.
Bullshit. It is NOT a false dichotomy in the context of whether or not a substance should be legalized. The idea that we should ban things to protect people who might have a propensity for psychological addiction is absolutely fucking absurd.
ECH,
suggests we ban PD.com next
I think that this is an important difference as well. It seems to me, that "psychologically addictive" is almost analogous to "habit forming". So in such a case, we would be saying "Subject X gets up in the morning, rolls a blunt, enjoys a wake and bake, then goes to work. He comes home, packs up a bowl, relaxes while checking out his favorite websites and email then makes dinner. After dinner, he watches a movie, while getting stoned. Then he goes to bed."
We could say that this person has formed a habit of using marijuana.
We could also say that the guy is living his life and enjoying marijuana as part of it. It seems subjective to me, based on the BiP of the observer.
I mean, speaking as someone who generally smokes lots of high grade pot and then just went 8 days without a single toke... I noticed no appreciable difference in my life. I had no craving, no stress or emotional issues, not once did I think "Man, I really need a bowl." If marijuana were physically addictive, then I am sure I would have suffered... if the chemical compound were addictive then my body would respond to that lack of chemical stimuli.
To me this is a key difference, if Person X and Person Y take addictive drug 1 for a period of time and then that drug is withheld, we can see the physical addiction happen in both... we can make a repeatable observable experiment.
If Person X and Person Y take habit-forming drug 2 for a period of time and then the drug is withheld, we may see very different results with each individual we test with. (At least, according to reports on the 'addictiveness' of marijuana this seems to be what most studies find.) So I don't think its a false dichotomy, but I do think that both can be valid concerns which have several similarities.
In my personal opinion, the only time that "habit forming" is a serious problem though, is when the habit is an escape from personal problems, financial problems, etc. If a person cannot function in reality, drugs are not gonna help. If a person can function in reality with a drug habit, they're way ahead of most of the monkeys on the planet, so more power to them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 06:28:56 PM
Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories.
Name one.
I was going to respond to the last couple of posts but....I'm done. I'm putting up the white flag.
I have no interest in doing this dance with you guys anymore. I'm tired of seeing the same scenery over and over again.
I hope at the very least you have tried to consider some of the information I've presented. I obviously have no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind and nor did I expect to or want to.
But the issue of marijuana addiction, particularly when it comes to our youth, is a very real and serious issue. I've seen it throw its shrapnel and throw far too many lives off into paths that lead them to some very dark places. I'm just one spag who is trying to help a few of these people out and hopefully help a few more avoid that shrapnel. I don't do it out of some religious-like zealotry. I really don't care if adults want to ruin their lives with this stuff. They're adults, they make their adult decisions.
But kids don't and can't do that. And when the adults in their lives model bad decisions, or generally just don't give a shit to pay attention, then I think it is good when there are adults in a community who will do what they can to help these kids out. I'm proud to be one of those idiots charging at the windmill. I know many (not necessarily here) will knock this as the ole "PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" cliche. And that's fine. Imma gonna do it anyway.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 06:28:56 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 08, 2011, 05:52:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 10:29:36 AM
No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied.
Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research. So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all.
As long as you are interpreting that quantitative research and how it applies to human behavior, then yes, it IS a soft science. I didn't make these terms up. They're fairly well-defined and established.
As well-defined as a colloquialism can be.
Especially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories.
I maintain that it is an artificial and arbitrary distinction.
You'll have to explain your stance more clearly. First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by this:
QuoteEspecially when you consider that some of the hard sciences, like physics for example, have to take some fairly brave leaps of logic to come up with their theories.
but I'm pretty sure it should come with some sort of citation. And you seem to be ignoring the part where the distinction is between quantitative science and science based on human interpretation of quantitative science as it applies to behavior. It's really not a difficult distinction to make if you're not intent on viewing the terms "hard science" and "soft science" as having some sort of value judgment attached to them.
QuoteI really don't care if adults want to ruin their lives with this stuff.
That's the kind of comment that seems 'subjective' and 'BiP-ish' to me. I mean sure, some people ruin their life with pot. However, 'most, but not all' smokers I know are successful in their life. The stereotype of some dude on the couch in his Mom's basement surely exists, but it seems to be a small percentage of people that smoke pot.
One smoker I know is a few months away from his PhD. One just became general manager at a major new club. Another is Sous Chef at one of the best restaurants in the city, another is a in-demand developer and travels all over the world. Hell, even the guy I know that fucked his life up because of pot as a teenager is getting out of the funk and has his own place, a good job and behaves like a rational and reasonable person (and still smokes pot).
Maybe I just don't know all of the basement dwellers, because they're in the basement. However, at the very least, it doesn't seem like 'pot' is the key to people ruining their life. Maybe it contributes as an escape for people looking for an escape, but I don't think that is the same thing.
ETA: Note that I intend this as a subjective comment based on my experiences and what I can see from my own BiP.
NOT EVEN ONCE.
\
(http://www.filmjunk.com/images/weblog/top10stoner.jpg)
For what it's worth, I disagree with probably most people in here on at least one, point, but this has been one of my favourite threads just for the value of RWHN speaking about something he knows professionally and intimately, so cheers.
I value RWHN's input because I need thing to balance out, say, this, or I'd go crazy (in the bad, anti-social way):
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/15/dea_children
I can't believe she actually said that with her bare face hanging out.
I understand what she was trying to convey but she obviously was quite inartful with how she said it. Honestly, it's one of those things you probably really can't convey without upsetting people, so it's best to just talk about it internally and not bother the public with it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 16, 2011, 01:09:21 PM
I understand what she was trying to convey but she obviously was quite inartful with how she said it. Honestly, it's one of those things you probably really can't convey without upsetting people, so it's best to just talk about it internally and not bother the public with it.
I think her statement here is one of the best arguements for legalization. Keeping people from using drugs is not worth the lives of all of the people that are being killed.
Basically she admitted that the Cartel violence is a direct result of prohibition, something the anti-prohibition people have been saying for a long time. Personally I hope she is not reprimanded for it, it's one of the few times the DEA has publically spoken the truth about the cost of the drug war and it's rather refreshing.
I understand what she was trying to convey and while I recognize the essential "truth" of it, it absolutely disgusts me.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
...marijuana addiction...
Damn, RWHN, you just lost a lot of credibility in my book. :(
Whatever you see is not because some kid is smoking pot, there's something else going on. Smoking probably isn't doing them any favors but your views on it don't seem to square with reality.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 16, 2011, 10:45:44 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
...marijuana addiction...
Damn, RWHN, you just lost a lot of credibility in my book. :(
Whatever you see is not because some kid is smoking pot, there's something else going on. Smoking probably isn't doing them any favors but your views on it don't seem to square with reality.
Working it education, it makes sense to look at this way. It's not easy for me to teach a kid if they're permanently blazed, whether that's at home or at school. Regardless of whether it's physical or psychological addiction, its addiction and in practical terms should be treated as such.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 16, 2011, 10:45:44 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 08, 2011, 06:50:53 PM
...marijuana addiction...
Damn, RWHN, you just lost a lot of credibility in my book. :(
Whatever you see is not because some kid is smoking pot, there's something else going on. Smoking probably isn't doing them any favors but your views on it don't seem to square with reality.
Certainly, there are likely issues in their lives that drive them to pot and other drugs. There are also many cases of substance abuse that are co-occurring. That is, that there are substance abuse AND mental health issues going on at the same time. However, that does not negate the fact that addiction to marijuana does have some very realy, very negative impacts on many young lives. That IS the reality that I've seen both in the treatment agency I used to work for and in the community I work in today. Sure, if you take the substance abuse away, there are other issues. But the same is also said of alcohol abuse, cocaine abuse, etc., etc., etc.
Except with alcohol and cocaine the drugs themselves are a serious problem. Marijuana, while not exactly great for your lungs or motivation, can't kill you or ruin your life (unless you get arrested for having it or are affected by the cartels that control it). I have never seen any credible evidence that showed anything negative about marijuana aside from the effects from smoking it (I.E., you just lit something on fire and are now inhaling the smoke, yes of course that's bad for your lungs). I've seen people abuse alcohol and other drugs and I've seen the horrible effects they can have. I've seen people abuse pot and I've seen the lack of consequences it has aside from arguably making them a little lazier (but even then I would argue it's more to do with their personality than anything else).
I've heard lots of anecdotal stuff from people who were very much against it for one reason or another, some of them saying similar things to what you're saying but I've found that very hard to believe in the absence of actual evidence.
I'm coming in somewhat late to this argument but, for my own clarification, are you against it being decriminalized and/or legalized?
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 17, 2011, 06:57:39 PM
Except with alcohol and cocaine the drugs themselves are a serious problem. Marijuana, while not exactly great for your lungs or motivation, can't kill you or ruin your life (unless you get arrested for having it or are affected by the cartels that control it). I have never seen any credible evidence that showed anything negative about marijuana aside from the effects from smoking it (I.E., you just lit something on fire and are now inhaling the smoke, yes of course that's bad for your lungs). I've seen people abuse alcohol and other drugs and I've seen the horrible effects they can have. I've seen people abuse pot and I've seen the lack of consequences it has aside from arguably making them a little lazier (but even then I would argue it's more to do with their personality than anything else).
I've heard lots of anecdotal stuff from people who were very much against it for one reason or another, some of them saying similar things to what you're saying but I've found that very hard to believe in the absence of actual evidence.
I'm coming in somewhat late to this argument but, for my own clarification, are you against it being decriminalized and/or legalized?
I'm for legalization and I certainly have seen pot, in and of itself, impact people's lives in a negative way. It's not good for your short term memory or your motivation. I have a good friend who I don't see all that much because he can't remember when we've made plans and when he does remember he can't be arsed to get off the couch half the time.
I agree that the negative effects are less than Alcohol and far less than RX Narcotics (which is what he is replacing with it, he has fibromyalgia and would not be able to function without medication) but pretending that there are no negative effects is not going to advance the arguement.
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 17, 2011, 06:57:39 PM
Except with alcohol and cocaine the drugs themselves are a serious problem. Marijuana, while not exactly great for your lungs or motivation, can't kill you or ruin your life (unless you get arrested for having it or are affected by the cartels that control it). I have never seen any credible evidence that showed anything negative about marijuana aside from the effects from smoking it (I.E., you just lit something on fire and are now inhaling the smoke, yes of course that's bad for your lungs). I've seen people abuse alcohol and other drugs and I've seen the horrible effects they can have. I've seen people abuse pot and I've seen the lack of consequences it has aside from arguably making them a little lazier (but even then I would argue it's more to do with their personality than anything else).
I've heard lots of anecdotal stuff from people who were very much against it for one reason or another, some of them saying similar things to what you're saying but I've found that very hard to believe in the absence of actual evidence.
I'm coming in somewhat late to this argument but, for my own clarification, are you against it being decriminalized and/or legalized?
Yes, I am. My job is to prevent substance abuse amongst the youth in the two cities I work in. Knowing what I know about the effects of marijuana on use, and the link between increased access and increased use, I believe whatever benefits to adults from legalization would be outweighed by costs to our youth. As for evidence of marijuana and its addictive properties, you can check out this link that talks about how the body can develop a dependency on THC and some of the withdrawal symptoms experienced by heavy users.
http://www.uhs.wisc.edu/health-topics/alcohol-and-drugs/marijuana-addiction-and-other-issues.shtml
QuoteBy the twenty-first century, the answers to these questions are clear. Tolerance does develop to THC (the active chemical in marijuana). Moreover, withdrawal definitely occurs in some users. The effects of this withdrawal are generally the opposite of the effects of intoxication: anxiety and insomnia instead of relaxation; loss of appetite rather than hunger; excessive salivation instead of dry mouth; and also decreased pulse, irritability, and sometimes tremor. People who have used marijuana as a way to control underlying anger may also experience irritability, increased mood swings, and even an increase in aggressive behavior, as symptoms of withdrawal.
Final comment
Although marijuana use has been common in many segments of the American population for two generations, and many adults and teenagers know marijuana users who have not developed addiction even to prolonged use, the potential for the development of addiction is almost certainly greater today than in the 1960s or '70s. The marijuana of today is different. It's not just much more expensive; it also contains significantly more THC. In fact, the THC content of today's pot is several times higher than that of even strong "weed" from the '60s. This makes it more potent, but also more likely to induce tolerance and true addiction.
So yes there is evidence. One, of course, is free to not believe this evidence, but it doesn't negates its existence.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 17, 2011, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 17, 2011, 06:57:39 PM
Except with alcohol and cocaine the drugs themselves are a serious problem. Marijuana, while not exactly great for your lungs or motivation, can't kill you or ruin your life (unless you get arrested for having it or are affected by the cartels that control it). I have never seen any credible evidence that showed anything negative about marijuana aside from the effects from smoking it (I.E., you just lit something on fire and are now inhaling the smoke, yes of course that's bad for your lungs). I've seen people abuse alcohol and other drugs and I've seen the horrible effects they can have. I've seen people abuse pot and I've seen the lack of consequences it has aside from arguably making them a little lazier (but even then I would argue it's more to do with their personality than anything else).
I've heard lots of anecdotal stuff from people who were very much against it for one reason or another, some of them saying similar things to what you're saying but I've found that very hard to believe in the absence of actual evidence.
I'm coming in somewhat late to this argument but, for my own clarification, are you against it being decriminalized and/or legalized?
Yes, I am. My job is to prevent substance abuse amongst the youth in the two cities I work in. Knowing what I know about the effects of marijuana on use, and the link between increased access and increased use, I believe whatever benefits to adults from legalization would be outweighed by costs to our youth. As for evidence of marijuana and its addictive properties, you can check out this link that talks about how the body can develop a dependency on THC and some of the withdrawal symptoms experienced by heavy users.
http://www.uhs.wisc.edu/health-topics/alcohol-and-drugs/marijuana-addiction-and-other-issues.shtml
QuoteBy the twenty-first century, the answers to these questions are clear. Tolerance does develop to THC (the active chemical in marijuana). Moreover, withdrawal definitely occurs in some users. The effects of this withdrawal are generally the opposite of the effects of intoxication: anxiety and insomnia instead of relaxation; loss of appetite rather than hunger; excessive salivation instead of dry mouth; and also decreased pulse, irritability, and sometimes tremor. People who have used marijuana as a way to control underlying anger may also experience irritability, increased mood swings, and even an increase in aggressive behavior, as symptoms of withdrawal.
Final comment
Although marijuana use has been common in many segments of the American population for two generations, and many adults and teenagers know marijuana users who have not developed addiction even to prolonged use, the potential for the development of addiction is almost certainly greater today than in the 1960s or '70s. The marijuana of today is different. It's not just much more expensive; it also contains significantly more THC. In fact, the THC content of today's pot is several times higher than that of even strong "weed" from the '60s. This makes it more potent, but also more likely to induce tolerance and true addiction.
So yes there is evidence. One, of course, is free to not believe this evidence, but it doesn't negates its existence.
The OMGMOARPOTANTWEEEDZNAO argument never held much water with me. Better weed just means you have to smoke less to get the same effects. It's less bad for you than shitty weed.
It also comes at a higher price. I doubt that the inflation adjusted cost per THC
mol has changed much since the 60's.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on April 17, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
The OMGMOARPOTANTWEEEDZNAO argument never held much water with me. Better weed just means you have to smoke less to get the same effects. It's less bad for you than shitty weed.
It also comes at a higher price. I doubt that the inflation adjusted cost per THCmol has changed much since the 60's.
It also means you need less to develop a tolerance which means eventually you will be using quite a bit more to keep getting the same effect. And one might also observe that your typical drug addict isn't exactly adept at exercising restraint.
How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.
The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.
What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 17, 2011, 08:16:40 PM
Quote from: SHIBBOLEET THE ANNIHILATOR on April 17, 2011, 06:57:39 PM
Except with alcohol and cocaine the drugs themselves are a serious problem. Marijuana, while not exactly great for your lungs or motivation, can't kill you or ruin your life (unless you get arrested for having it or are affected by the cartels that control it). I have never seen any credible evidence that showed anything negative about marijuana aside from the effects from smoking it (I.E., you just lit something on fire and are now inhaling the smoke, yes of course that's bad for your lungs). I've seen people abuse alcohol and other drugs and I've seen the horrible effects they can have. I've seen people abuse pot and I've seen the lack of consequences it has aside from arguably making them a little lazier (but even then I would argue it's more to do with their personality than anything else).
I've heard lots of anecdotal stuff from people who were very much against it for one reason or another, some of them saying similar things to what you're saying but I've found that very hard to believe in the absence of actual evidence.
I'm coming in somewhat late to this argument but, for my own clarification, are you against it being decriminalized and/or legalized?
Yes, I am. My job is to prevent substance abuse amongst the youth in the two cities I work in. Knowing what I know about the effects of marijuana on use, and the link between increased access and increased use, I believe whatever benefits to adults from legalization would be outweighed by costs to our youth. As for evidence of marijuana and its addictive properties, you can check out this link that talks about how the body can develop a dependency on THC and some of the withdrawal symptoms experienced by heavy users.
http://www.uhs.wisc.edu/health-topics/alcohol-and-drugs/marijuana-addiction-and-other-issues.shtml
QuoteBy the twenty-first century, the answers to these questions are clear. Tolerance does develop to THC (the active chemical in marijuana). Moreover, withdrawal definitely occurs in some users. The effects of this withdrawal are generally the opposite of the effects of intoxication: anxiety and insomnia instead of relaxation; loss of appetite rather than hunger; excessive salivation instead of dry mouth; and also decreased pulse, irritability, and sometimes tremor. People who have used marijuana as a way to control underlying anger may also experience irritability, increased mood swings, and even an increase in aggressive behavior, as symptoms of withdrawal.
Final comment
Although marijuana use has been common in many segments of the American population for two generations, and many adults and teenagers know marijuana users who have not developed addiction even to prolonged use, the potential for the development of addiction is almost certainly greater today than in the 1960s or '70s. The marijuana of today is different. It's not just much more expensive; it also contains significantly more THC. In fact, the THC content of today's pot is several times higher than that of even strong "weed" from the '60s. This makes it more potent, but also more likely to induce tolerance and true addiction.
So yes there is evidence. One, of course, is free to not believe this evidence, but it doesn't negates its existence.
This may have already been addressed (I skimmed through all 35 pages, didn't read them closely) but if pot was legalized and treated like alcohol, theoretically it seems that it would direct the attention of drug enforcement to minors using drugs to a greater extent that it is now, because adults who choose to relax with a nicely packed bowl could do so legally and law enforcement wouldn't be required to harass them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 17, 2011, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on April 17, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
The OMGMOARPOTANTWEEEDZNAO argument never held much water with me. Better weed just means you have to smoke less to get the same effects. It's less bad for you than shitty weed.
It also comes at a higher price. I doubt that the inflation adjusted cost per THCmol has changed much since the 60's.
It also means you need less to develop a tolerance which means eventually you will be using quite a bit more to keep getting the same effect. And one might also observe that your typical drug addict isn't exactly adept at exercising restraint.
I'll concede that higher potency makes it
easier to get more THC into your system. The vast majority of smokers I've known only smoke as much as they
want, not as much as they
can. The potency has no effect on their THC intake, only their smoke intake.
I, for one, like having a quarter Oz last me 3 months.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 18, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.
The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.
What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?
That questions, IMO, makes an incorrect assumption. That legal marijuana is going to be the death-knell of drug cartels. It would not be their death knell. Many of these cartels also deal in the illegal and pirate prescription drug trade. Many also deal with other, harder drugs. Some of the more sophisticated outlets would undoubtedly switch to a new model where they develop and sell product that outdoes the legal product being regulated by the U.S. Government.
Certainly, there is alway room for the enforcement of our drug laws to be carried out in smarter and more judicious manners. I won't argue that.
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 02:17:10 AM
This may have already been addressed (I skimmed through all 35 pages, didn't read them closely) but if pot was legalized and treated like alcohol, theoretically it seems that it would direct the attention of drug enforcement to minors using drugs to a greater extent that it is now, because adults who choose to relax with a nicely packed bowl could do so legally and law enforcement wouldn't be required to harass them.
And you guys harp on me when I point out just what was demonstrated in this very post.
Anyhoo, if marijuana were legalized and treated like alcohol we might also have the problems we've had with underage drinking. While the rates have been inching down for the past few years, previously they were rising at an alarming rate. And we still have a significant amount of youth who engage in binge drinking. Legalizing marijuana, I believe, will erase a lot of the progress we've made with underage usage rates over the past few years. I think that would be a significant social cost for society to bear.
The argument saying it is less harmful than alcohol to kids is a pretty funny one to me, because alcohol fucks up a lot of kids lives. Far more than is acknowledged, I think. I actually find it pretty disturbing how, in the UK at least, we've taken such a relaxed view to the damage alcohol does to society. It is pretty much taken as read, now, that any major city centre on friday and saturday nights is going to be a warzone.
I've never tried marijuana, which probably puts me in a minority here. It sure does amongst my friends, though not many of them smoke often enough for it to be a regular thing. I would not be against it being legalized, and treated like alcohol, if I had any faith that the restrictions would be enforced. Right now, though, kids smoke and drink publicly all the time.
From personal experience, the sheer hell my parents would have inflicted on me if I'd touched any of that stuff past 16 (and probably marijuana, or any other non-legal drug now if I brought it in the house), prevented me when I was a teenager. Plenty of parents, though, don't care already, and I think that number would increase if it became legal for them. So... I guess, tl;dr, I agree with RWHN, pretty much.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: Aloe on April 18, 2011, 02:17:10 AM
This may have already been addressed (I skimmed through all 35 pages, didn't read them closely) but if pot was legalized and treated like alcohol, theoretically it seems that it would direct the attention of drug enforcement to minors using drugs to a greater extent that it is now, because adults who choose to relax with a nicely packed bowl could do so legally and law enforcement wouldn't be required to harass them.
And you guys harp on me when I point out just what was demonstrated in this very post.
Anyhoo, if marijuana were legalized and treated like alcohol we might also have the problems we've had with underage drinking. While the rates have been inching down for the past few years, previously they were rising at an alarming rate. And we still have a significant amount of youth who engage in binge drinking. Legalizing marijuana, I believe, will erase a lot of the progress we've made with underage usage rates over the past few years. I think that would be a significant social cost for society to bear.
I haven't been here long enough to know what you get harped on about, but in reference to law enforcement being required, by the nature of their job, to harass adults who enjoy illegal substances, that's just a fact. Doesn't mean I can't rage against it and/or try to change it. I currently haven't had any weed in over 5 years because of military restrictions, and because I'm a mother and don't want trouble with law enforcement to be one of my kid's childhood memories... And this alone is enough to fill me with rage against the anti-legalization groups.
If I ran this bitch, I'd make possession and most nonviolent crime decriminalized, but any crime committed under the influence carry triple the sentence.
I love how we've managed to build a 36-page thread around everybody willfully missing the point as intently as possible. :lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 18, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
I love how we've managed to build a 36-page thread around everybody willfully missing the point as intently as possible. :lulz:
You mean you actually expected me to read through 36 pages of spag-sense?
I thought I could just drop my two cents here and watch the rest of you guys tear it the fuck to pieces while I sat back with my popcorn...
The cost of criminalization on society has already proven to be intolerable. Criminalization (of marijuana) is antisocial, to the point of, probably, actually being evil.
I use it to justify stealing things from the government. :FFF:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 18, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
I love how we've managed to build a 36-page thread around everybody willfully missing the point as intently as possible. :lulz:
Just according to plan.
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 07:31:59 PM
The cost of criminalization on society has already proven to be intolerable. Criminalization (of marijuana) is antisocial, to the point of, probably, actually being evil.
Really? Evil?
And I of course disagree that anything has been "proven" as far as criminalization of marijuana being intolerable.
Again, I think people link tend to link this to the fall out from dealing with drug cartels, but as I laid out earlier, that would not go away if you legalized marijuana. They still will be in the illegal Rx drug trade, they'll still be in the heroin trade, cocaine trade, etc., etc., You might kill off a small-time operation here and there, but you will still have cartels and you will still have the associated violence.
Hell, you could legalize ALL drugs tomorrow and you would still have cartels. Why? Because if you legalize drugs, said drugs will have to be regulated. And many of your illicit drugs are a completely different animal compared to alcohol. The drugs would be regulated based upon potency and composition. As people develop tolerances to legal drugs they will be seeking bigger and "better" highs. Where the government can't keep up with that demand, (because we all know how the government is like unto a nimble gazelle), the cartels will deliver.
I will concede, that the cartel animal would certainly be smaller in that scenario but it would not cease to exist. Moreover, the legalization of all drugs will most certainly come with increased social costs as well as health care costs.
Yes, evil. It's a religion, and it's both antisocial and evil.
Well, okay, I can play too.
Legalization is an anti-youth cult!
I'VE READ SEVERAL EXTENSIVE STUDIES THAT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT YOU ARE A DOODIEHEAD!
Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.
Working to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on April 18, 2011, 09:04:34 PM
I'VE READ SEVERAL EXTENSIVE STUDIES THAT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT YOU ARE A DOODIEHEAD!
SIR, I'VE READ SEVERAL OTHER EXTENSIVE STUDIES THAT DISPROVE YOUR THEORY AND PROVE THAT IT IS YOU WHO IS IN FACT A POOP-FACE!
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.
Working to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.
Absolutely. We spend so much money on incarcerating people that didn't do anything but get high. We're letting murderers and rapists out of jail because our prisons are too overcrowded to keep the druggies behind bars.
That's why I phrased my answer the way I did. Possession? Not a crime. Intoxication? As long as you're not behind the wheel, not a crime. Knocked over a liquor store while high on crack? Now you're going to jail.
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.
All of the imprisoned people? How many non-violent, non-trafficking adults are in prison for marijuana? How many? I would also like to point out a little thing called personal responsibility. Unless someone has lived under a rock, they know that there are penalties associated with marijuana. Ultimately, a person made a choice, knowing full well what the penalties would be, whether they agreed with them or not.
Absolutely, they should campaign against those laws if they think they are wrong. But I would have to question the priorities of someone who chose to knowingly risk their college opportunities over pot.
QuoteWorking to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.
I disagree. Community norms are an important protective factor when it comes to substance abuse according to the work of Hawkins and Catalano. When communities have rules around substances that are enforced, there tends to be lower substance abuse.
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 18, 2011, 09:23:38 PM
Absolutely. We spend so much money on incarcerating people that didn't do anything but get high. We're letting murderers and rapists out of jail because our prisons are too overcrowded to keep the druggies behind bars.
:cn:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 09:24:45 PM
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 18, 2011, 09:23:38 PM
Absolutely. We spend so much money on incarcerating people that didn't do anything but get high. We're letting murderers and rapists out of jail because our prisons are too overcrowded to keep the druggies behind bars.
:cn:
I'ma have to agree with RWHN on this one. plenty of rapists and murderers get away, but they get away for different reasons, not because of all the pot heads in jail.
Well, not only that, but when you take out the violent offenders and those who are in for trafficking, you really don't have that many people (comparatively) in prison for simple marijuana possession. It's one of those things I hear a lot from some in the legalization community that bugs me. It's like the prisons are bursting at the seams with potheads. Reality just doesn't match up with that scenario.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 18, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
I love how we've managed to build a 36-page thread around everybody willfully missing the point as intently as possible. :lulz:
^
Just sayin'.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 18, 2011, 09:27:28 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 09:24:45 PM
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 18, 2011, 09:23:38 PM
Absolutely. We spend so much money on incarcerating people that didn't do anything but get high. We're letting murderers and rapists out of jail because our prisons are too overcrowded to keep the druggies behind bars.
:cn:
I'ma have to agree with RWHN on this one. plenty of rapists and murderers get away, but they get away for different reasons, not because of all the pot heads in jail.
I did not mean to imply causation, but merely correlation there.
My point is that the jails are overcrowded, in California alone all 33 of their prisons are at 200% capacity, and are facing mandatory releases. http://www.10news.com/news/22333648/detail.html On the other side of the coin, 60% of federal prisoners are drug related offenses, only 3% of those are violent. http://www.hr95.org/hr95faces.html
And to avoid a biased source, I went directly to the Bureau of Prisons website at http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp
Most recent stats:
Drug Offenses: 100,772 (51.2 %)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 29,960 (15.2 %)
Immigration: 22,140 (11.2 %)
Robbery: 8,471 (4.3 %)
Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 6,894 (3.5 %)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 10,089 (5.1 %)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,424 (2.8 %)
Miscellaneous: 1,860 (0.9 %)
Sex Offenses: 9,184 (4.7 %)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 874 (0.4 %)
Courts or Corrections: 613 (0.3 %)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 513 (0.3 %)
National Security: 98 (0.0 %)
Don't forget the ones who don't go to prison, but have a felony possession charge on their record that permanently impacts their ability to go to college or provide for their families... effectively making the poverty problem worse, which ties into drug abuse.
That system hurts people. It's antisocial.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 18, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.
The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.
What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?
That questions, IMO, makes an incorrect assumption. That legal marijuana is going to be the death-knell of drug cartels. It would not be their death knell. Many of these cartels also deal in the illegal and pirate prescription drug trade. Many also deal with other, harder drugs. Some of the more sophisticated outlets would undoubtedly switch to a new model where they develop and sell product that outdoes the legal product being regulated by the U.S. Government.
Certainly, there is alway room for the enforcement of our drug laws to be carried out in smarter and more judicious manners. I won't argue that.
This was true of organized crime during alcohol prohibition as well, and they didnt' die immediately after legalization, but it definitely struck them a hard blow and cost them a lot of influence.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 12:10:20 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 18, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.
The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.
What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?
That questions, IMO, makes an incorrect assumption. That legal marijuana is going to be the death-knell of drug cartels. It would not be their death knell. Many of these cartels also deal in the illegal and pirate prescription drug trade. Many also deal with other, harder drugs. Some of the more sophisticated outlets would undoubtedly switch to a new model where they develop and sell product that outdoes the legal product being regulated by the U.S. Government.
Certainly, there is alway room for the enforcement of our drug laws to be carried out in smarter and more judicious manners. I won't argue that.
This was true of organized crime during alcohol prohibition as well, and they didnt' die immediately after legalization, but it definitely struck them a hard blow and cost them a lot of influence.
Yes; and while it certainly won't put a stop to any
criminals, it will certainly stop to some number of
crimes. And if we can prevent
even one innocent person or child from a crime that didn't have to be.... shouldn't we do that?
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 18, 2011, 09:55:08 PM
And to avoid a biased source, I went directly to the Bureau of Prisons website at http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp
Most recent stats:
Drug Offenses: 100,772 (51.2 %)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 29,960 (15.2 %)
Immigration: 22,140 (11.2 %)
Robbery: 8,471 (4.3 %)
Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 6,894 (3.5 %)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 10,089 (5.1 %)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,424 (2.8 %)
Miscellaneous: 1,860 (0.9 %)
Sex Offenses: 9,184 (4.7 %)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 874 (0.4 %)
Courts or Corrections: 613 (0.3 %)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 513 (0.3 %)
National Security: 98 (0.0 %)
How many of that 100,000 are simple marijuana possession charges? As opposed to trafficking, selling/furnishing to a minor, etc.?
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 11:32:25 PM
Don't forget the ones who don't go to prison, but have a felony possession charge on their record that permanently impacts their ability to go to college or provide for their families... effectively making the poverty problem worse, which ties into drug abuse.
That system hurts people. It's antisocial.
No one forces anyone to take up an activity that is known to be illegal.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 12:10:20 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 18, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.
The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.
What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?
That questions, IMO, makes an incorrect assumption. That legal marijuana is going to be the death-knell of drug cartels. It would not be their death knell. Many of these cartels also deal in the illegal and pirate prescription drug trade. Many also deal with other, harder drugs. Some of the more sophisticated outlets would undoubtedly switch to a new model where they develop and sell product that outdoes the legal product being regulated by the U.S. Government.
Certainly, there is alway room for the enforcement of our drug laws to be carried out in smarter and more judicious manners. I won't argue that.
This was true of organized crime during alcohol prohibition as well, and they didnt' die immediately after legalization, but it definitely struck them a hard blow and cost them a lot of influence.
Yes, but that was a completely different time. They didn't have Rx counterfeiting to fall back on which is HUGE now. These organizations are much more diversified today than they were 80 years ago.
i fully admit that organized crime will continue, even if we stop making criminals out of the nonviolent drug offenders. there is no arguing that...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 01:10:30 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 11:32:25 PM
Don't forget the ones who don't go to prison, but have a felony possession charge on their record that permanently impacts their ability to go to college or provide for their families... effectively making the poverty problem worse, which ties into drug abuse.
That system hurts people. It's antisocial.
No one forces anyone to take up an activity that is known to be illegal.
No, but that doesn't at all address the justness or wisdom of the law, or the factors of poverty, abuse and hopelessness that so heavily influence drug use. The fact that existing drug laws are disproportionately applied to people of color is also a real problem.
Sticking your head in the sand and saying "BUT THEY KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL SO THEY DESERVE IT" is not productive.
Unnecessarily snarky comment deleted. Backing out of thread, again.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 18, 2011, 02:00:29 AM
How about the costs of keeping it illegal, RWHN? I keep bringing this issue up but you haven't even acknowledged it.
The war on pot does a lot more harm than the facile argument that it merely inhibits adults from smoking it, as you have implied.
What are the primary costs of marijuana prohibition, in your mind?
That questions, IMO, makes an incorrect assumption. That legal marijuana is going to be the death-knell of drug cartels. It would not be their death knell. Many of these cartels also deal in the illegal and pirate prescription drug trade. Many also deal with other, harder drugs. Some of the more sophisticated outlets would undoubtedly switch to a new model where they develop and sell product that outdoes the legal product being regulated by the U.S. Government.
Certainly, there is alway room for the enforcement of our drug laws to be carried out in smarter and more judicious manners. I won't argue that.
It appears you have confused me with Shibby D (who brought up cartels) because the only assumption I made was that there are also social costs due to marijuana prohibition. Or do you believe fueling drug cartels is THE primary cost of marijuana prohibition?
I'll ask again, what do you personally believe are the most damaging costs to society due to marijuana prohibition?
Also, what is the source of your information about cartels' ability to compete with legalized marijuana? It sounds highly implausible, how would that even work?
Quote from: Nigel on April 19, 2011, 01:32:12 AM
No, but that doesn't at all address the justness or wisdom of the law, or the factors of poverty, abuse and hopelessness that so heavily influence drug use. The fact that existing drug laws are disproportionately applied to people of color is also a real problem.
Considering I work in the city that has the most impoverished neighborhoods in the state, I think I understand fully the effect poverty has on drug use. But these, also, aren't the kids who have any hope of going to college. So I think you are confusing two different realities. The kids who have college on the horizon are generally kids who are in a better place in their lives and for whom, abject poverty is going to be much less of an influence when it comes to substance abuse. With these kids, you have things like peer pressure. Fuck, the pressure to make it into college will drive kids to drugs.
QuoteSticking your head in the sand and saying "BUT THEY KNEW IT WAS ILLEGAL SO THEY DESERVE IT" is not productive.
Yeah, well neither is talking shit about "religion" and "evil".
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 01:09:10 AM
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 18, 2011, 09:55:08 PM
And to avoid a biased source, I went directly to the Bureau of Prisons website at http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp
Most recent stats:
Drug Offenses: 100,772 (51.2 %)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 29,960 (15.2 %)
Immigration: 22,140 (11.2 %)
Robbery: 8,471 (4.3 %)
Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 6,894 (3.5 %)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 10,089 (5.1 %)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,424 (2.8 %)
Miscellaneous: 1,860 (0.9 %)
Sex Offenses: 9,184 (4.7 %)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 874 (0.4 %)
Courts or Corrections: 613 (0.3 %)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 513 (0.3 %)
National Security: 98 (0.0 %)
How many of that 100,000 are simple marijuana possession charges? As opposed to trafficking, selling/furnishing to a minor, etc.?
I don't have data on that, but I will see what I can find. But even if it's one-third of that 100,000, it would be higher than the next highest category.
Once again, didn't take me very long to find data. It's old, but the numbers can't have shifted around that much.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories
QuoteThe major findings of this study are:
A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.
If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
The average sentence of the low-level drug law offender group was 81.5 months which means that, under Guideline sentencing (must serve 85% of sentence), these individuals will serve, on average, at least 69 months before release from prison.
Even with a liberal interpretation of criminal justice contact (where criminal justice contact was defined as an arrest regardless of disposition), the majority of low-level offenders had no prior recorded contact with the criminal justice system. The data do not reflect criminal justice contacts outside the United States. Therefore, criminal justice contacts for non-citizens may be under-reported.
Based on the study sample, two-thirds of low-level drug offenders currently in the Bureau of Prisons (1994) received mandatory-minimum sentences. Even among low-level drug offenders, sentences have increased 150% above what they were prior to the implementation of Sentencing Guidelines and significant sentencing legislation which established mandatory-minimum sentences for primarily drug and weapons offenses.
Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking.
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 18, 2011, 09:23:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.
Working to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.
Absolutely. We spend so much money on incarcerating people that didn't do anything but get high. We're letting murderers and rapists out of jail because our prisons are too overcrowded to keep the druggies behind bars.
That's why I phrased my answer the way I did. Possession? Not a crime. Intoxication? As long as you're not behind the wheel, not a crime. Knocked over a liquor store while high on crack? Now you're going to jail.
Rather importantly, since without it the cartels keep their income.
Distribution with a license
Not a crime.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 18, 2011, 09:23:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 18, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Sigh. I'm not playing a game. I am thinking of all the destroyed families, imprisoned people, and lost college educations that are the direct result of criminalization.
All of the imprisoned people? How many non-violent, non-trafficking adults are in prison for marijuana? How many? I would also like to point out a little thing called personal responsibility. Unless someone has lived under a rock, they know that there are penalties associated with marijuana. Ultimately, a person made a choice, knowing full well what the penalties would be, whether they agreed with them or not.
Absolutely, they should campaign against those laws if they think they are wrong. But I would have to question the priorities of someone who chose to knowingly risk their college opportunities over pot.
QuoteWorking to solve the community and social problems that result in drug abuse is a good thing. Criminalization of marijuana, though, is a corporate industry that hurts communities.
I disagree. Community norms are an important protective factor when it comes to substance abuse according to the work of Hawkins and Catalano. When communities have rules around substances that are enforced, there tends to be lower substance abuse.
Putting aside the fact that I feel strongly that distribution should not be a crime the fact that someone is charged with trafficking does not mean that person was trafficking except in the legal sense. Having marijuana in multiple containers is a trafficking charge, so is having more than a certain amount. Growing it is a manufacturing charge, which is more serious than trafficking and the fact that the person may have been growing it for personal use is not taken into account.
RWHN, if there was sound research proving that religion was harmful to children, and society as a whole, would you support government regulation of religion?
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 19, 2011, 05:10:54 AM
Once again, didn't take me very long to find data. It's old, but the numbers can't have shifted around that much.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories
QuoteThe major findings of this study are:
A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.
If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
The average sentence of the low-level drug law offender group was 81.5 months which means that, under Guideline sentencing (must serve 85% of sentence), these individuals will serve, on average, at least 69 months before release from prison.
Even with a liberal interpretation of criminal justice contact (where criminal justice contact was defined as an arrest regardless of disposition), the majority of low-level offenders had no prior recorded contact with the criminal justice system. The data do not reflect criminal justice contacts outside the United States. Therefore, criminal justice contacts for non-citizens may be under-reported.
Based on the study sample, two-thirds of low-level drug offenders currently in the Bureau of Prisons (1994) received mandatory-minimum sentences. Even among low-level drug offenders, sentences have increased 150% above what they were prior to the implementation of Sentencing Guidelines and significant sentencing legislation which established mandatory-minimum sentences for primarily drug and weapons offenses.
Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking.
Okay, when you actually look at simple marijuana offenses, according to the BJS, only 1.6% of state inmates were conficted of a marijuana-only crime which includes trafficking. Only 0.7% of state inmates were imprisoned with marijuana possession as the only charge and only 0.3% are first time offenders. Federal stats from 2001 show that only 2.3% or 186 people sentenced to prison were sentenced for simple possession. Only 63 of those actually served time.
72 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a publicuse copy of the survey data, see http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html
73 Ibid.
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin, April 2003, NCJ 198877.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf
74 Prisoners in 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2003, NCJ 200248. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf
75 U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Table 33: Primary Drug Type of Offenders Sentenced Under Each Drug Guideline, Fiscal Year 2001. http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on April 19, 2011, 09:45:22 AM
RWHN, if there was sound research proving that religion was harmful to children, and society as a whole, would you support government regulation of religion?
Considering the 1st amendement of the U.S. Constitution, it's kind of a non-starter.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 11:57:27 AM
Quote from: Cinderflame KSC on April 19, 2011, 05:10:54 AM
Once again, didn't take me very long to find data. It's old, but the numbers can't have shifted around that much.
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html
U.S. Department of Justice: An Analysis of Non-violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories
QuoteThe major findings of this study are:
A substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.
If we further restricted the population to those offenders with zero criminal history points - according to U.S. Sentencing Commission rules, there were 12,727 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 28.2 percent of all drug offenders in the prison system and 16.6 percent of all sentenced prisoners.
The average sentence of the low-level drug law offender group was 81.5 months which means that, under Guideline sentencing (must serve 85% of sentence), these individuals will serve, on average, at least 69 months before release from prison.
Even with a liberal interpretation of criminal justice contact (where criminal justice contact was defined as an arrest regardless of disposition), the majority of low-level offenders had no prior recorded contact with the criminal justice system. The data do not reflect criminal justice contacts outside the United States. Therefore, criminal justice contacts for non-citizens may be under-reported.
Based on the study sample, two-thirds of low-level drug offenders currently in the Bureau of Prisons (1994) received mandatory-minimum sentences. Even among low-level drug offenders, sentences have increased 150% above what they were prior to the implementation of Sentencing Guidelines and significant sentencing legislation which established mandatory-minimum sentences for primarily drug and weapons offenses.
Among the low-level offenders, 42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking.
Okay, when you actually look at simple marijuana offenses, according to the BJS, only 1.6% of state inmates were conficted of a marijuana-only crime which includes trafficking. Only 0.7% of state inmates were imprisoned with marijuana possession as the only charge and only 0.3% are first time offenders. Federal stats from 2001 show that only 2.3% or 186 people sentenced to prison were sentenced for simple possession. Only 63 of those actually served time.
72 Unpublished BJS estimates based on the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. For a publicuse copy of the survey data, see http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/SISFCF/index.html
73 Ibid.
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin, April 2003, NCJ 198877.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim02.pdf
74 Prisoners in 2002. Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2003, NCJ 200248. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p02.pdf
75 U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2001 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. Table 33: Primary Drug Type of Offenders Sentenced Under Each Drug Guideline, Fiscal Year 2001. http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/SBTOC01.htm http://www.ussc.gov/ANNRPT/2001/table33.pdf
1.6% of 1.2 million is
only 19,200 people's lives. That's all.
By the way, all of your links are broken.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 19, 2011, 01:49:35 AM
I'll ask again, what do you personally believe are the most damaging costs to society due to marijuana prohibition?
Here's the thing, we live in an authoritative society. America wasn't set up as a county with unlimited freedom. We have freedom within limits. So, in that respect, certainly one cost to adults is unfettered freedom to engage in marijuana use. But I don't see that as a cost to society. It's a cost to individuals. Certainly in some states there are also some rather draconian sentencing structures when it comes to marijuana. That also partly explains why some individuals wind up in prison for simple possession. An example would be states with "3 strikes your out" style sentencing. But I would argue that is a damaging cost caused by sentencing guidelines and it is something that can be changed without legalizing the substance.
Legalization would incur costs to society which I've outlined previously.
QuoteAlso, what is the source of your information about cartels' ability to compete with legalized marijuana? It sounds highly implausible, how would that even work?
Various sources in the DEA whom I obviously can't name. How would it work? Easy. They cultivate a product that offers what regulated marijuana can't. And I think we can all recognize that when it comes to adaptation, the U.S. Government isn't the most nimble of creatures. I think a highly organized drug cartel could easily out maneuver the government. And again, cartels are diversified. Even without marijuana, they have the counterfeit and black market Rx trade that is more than enough to keep them afloat. Not to mention trade in the other illicit substances. Seriously, the Rx thing has blown up. Legalizing marijuana may prune a small time operation here and there, but trust me, they will still be around.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 19, 2011, 01:49:35 AM
I'll ask again, what do you personally believe are the most damaging costs to society due to marijuana prohibition?
Here's the thing, we live in an authoritative society. America wasn't set up as a county with unlimited freedom. We have freedom within limits. So, in that respect, certainly one cost to adults is unfettered freedom to engage in marijuana use. But I don't see that as a cost to society. It's a cost to individuals. Certainly in some states there are also some rather draconian sentencing structures when it comes to marijuana. That also partly explains why some individuals wind up in prison for simple possession. An example would be states with "3 strikes your out" style sentencing. But I would argue that is a damaging cost caused by sentencing guidelines and it is something that can be changed without legalizing the substance.
Legalization would incur costs to society which I've outlined previously.
QuoteAlso, what is the source of your information about cartels' ability to compete with legalized marijuana? It sounds highly implausible, how would that even work?
Various sources in the DEA whom I obviously can't name. How would it work? Easy. They cultivate a product that offers what regulated marijuana can't. And I think we can all recognize that when it comes to adaptation, the U.S. Government isn't the most nimble of creatures. I think a highly organized drug cartel could easily out maneuver the government. And again, cartels are diversified. Even without marijuana, they have the counterfeit and black market Rx trade that is more than enough to keep them afloat. Not to mention trade in the other illicit substances. Seriously, the Rx thing has blown up. Legalizing marijuana may prune a small time operation here and there, but trust me, they will still be around.
So marijuana prohibition incurs no damage to society? Is that your position?
And with cartels, it sounds like you're claiming that they could cultivate even higher potency marijuana than what growers are currently supplying medical marijuana patients, is that right? Or do you believe cartels would be able to sell it even cheaper than legal sources?
That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society. How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities. As I've stated countless times. People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't. I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession. My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines. Those should be changed. People should not be in prison for simple possession.
But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization. The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession. The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs.
I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana. But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat. I mean, criminals are good at being criminals. They will find a way to survive.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
...
But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users.
...
good grief! stronger than the stuff we have now? the really nice buds are literally dripping with resin!
this just doesn't make much sense to me. I have never met anyone that has complained that they just couldn't find strong enough marijuana anymore to get them the buzz they seek. furthermore, the strongest stuff i've seen is cultivated by individuals that care for a small group of plants rather than the big operations.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society. How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities. As I've stated countless times. People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't. I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession. My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines. Those should be changed. People should not be in prison for simple possession.
But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization. The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession. The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs.
I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana. But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat. I mean, criminals are good at being criminals. They will find a way to survive.
Dude, I'm not saying this to be a prick, but you actually don't have even the faintest idea what you're talking about. I mean, it appears as though you literally know NOTHING about the substance itself. I'm sure what you think you know came from something with an official letterhead, but it's wrong. Everyone who has ever been involved in the marijuana industry could tell you that, and explain it in detail. I'm guessing you're not interested in being educated about the actual substance you work so hard to prevent the use of in kids (those super ghetto kids in those poverty-stricken neighborhoods of Lewiston Friggin' MAINE), but if I'm wrong feel free to shoot me a line. I'll even break it down in PM if you like, so as not to attract the idiot pothead contingency like moths to flames. But seriously, you are working with flat-out wrong information.
I haven't dug through all 40 pages of this thread to see if this has been mentioned yet, so be gentle if it has, but one of the best arguments for decriminalization IMO is that the laws are almost completely ineffectual at stemming the supply of drugs. I can go to a city I've never visited before and by doing some bar hopping and making social with patrons, I could probably score pot within a few hours, and that's if I'm not trying very hard. It's fucking EVERYWHERE, it grows everywhere, and it's never going away. I firmly believe the money spent on enforcement, litigation and eradication would be better spent on education and treatment for drugs with more serious detrimental effects to individuals and society.
It's a war that cannot be won in the way it's currently being waged.
It's trite, but true: You can't legislate saving people from themselves.
all of that being my opinion, I will say that I completely respect what you do and why you do it. My sister and I grew up witnessing the effects of long term drug use first hand. We made it out and are free of any debilitating addictions ourselves, but that specter of repeating our parents mistakes lingered for a good part of our 20's. And while we did make it out, we're most certainly the exception, not the rule. If even one family can be helped to not have to endure that, then you've made a difference in my eyes.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on April 19, 2011, 04:56:25 PM
It's trite, but true: You can't legislate saving people from themselves.
Interesting, mind if I yoink and play with this?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society. How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities. As I've stated countless times. People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't. I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession. My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines. Those should be changed. People should not be in prison for simple possession.
But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization. The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession. The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs.
I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana. But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat. I mean, criminals are good at being criminals. They will find a way to survive.
I can't see this being an issue. Assuming legalization along the lines of alcohol, there are some potencies of alcohol that are illegal in most states, anything above 75.5% in fact. There are a few moonshiners in a few places who do provide stronger alcohol than that, but organized crime has nothing to do with it, and they used to dominate the alcohol market entirely.
So long as the allowed level of THC was along the line of mid level hydroponic as opposed to dirt weed I can't see anyone taking the risk involved with dealing with the black market when they could get their weed at a local store.
Quote from: Khara on April 19, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on April 19, 2011, 04:56:25 PM
It's trite, but true: You can't legislate saving people from themselves.
Interesting, mind if I yoink and play with this?
it isn't mine, I read it somewhere some years ago, discussing this same subject, so feel free.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 05:07:32 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society. How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities. As I've stated countless times. People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't. I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession. My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines. Those should be changed. People should not be in prison for simple possession.
But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization. The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession. The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs.
I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana. But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat. I mean, criminals are good at being criminals. They will find a way to survive.
I can't see this being an issue. Assuming legalization along the lines of alcohol, there are some potencies of alcohol that are illegal in most states, anything above 75.5% in fact. There are a few moonshiners in a few places who do provide stronger alcohol than that, but organized crime has nothing to do with it, and they used to dominate the alcohol market entirely.
So long as the allowed level of THC was along the line of mid level hydroponic as opposed to dirt weed I can't see anyone taking the risk involved with dealing with the black market when they could get their weed at a local store.
Agree with this.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 19, 2011, 04:24:26 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society. How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities. As I've stated countless times. People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't. I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession. My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines. Those should be changed. People should not be in prison for simple possession.
But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization. The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession. The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs.
I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana. But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat. I mean, criminals are good at being criminals. They will find a way to survive.
Dude, I'm not saying this to be a prick, but you actually don't have even the faintest idea what you're talking about. I mean, it appears as though you literally know NOTHING about the substance itself. I'm sure what you think you know came from something with an official letterhead, but it's wrong. Everyone who has ever been involved in the marijuana industry could tell you that, and explain it in detail. I'm guessing you're not interested in being educated about the actual substance you work so hard to prevent the use of in kids (those super ghetto kids in those poverty-stricken neighborhoods of Lewiston Friggin' MAINE), but if I'm wrong feel free to shoot me a line. I'll even break it down in PM if you like, so as not to attract the idiot pothead contingency like moths to flames. But seriously, you are working with flat-out wrong information.
:nou:
My previous response involved way more thought and effort than was warranted.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 05:07:32 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
That the drug is illegal incurs no significant damage to society. How the law is enforced can incur costs to communities. As I've stated countless times. People shouldn't be in prison for simple possession, and percentage wise, they aren't. I would be curious about the circumstances of those who are in state prison for marijuana possession. My suspicion is that it is concentrated in certain states that have particularily draconian sentencing guidelines. Those should be changed. People should not be in prison for simple possession.
But I have to point out again it is not the picture that is typically painted from those who support legalization. The prisons are NOT bursting at the seams with people who are in for simple possession. The majority of people in prison for marijuana-related offenses had other charges or were trafficking the drugs.
I think one things cartels might do under legalization is adopt a model that involves the diversion of medical marijuana. But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat. I mean, criminals are good at being criminals. They will find a way to survive.
I can't see this being an issue. Assuming legalization along the lines of alcohol, there are some potencies of alcohol that are illegal in most states, anything above 75.5% in fact. There are a few moonshiners in a few places who do provide stronger alcohol than that, but organized crime has nothing to do with it, and they used to dominate the alcohol market entirely.
So long as the allowed level of THC was along the line of mid level hydroponic as opposed to dirt weed I can't see anyone taking the risk involved with dealing with the black market when they could get their weed at a local store.
Perhaps. But even if what you say played out, as I've explained, the cartels would still be alive and well.
is anybody advancing the argument that legalizing pot will destroy the cartels?
:?
Quote from: Iptuous on April 19, 2011, 05:41:01 PM
is anybody advancing the argument that legalizing pot will destroy the cartels?
:?
I'm a bit confused now myself.
Quote from: Iptuous on April 19, 2011, 05:41:01 PM
is anybody advancing the argument that legalizing pot will destroy the cartels?
:?
It was an argument put out earlier in this thread and has come up in past threads. That we should legalize marijuana because of all the violence it causes and to shut down the black market. But now it seems we're all on the same page on that. Progress!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 05:46:55 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 19, 2011, 05:41:01 PM
is anybody advancing the argument that legalizing pot will destroy the cartels?
:?
It was an argument put out earlier in this thread and has come up in past threads. That we should legalize marijuana because of all the violence it causes and to shut down the black market. But now it seems we're all on the same page on that. Progress!
i know people have advanced that it adds a market for the cartels, and all the concomitant violence that goes with that (i believe you agreed with this, no?), but as far as destroying the cartels, i believe we are all on the same page, in that it would be delusional to expect that. i don't think anybody is saying that.
I honestly have to say I seriously doubt that marajuana is really the cartel's cash crop.
Quote from: Khara on April 19, 2011, 05:58:53 PM
I honestly have to say I seriously doubt that marajuana is really the cartel's cash crop.
From some WaPo article:
QuoteWhile the trafficking of cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine is the main focus of U.S. law enforcement, it is marijuana that has long provided most of the revenue for Mexican drug cartels. More than 60 percent of the cartels' revenue -- $8.6 billion out of $13.8 billion in 2006 -- came from U.S. marijuana sales, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603847.html
ETA: i honestly had no idea whether it was a sizable portion of their revenue myself before googling it...
Quote from: Iptuous on April 19, 2011, 02:48:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 19, 2011, 02:37:00 PM
...
But I think the other thing they certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users.
...
good grief! stronger than the stuff we have now? the really nice buds are literally dripping with resin!
this just doesn't make much sense to me. I have never met anyone that has complained that they just couldn't find strong enough marijuana anymore to get them the buzz they seek. furthermore, the strongest stuff i've seen is cultivated by individuals that care for a small group of plants rather than the big operations.
I AGREE
The cartels have no power over the marijuana market in the NW; the flow of pot coming up from independent California farmers, as well as local growers, is constant, high quality, and cheap. Nobody buys the crappy Mexican stuff... why would they? Plus, it grows so readily here that if it were legal, many people would simply grow their own.
I'd just like to point out that the amount of THC and cannabinoids a pot plant can produce is defined in the DNA of the plant. Strong pot is simply pot from good strains that has been well grown with optimal conditions. Dutch weed, from the best strains with the best care have optimal THC levels. The Cartels are NOT going to do better.
SCIENCE, BITCHES!*
* In memory of Kai
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 19, 2011, 06:50:43 PM
I'd just like to point out that the amount of THC and cannabinoids a pot plant can produce is defined in the DNA of the plant. Strong pot is simply pot from good strains that has been well grown with optimal conditions. Dutch weed, from the best strains with the best care have optimal THC levels. The Cartels are NOT going to do better.
SCIENCE, BITCHES!*
* In memory of Kai
My understanding was that the strongest weed in the world actually came from Skagit Valley (in Washington), although that may be outdated information.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 07:31:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 19, 2011, 06:50:43 PM
I'd just like to point out that the amount of THC and cannabinoids a pot plant can produce is defined in the DNA of the plant. Strong pot is simply pot from good strains that has been well grown with optimal conditions. Dutch weed, from the best strains with the best care have optimal THC levels. The Cartels are NOT going to do better.
SCIENCE, BITCHES!*
* In memory of Kai
My understanding was that the strongest weed in the world actually came from Skagit Valley (in Washington), although that may be outdated information.
Could be, I dunno... I guess I should have said that any weed from good DNA strains with optimal care will produce optimal THC levels... but nothing beyond those levels. Certainly through cross breeding, you can take weaker strains and strengthen them. From my experience (and maybe I'm just crazy) all the 'strong' weed I've ever come across has been from small local operations. Hydroponics and light requirements really tend to preclude large grow jobs. From the people I've talked to and from my own experience, you have to trade off quality and quantity. I can't imagine a cartel is gonna try for quality over quantity.
Additionally, speaking as someone who has smoked regularly for 10 years... super strong weed is still not something I want to smoke every day. That shit will paralyze a horse. Neither I nor anyone I know wants to be that level of stoned. If the government sanctioned what we generally call kine bud, I don't know a single person that would pay black market prices for 'higher grade' weed.
And as for the idea of tolerance... I presume that there must be some studies that support it... however, I have yet to meet anyone that can't get stoned on middies or merch weed, and that includes guys that are going on 20 years of serious smoking. To think that there would be enough of a black market demand to support 'super weed' seems absurd to me.
In fact, I'd say its probably like alcohol. I've had moonshine before, not from a cartel, but because some good old boy has a still hidden somewhere in the woods and cranks of a few jars for him and his friends. I could see some home growers raising White widow or something like that for their friends and special occasions... but I've never seen anyone sit down and chug moonshine as their drink of choice. Maybe they pass the jar around once or twice and then drink beer or something like that. I think pot would be similar. Maybe a bowl of "really nice stuff my friend grew" and then legal weed after that.
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 19, 2011, 12:00:57 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on April 19, 2011, 09:45:22 AM
RWHN, if there was sound research proving that religion was harmful to children, and society as a whole, would you support government regulation of religion?
Considering the 1st amendement of the U.S. Constitution, it's kind of a non-starter.
Drugs are a religion, man.
You just proved the war on drugs unconstitutional, bro.
\
:hippie:
Gentlemen Id like to congratulate you all on reaching 40 pages.
Good work everyone.
Quote from: - on September 18, 2010, 12:47:45 PM
46 pages.
Anything that comes from the "Heritage Foundation", a far-right holding pen for poor, put upon Republicans with degrees think tank is going to be batting at at least 60-70% bullshit and lies, sometimes higher. The problem is they will seed occasional truths, or half-truths, or things which are almost true but they've purposefully misunderstood and rephrased so it sounds like the true thing it is referring to but actually isnt, just to fuck with your head. As such, they're not worth the effort, and at the same time slightly more accurate than the pro-drug sites which claim smoking pot makes you more intelligent and the Fundie sites which claim smoking pot makes you more open to demonic possession.
Almost there!
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 07:31:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 19, 2011, 06:50:43 PM
I'd just like to point out that the amount of THC and cannabinoids a pot plant can produce is defined in the DNA of the plant. Strong pot is simply pot from good strains that has been well grown with optimal conditions. Dutch weed, from the best strains with the best care have optimal THC levels. The Cartels are NOT going to do better.
SCIENCE, BITCHES!*
* In memory of Kai
My understanding was that the strongest weed in the world actually came from Skagit Valley (in Washington), although that may be outdated information.
No way. WA has a terrible climate for outdoor growing, which is why indoor growing was pioneered there. Some of the best pot in the world comes from the Puget Sound area, but it's all grown in someone's basement/attic/trailer.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 19, 2011, 10:31:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 19, 2011, 07:31:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 19, 2011, 06:50:43 PM
I'd just like to point out that the amount of THC and cannabinoids a pot plant can produce is defined in the DNA of the plant. Strong pot is simply pot from good strains that has been well grown with optimal conditions. Dutch weed, from the best strains with the best care have optimal THC levels. The Cartels are NOT going to do better.
SCIENCE, BITCHES!*
* In memory of Kai
My understanding was that the strongest weed in the world actually came from Skagit Valley (in Washington), although that may be outdated information.
No way. WA has a terrible climate for outdoor growing, which is why indoor growing was pioneered there. Some of the best pot in the world comes from the Puget Sound area, but it's all grown in someone's basement/attic/trailer.
That it was all indoors I knew. Pretty much all the best weed is indoors though, you get more control of the factors that go into growing it that way.
True dat. But once you move your operation indoors, there's no geographical element to how potent the weed ends up being. I can grow just as strong a plant in a good hydro setup in a basement in Indianapolis as I can in a garage in Seattle.
Happy 420!
you know what to do
:spag:
CELEBRATE
hitler's birthday?!
Quote from: wudgar on April 20, 2011, 06:50:18 AM
Happy 420!
you know what to do
Well, OK.
But not because you say so. :crankey:
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
RWHN (aka Killjoy):
I wanted to get your analysist's brain on this one, because you must have the numbers, and obviously the skill to deal with them.
This is also not a "gotcha" question. It's a real-world "experiment" of sorts, that may help clarify people's positions.
It's been over two years since MA legalized small amounts of pot (less than 1 oz). Have there been any trends that we can track, positively or negatively, that reflect on what effect this legalization may have had?
I ask because this is a real-world situation where we can gather pre and post statistics that may shed factual light on the various theories that have been flung around here.
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Revenues go to law enforcement and higher education. Last I checked, Law Enforcement was in the business of preventing sale and/or distribution of drugs to kids, and I can't think of many better ways to keep kids from being losers than to educate them.
I wouldn't worry too much, though. If it didn't pass in CA or OR, I seriously doubt it'll make it in Maine.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 20, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Revenues go to law enforcement and higher education. Last I checked, Law Enforcement was in the business of preventing sale and/or distribution of drugs to kids, and I can't think of many better ways to keep kids from being losers than to educate them.
Except many kids start very young. It's pretty common these days for kids to start on drugs in their tweens. If it was going to be legalized and taxed there should be specific funding to go to the Office of Substance Abuse and to local health organizations, like say, mine, who have the knowledge-base to do the prevention work. It's an awful proposal.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 20, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
RWHN (aka Killjoy):
I wanted to get your analysist's brain on this one, because you must have the numbers, and obviously the skill to deal with them.
This is also not a "gotcha" question. It's a real-world "experiment" of sorts, that may help clarify people's positions.
It's been over two years since MA legalized small amounts of pot (less than 1 oz). Have there been any trends that we can track, positively or negatively, that reflect on what effect this legalization may have had?
I ask because this is a real-world situation where we can gather pre and post statistics that may shed factual light on the various theories that have been flung around here.
I can't seem to find any good or current stats for your state to be able to answer that question one way or the other. Here in Maine, we survey kids in schools every two years on substance abuse and other health topics. Do they do that in Mass? If they do and you can find me a link that would help. It's likely, however, that even if it exists the data isn't current enough. For my state, the most current data I have is 2009. So you probably need to wait a couple of years to get a good snapshot of the effect of that policy change.
Here, I will be looking at the 2011 numbers to see what impact the medical marijuana laws may have had on use. I'm expecting to see the trend to either be flat or maybe even see a slight rise.
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Right in your backyard huh? Have you seen any polls on how likely it is to pass?
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 20, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Revenues go to law enforcement and higher education. Last I checked, Law Enforcement was in the business of preventing sale and/or distribution of drugs to kids, and I can't think of many better ways to keep kids from being losers than to educate them.
This.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 20, 2011, 05:51:37 PM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Right in your backyard huh? Have you seen any polls on how likely it is to pass?
If this were a citizen initiative it would have a decent chance to pass. But since it is up to the legislature I don't think it has much of a chance. Plus, we're mobilized. I'm part of a grassroots/advocacy organization that has been pretty successful in defeating legislation like this.
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:50:52 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 20, 2011, 05:51:37 PM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Right in your backyard huh? Have you seen any polls on how likely it is to pass?
If this were a citizen initiative it would have a decent chance to pass. But since it is up to the legislature I don't think it has much of a chance. Plus, we're mobilized. I'm part of a grassroots/advocacy organization that has been pretty successful in defeating legislation like this.
Ahh, the ones in CA and OR were citizen initiatives. I haven't heard about any other states putting tax and regulate up before the legislature.
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 05:05:43 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 20, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Revenues go to law enforcement and higher education. Last I checked, Law Enforcement was in the business of preventing sale and/or distribution of drugs to kids, and I can't think of many better ways to keep kids from being losers than to educate them.
Except many kids start very young. It's pretty common these days for kids to start on drugs in their tweens. If it was going to be legalized and taxed there should be specific funding to go to the Office of Substance Abuse and to local health organizations, like say, mine, who have the knowledge-base to do the prevention work. It's an awful proposal.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with you at all, I was just being reflexively disagreeable because it was this thread. :lulz:
If one more fucking person says some dumb "happy 4/20!" shit to me today, I may have to start strenuously objecting to the legalization of marijuana on the grounds that it will make alot of people even more annoying.
Quote from: Jenkem and Tomahawks on April 18, 2011, 09:23:07 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on April 18, 2011, 09:04:34 PM
I'VE READ SEVERAL EXTENSIVE STUDIES THAT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT YOU ARE A DOODIEHEAD!
SIR, I'VE READ SEVERAL OTHER EXTENSIVE STUDIES THAT DISPROVE YOUR THEORY AND PROVE THAT IT IS YOU WHO IS IN FACT A POOP-FACE!
YOUR SCIENTISTS EAT BABIES AND HAVE SEX WITH GOATS.
OUR SCIENTISTS CAN LEVITATE AND THEIR FARTS SMELL LIKE BUTTERED POPCORN!
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 21, 2011, 12:48:56 AM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 05:05:43 PM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 20, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
Quote from: Dr. Killjoy on April 20, 2011, 11:44:51 AM
Speaking of legalizing marijuana...
http://www.kjonline.com/news/maine-marijuana-legal-tax-rally.html
And the tax revenues don't go towards prevention or treatment.
Oh, it's ON like Tommy Chong!
Revenues go to law enforcement and higher education. Last I checked, Law Enforcement was in the business of preventing sale and/or distribution of drugs to kids, and I can't think of many better ways to keep kids from being losers than to educate them.
Except many kids start very young. It's pretty common these days for kids to start on drugs in their tweens. If it was going to be legalized and taxed there should be specific funding to go to the Office of Substance Abuse and to local health organizations, like say, mine, who have the knowledge-base to do the prevention work. It's an awful proposal.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with you at all, I was just being reflexively disagreeable because it was this thread. :lulz:
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 21, 2011, 01:30:34 AM
If one more fucking person says some dumb "happy 4/20!" shit to me today, I may have to start strenuously objecting to the legalization of marijuana on the grounds that it will make alot of people even more annoying.
I think these are the two most important posts in the thread.
Try living in the UK - I can't keep up with the legislation over here. First it was bad then it was good, now there's a rumour they've reclassified it as bad again. Come on guise just make a decision and stick to it - legal, illegal or compulsory - it'll make no difference to most of the people who smoke it anyway but at least you'll give off the illusion of consistency. :argh!:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 20, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
This is also not a "gotcha" question.
What do you mean by a "gotcha" question?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 22, 2011, 11:03:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 20, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
This is also not a "gotcha" question.
What do you mean by a "gotcha" question?
Typically, it's a question where I already know the answer, framed in a way to look unbiased, but in fact traps and skewers the person for whom the question is intended.
For example, let's pretend I knew what the MA numbers were since decriminalization, and it showed a substantial decrease in criminal activity and drug use by minors, with strong implications that decriminalization was the primary cause (NOTE: AS STATED ABOVE, THE ACTUAL STATISTICS HAVE NOT COME BACK YET. THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT IS A HYPOTHETICAL).
To then ask RWHN about them as if I was unaware of the results would force him to admit, in his own voice, the positive effects of decriminalization. And then I say, "Gotcha!"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 22, 2011, 11:03:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 20, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
This is also not a "gotcha" question.
What do you mean by a "gotcha" question?
Typically, it's a question where I already know the answer, framed in a way to look unbiased, but in fact traps and skewers the person for whom the question is intended.
For example, let's pretend I knew what the MA numbers were since decriminalization, and it showed a substantial decrease in criminal activity and drug use by minors, with strong implications that decriminalization was the primary cause (NOTE: AS STATED ABOVE, THE ACTUAL STATISTICS HAVE NOT COME BACK YET. THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT IS A HYPOTHETICAL).
To then ask RWHN about them as if I was unaware of the results would force him to admit, in his own voice, the positive effects of decriminalization. And then I say, "Gotcha!"
How do you determine whether a person is feigning ignorance versus maintaining skepticism that their own facts may be wrong or misinterpreted?
And there is no "forcing people to admit things" by asking questions. That's absurd. People decline to comment, contort their brain in fascinating ways, or answer the question they
wanted to be asked ALL THE TIME. Police interrogators who beat people into signing confessions is a matter of "forcing people to admit things," not asking questions that you're free to avoid or criticize.
Are you seriously saying you've never heard of people doing this?
There's even a freakin' Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism) for it.
I don't think we really need to argue whether or not the technique exists.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 07:55:09 PM
Are you seriously saying you've never heard of people doing this?
There's even a freakin' Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism) for it.
I don't think we really need to argue whether or not the technique exists.
I've never heard of people doing this on message boards, no.
This thread is like a big, red box, and you can put tools in it. :)
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 07:55:09 PM
Are you seriously saying you've never heard of people doing this?
There's even a freakin' Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism) for it.
I don't think we really need to argue whether or not the technique exists.
I've never heard of people doing this on message boards, no.
Ok, so let's put in into context:
RWHN is essentially a one-man defender of Maine's drug policy.
I want to ask him a question about how MA's decriminalization is going in terms of the numbers reported.
If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.
However, I was being honest, in that I didn't actually know what the numbers were; and since he works in information-gathering circles, he would be the one to ask.
To indicate that I was being sincere and not duplicitous, I stated that it was not a "gotcha" question. I was assuming that such a phrase would be understandable to most readers, who could make the leap and apply the term in this context.
However, I made an "Assumption" -- which, it appears, made an "Ass" out of "u".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:27:49 PM
This thread is like a big, red box, and you can put tools in it. :)
:lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 08:33:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:27:49 PM
This thread is like a big, red box, and you can put tools in it. :)
:lulz:
:oops: I think I took someone's screwdriver......
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:33:01 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:26:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 07:55:09 PM
Are you seriously saying you've never heard of people doing this?
There's even a freakin' Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism) for it.
I don't think we really need to argue whether or not the technique exists.
I've never heard of people doing this on message boards, no.
Ok, so let's put in into context:
RWHN is essentially a one-man defender of Maine's drug policy.
I want to ask him a question about how MA's decriminalization is going in terms of the numbers reported.
If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.
However, I was being honest, in that I didn't actually know what the numbers were; and since he works in information-gathering circles, he would be the one to ask.
To indicate that I was being sincere and not duplicitous, I stated that it was not a "gotcha" question. I was assuming that such a phrase would be understandable to most readers, who could make the leap and apply the term in this context.
However, I made an "Assumption" -- which, it appears, made an "Ass" out of "u".
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
ITT, HEELS DUG IN 3 FEET AND CLAWS EXTENDED. :lulz:
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
Laugh all you want, you're still the only one who couldn't make the connection.
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
Laugh all you want, you're still the only one who couldn't make the connection.
I asked not because I didn't understand, but why you thought that was relevant to a debate on the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Could you give me an example?
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/GoatWut.gif)
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:56:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
Laugh all you want, you're still the only one who couldn't make the connection.
I asked not because I didn't understand, but why you thought that was relevant to a debate on the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Could you give me an example?
No, I think I'd rather just laugh at you. Like this ---> :lulz:
This is the most RIDICULOUS case of heel entrenching I've EVER seen on PD. Congratulations...It's not every day that you see someone deny the existence of one of the best trolling techniques ever devised.
:troll:
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 25, 2011, 09:21:47 PM
:troll:
That's what I thought at first, too. :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 25, 2011, 09:21:47 PM
:troll:
I love the purple troll guy!!! :lulz:
He makes me happy!!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 09:15:03 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:56:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
Laugh all you want, you're still the only one who couldn't make the connection.
I asked not because I didn't understand, but why you thought that was relevant to a debate on the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Could you give me an example?
No, I think I'd rather just laugh at you. Like this ---> :lulz:
This is the most RIDICULOUS case of heel entrenching I've EVER seen on PD. Congratulations...It's not every day that you see someone deny the existence of one of the best trolling techniques ever devised.
Well, I'm convinced.
I'm just quivering with fear about getting ambushed by a question on a message board now.
:scared:
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 09:37:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 09:15:03 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:56:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
Laugh all you want, you're still the only one who couldn't make the connection.
I asked not because I didn't understand, but why you thought that was relevant to a debate on the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Could you give me an example?
No, I think I'd rather just laugh at you. Like this ---> :lulz:
This is the most RIDICULOUS case of heel entrenching I've EVER seen on PD. Congratulations...It's not every day that you see someone deny the existence of one of the best trolling techniques ever devised.
Well, I'm convinced.
I'm just quivering with fear about getting ambushed by a question on a message board now.
:scared:
:lulz:
Tell me, Net...Does Socratic trolling exist, or is that only IRL, too?
Well, I have a meeting to attend, so I guess I'll miss "the big reveal". Shame, that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 09:48:02 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 09:37:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 09:15:03 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:56:19 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
I still find your whole idea of "gotcha journalism" having anything to do with message boards pretty laughable.
"I WAS CORNERED ON THE INTERNET!"
\
:lord:
Laugh all you want, you're still the only one who couldn't make the connection.
I asked not because I didn't understand, but why you thought that was relevant to a debate on the internet.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Could you give me an example?
No, I think I'd rather just laugh at you. Like this ---> :lulz:
This is the most RIDICULOUS case of heel entrenching I've EVER seen on PD. Congratulations...It's not every day that you see someone deny the existence of one of the best trolling techniques ever devised.
Well, I'm convinced.
I'm just quivering with fear about getting ambushed by a question on a message board now.
:scared:
:lulz:
Tell me, Net...Does Socratic trolling exist, or is that only IRL, too?
AMBUSH!
:ohnotache:
These are not the questions we agreed to before the interview!
Remember, kids! If it doesn't bother Net, it doesn't exist!
:)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:11:22 PM
Remember, kids! If it doesn't bother Net, it doesn't exist!
:)
I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR THESE QUESTIONS!
I'M SO EMBARRASSED!
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:11:22 PM
Remember, kids! If it doesn't bother Net, it doesn't exist!
:)
I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR THESE QUESTIONS!
I'M SO EMBARRASSED!
How very Net of you to ignore the rest of the Wikipedia link. You know, the several other things that qualify as "Gotcha Questions". I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. This is pretty much what you do.
I mean, besides ruin funny threads with cheap, passive-aggressive insults because you just can't get over an argument that happened three years ago.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:27:37 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:24:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:11:22 PM
Remember, kids! If it doesn't bother Net, it doesn't exist!
:)
I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR THESE QUESTIONS!
I'M SO EMBARRASSED!
How very Net of you to ignore the rest of the Wikipedia link. You know, the several other things that qualify as "Gotcha Questions". I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. This is pretty much what you do.
I mean, besides ruin funny threads with cheap, passive-aggressive insults because you just can't get over an argument that happened three years ago.
:lulz:
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
I have no idea who or what you're talking about with this "passive-aggressive insults" stuff.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
Yeah, I did. The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given. So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot. Which is it?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
I have no idea who or what you're talking about with this "passive-aggressive insults" stuff.
Of course you don't, Sparky. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
Yeah, I did. The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given. So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot. Which is it?
Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.
Especially THIS message board.
:lulz:
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
Yeah, I did. The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given. So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot. Which is it?
Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.
Especially THIS message board.
:lulz:
So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.
Fits with your normal behavior.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:54:23 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
Yeah, I did. The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given. So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot. Which is it?
Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.
Especially THIS message board.
:lulz:
So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.
Fits with your normal behavior.
I'll let you get back to raising the journalistic integrity of the Internet then.
Carry on good sir.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:59:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:54:23 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
Yeah, I did. The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given. So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot. Which is it?
Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.
Especially THIS message board.
:lulz:
So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.
Fits with your normal behavior.
I'll let you get back to raising the journalistic integrity of the Internet then.
Carry on good sir.
And I'll let you get back to pointlessly derailing the arguments of people who have done you no harm, fucking up good/funny threads with passive-aggressive, unfunny insults over ancient grudges, and generally being a nasty little fucknozzle.
:)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 11:02:41 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:59:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:54:23 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:53:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 10:35:54 PM
You ignored my request for a simple example, so why shouldn't I reciprocate?
Yeah, I did. The link LMNO provided was more than adequate to describe what he was talking about, and unrehearsed questions are not the only definition given. So either you decided to derail LMNO for no reason whatsoever, or you're an idiot. Which is it?
Or it's ridiculous to compare a reporter's interview with a debate on a message board.
Especially THIS message board.
:lulz:
So I'll just put you down as "pointlessly malicious", then.
Fits with your normal behavior.
I'll let you get back to raising the journalistic integrity of the Internet then.
Carry on good sir.
And I'll let you get back to pointlessly derailing the arguments of people who have done you no harm, fucking up good/funny threads with passive-aggressive, unfunny insults over ancient grudges, and generally being a nasty little fucknozzle.
:)
I'm pretty sure you're seeing shit that's not there, but I'm confident your butthurt is very real.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:04:56 PM
I'm pretty sure you're seeing shit that's not there, but I'm confident your butthurt is very real.
1. You aren't very good at this sort of thing (you're too blatant), and
2. Butthurt? No, Net, I save that for people whose opinions matter. Yours doesn't.
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
Yeah, not quite getting that either. His terminology wasn't exactly obscure. :?
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and
especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2011, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.
Right here:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:33:01 PM
If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2011, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.
Right here:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:33:01 PM
If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.
AFTER you started in on this.
Can you read forward in time or something?
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2011, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Begs the question, Net.
Begs the question.
OH MY SWEET MERCIFUL ZOMBIE CHRIST FIGURE! D... DID YOU... DID YOU USE THAT TERM CORRECTLY!? YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN, EOC! :cainftw:
^ not sarcastic. possibly hyperbolic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 12:20:20 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2011, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.
Right here:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:33:01 PM
If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.
AFTER you started in on this.
Can you read forward in time or something?
Actually, I assumed the same thing as Net when I read LMNO's post. And I'm pretty sure Net was pointing out that, subsequently, LMNO said that he thought that had happened several times ITT, thus confirming the assumption.
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, I'm not sure why you're always so quick to be so nasty to the guy. I mean, I've hung out with him a few times and he seems like a solid dude. If he's got some hidden dark side that's worthy of that sort of rhetoric he hides it extremely well.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 26, 2011, 02:25:56 AM
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, I'm not sure why you're always so quick to be so nasty to the guy. I mean, I've hung out with him a few times and he seems like a solid dude. If he's got some hidden dark side that's worthy of that sort of rhetoric he hides it extremely well.
Might have something to do with his constant sniping since the whole flyers thing, the most recent one being a "womp" he spammed all over creation. Particularly nasty trick, there. Womp in a mean-spirited way, post it all over the place (Coyote's thread, for example), and then if you say shit, well, you obviously have no sense of humor, right?
Hell, I'd have probably laughed at the womp if it was an isolated incident.
Might also have to do with some of his views.
Basically, there's two kind of people who hate me...Those who I wish didn't, and those who I WANT to hate me, because if they didn't, I'd have to re-examine the way I live my life. Net falls into the second category.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2011, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Nope. He came right out and said that, subsequently.
Right here:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 25, 2011, 08:33:01 PM
If you put yourself in his shoes, that could sound suspiciously like some guy trying to corner him, or someone who was about to use specious arguments and figures that don't apply to the case at hand, trying to prove his ideas invalid; which has happened in this thread a few times.
That's fair. I'm still incredulous as to how you can claim the tactic LMNO is talking about can't exist on the internet, though.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 26, 2011, 12:45:37 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 25, 2011, 11:36:30 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 25, 2011, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 11:23:01 PM
I cannot for the life of me understand why LMNO clarifying to RWHN that his question wasn't intended as a trap is even something anyone else is questioning. WTF.
LMNO's comment implied that other people were trying to "trap" RWHN, which seems like an absurd spin on the way debates occur on the internet and especially this message board.
It's a completely different medium with completely different expectations.
Begs the question, Net. If you're the only one that felt it implied that, then maybe the error lies in your inference than his implication.
Begs the question, Net.
Begs the question.
OH MY SWEET MERCIFUL ZOMBIE CHRIST FIGURE! D... DID YOU... DID YOU USE THAT TERM CORRECTLY!? YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN, EOC! :cainftw:
^ not sarcastic. possibly hyperbolic.
There's a wrong way to use it? What the hell does that even look like? Not disputing the god among men comment, though.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 26, 2011, 03:40:30 AM
There's a wrong way to use it? What the hell does that even look like? Not disputing the god among men comment, though.
Yes, yes there is.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the speaker assumes the initial point is true without any backing or evidence.
However, common usage of the term is used synonymously with "to raise the question", which is incorrect.
You used it correctly. :mrgreen:
Note: It would be wise to let continue to worship you as an Internet god.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 02:34:16 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 26, 2011, 02:25:56 AM
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, I'm not sure why you're always so quick to be so nasty to the guy. I mean, I've hung out with him a few times and he seems like a solid dude. If he's got some hidden dark side that's worthy of that sort of rhetoric he hides it extremely well.
Might have something to do with his constant sniping since the whole flyers thing, the most recent one being a "womp" he spammed all over creation. Particularly nasty trick, there. Womp in a mean-spirited way, post it all over the place (Coyote's thread, for example), and then if you say shit, well, you obviously have no sense of humor, right?
Hell, I'd have probably laughed at the womp if it was an isolated incident.
Might also have to do with some of his views.
Basically, there's two kind of people who hate me...Those who I wish didn't, and those who I WANT to hate me, because if they didn't, I'd have to re-examine the way I live my life. Net falls into the second category.
That womp wasn't mean-spirited, and I posted it once. I can see how people took it the wrong way though, and haven't made the same mistake since.
I think all this "sniping" is in your head. I even mailed you a letter with my return address on it.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 26, 2011, 03:40:30 AM
I'm still incredulous as to how you can claim the tactic LMNO is talking about can't exist on the internet, though.
How are message board debates and live interviews purporting to be journalism remotely comparable?
You can check your facts before you post. In a live interview you CAN be ambushed in a number of ways.
And then there's the matter of expectations. Journalism is expected to contain undistorted factual information, message boards are expected to be full of opinion and trolls.
It's like going to a waste management plant for a romantic dinner and flipping out about all the poop.
Well, LMNO's post is buried, and the question he was trying to ask RWHN is long gone, all in the furtherance of some Requia-esque fussing over a term which may or may not have been used correctly, and had nothing to do with the actual point of his post.
Well played, sir, well played.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 04:23:08 AM
Well, LMNO's post is buried, and the question he was trying to ask RWHN is long gone, all in the furtherance of some Requia-esque fussing over a term which may or may not have been used correctly, and had nothing to do with the actual point of his post.
Well played, sir, well played.
To be fair, Roger, RWHN already addressed LMNO's question.
However, that being said, the past 4 or 5 pages of this thread are more pointless and pedantic than the previous 40 combined. Which is saying something. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 26, 2011, 04:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 04:23:08 AM
Well, LMNO's post is buried, and the question he was trying to ask RWHN is long gone, all in the furtherance of some Requia-esque fussing over a term which may or may not have been used correctly, and had nothing to do with the actual point of his post.
Well played, sir, well played.
To be fair, Roger, RWHN already addressed LMNO's question.
However, that being said, the past 4 or 5 pages of this thread are more pointless and pedantic than the previous 40 combined. Which is saying something. :lulz:
See, I missed that entirely, because it was buried in an argument about a reassurance that a question wasn't being argumentative. :lulz:
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 04:16:15 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 26, 2011, 03:40:30 AM
I'm still incredulous as to how you can claim the tactic LMNO is talking about can't exist on the internet, though.
How are message board debates and live interviews purporting to be journalism remotely comparable?
You can check your facts before you post. In a live interview you CAN be ambushed in a number of ways.
And then there's the matter of expectations. Journalism is expected to contain undistorted factual information, message boards are expected to be full of opinion and trolls.
It's like going to a waste management plant for a romantic dinner and flipping out about all the poop.
So the basis of your argument is that people have no excuse to be ill prepared to respond to a question on the Internet, and therefore it doesn't happen.
I'VE GOT 45! 45, 45, 45...DO I HEAR 50?
\
(http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/auctioneer.jpg)
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 26, 2011, 05:21:31 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 04:16:15 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 26, 2011, 03:40:30 AM
I'm still incredulous as to how you can claim the tactic LMNO is talking about can't exist on the internet, though.
How are message board debates and live interviews purporting to be journalism remotely comparable?
You can check your facts before you post. In a live interview you CAN be ambushed in a number of ways.
And then there's the matter of expectations. Journalism is expected to contain undistorted factual information, message boards are expected to be full of opinion and trolls.
It's like going to a waste management plant for a romantic dinner and flipping out about all the poop.
So the basis of your argument is that people have no excuse to be ill prepared to respond to a question on the Internet, and therefore it doesn't happen.
When it does happen, the responsibility falls upon the asstard that didn't check his facts before hitting the post button, not the person asking the questions.
In a live interview there's no time to try to prepare for unexpected lines of questioning and the blame obviously lies on the journalist who deviated from the agreed upon subject matter.
Quote from: Khara on April 25, 2011, 08:39:22 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2011, 08:33:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:27:49 PM
This thread is like a big, red box, and you can put tools in it. :)
:lulz:
:oops: I think I took someone's screwdriver......
Why Khara, you are a dirty bird! :wink:
This whole thread is moronic. That is all.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 26, 2011, 04:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 04:23:08 AM
Well, LMNO's post is buried, and the question he was trying to ask RWHN is long gone, all in the furtherance of some Requia-esque fussing over a term which may or may not have been used correctly, and had nothing to do with the actual point of his post.
Well played, sir, well played.
To be fair, Roger, RWHN already addressed LMNO's question.
However, that being said, the past 4 or 5 pages of this thread are more pointless and pedantic than the previous 40 combined. Which is saying something. :lulz:
managing to make the tone of a thread on drugs sink lower, with a derail. I think Net deserves some kind of troll award.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on April 26, 2011, 05:43:17 AM
I'VE GOT 45! 45, 45, 45...DO I HEAR 50?
\
(http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/auctioneer.jpg)
75 or bust.
While this thread does provide much needed relief for diseased old men, it also hurts adolescent brain development and is a gateway thread.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 26, 2011, 10:52:37 AM
While this thread does provide much needed relief for diseased old men, it also hurts adolescent brain development and is a gateway thread.
Well played.
Uhh.....what happened here?
Also, FTR, I didn't think the original question was a "gotcha" question given the questioner.
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 01:45:56 PM
Uhh.....what happened here?
Also, FTR, I didn't think the original question was a "gotcha" question given the questioner.
LMNO underhandedly accused unnamed people in this thread of gotcha journalism.
I broke the story in a series of unflinching reports.
I feel partially responsible for some of this thread, so I'm doin my part to get us to fifty... :lulz:
Well this week is hella packed with projects including one with the DEA so I probably won't contribute too much to it.
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 02:51:01 PM
Well this week is hella packed with projects including one with the DEA so I probably won't contribute too much to it.
I'll take this opportunity to thank you for all your input so far.
I may thoroughly disagree with you, but I appreciate the time and energy you've put into representing the other side of the picture.
It's funny. I also post on a political message board and marijuana legalization will come up fairly often as a topic. And a somewhat similar pattern evolves where it is most of the board vs. me. Well, there are a couple of Conservatives who are on "my side", though their arguments aren't really research or informed it's just the "Drugz are evil!" stuff.
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter. Over at the political board everyone is like, "and you consider yourself a Discordian? Fo realz?"
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
It's funny. I also post on a political message board and marijuana legalization will come up fairly often as a topic. And a somewhat similar pattern evolves where it is most of the board vs. me. Well, there are a couple of Conservatives who are on "my side", though their arguments aren't really research or informed it's just the "Drugz are evil!" stuff.
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter. Over at the political board everyone is like, "and you consider yourself a Discordian? Fo realz?"
1. You should post that political board's URL. For SCIENCE.
2. Many - most - people have a very odd view of Discordianism. They expect us to wear a uniform...A zany uniform, but a uniform all the same.
Quote from: ☄ • • • N E T • • • ☄ on April 26, 2011, 02:46:06 PM
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 01:45:56 PM
Uhh.....what happened here?
Also, FTR, I didn't think the original question was a "gotcha" question given the questioner.
LMNO underhandedly accused unnamed people in this thread of gotcha journalism.
I broke the story in a series of unflinching reports.
Nice attempt, but wrong, of course.
Quote from: LMNOQuote from: ☄ • • • N E T • • • ☄ on April 22, 2011, 11:03:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 20, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
This is also not a "gotcha" question.
What do you mean by a "gotcha" question?
Typically, it's a question where I already know the answer, framed in a way to look unbiased, but in fact traps and skewers the person for whom the question is intended.
For example, let's pretend I knew what the MA numbers were since decriminalization, and it showed a substantial decrease in criminal activity and drug use by minors, with strong implications that decriminalization was the primary cause (NOTE: AS STATED ABOVE, THE ACTUAL STATISTICS HAVE NOT COME BACK YET. THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT IS A HYPOTHETICAL).
To then ask RWHN about them as if I was unaware of the results would force him to admit, in his own voice, the positive effects of decriminalization. And then I say, "Gotcha!"
Quote from: ☄ • • • N E T • • • ☄ on April 25, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 25, 2011, 08:47:20 PM
I'm honestly puzzled, here. Net is claiming that ambush-style questions are never used on the internet?
:lulz:
Could you give me an example?
Let's see... how about from page 11?
Quote from: ☄ • • • N E T • • • ☄ on March 30, 2011, 07:13:32 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 30, 2011, 07:01:11 PM
Well, the original version did mention "possible direct antitumor effect". So even in the original there was no definitive statement that medical marijuana has that impact.
I would wager that without definitive science, they perhaps erred on the side of caution and removed the passage. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Especially when you are talking about an addictive substance. Otherwise you may have people seeking the medication solely for the anti-tumor effect. But I would also wager that lawyers were involved in altering the language, to protect themselves from any action from patients who used medical marijuana and didn't experience any improvements in tumors.
You mean like the kind of definitive science that occurred in 1974 which the DEA shut down because it didn't prove what they wanted it to prove? (http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/)
Now, would you please shut the hell up and quit the lame troll attempt?
That is a gotcha question?
:lulz:
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
That is a gotcha question?
:lulz:
Meh. I give up.
You're just an asshole in the exact same vein as Requia.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
That is a gotcha question?
:lulz:
Nowhere did I say that you were anywhere near
good at it.
I'd invite you to take your head out of your ass, but it appears your skull is ergonomically shaped to accomodate.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 26, 2011, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
That is a gotcha question?
:lulz:
Nowhere did I say that you were anywhere near good at it.
I'd invite you to take your head out of your ass, but it appears your skull is ergonomically shaped to accomodate.
Sorry LMNO, trying to apply journalism standards to message boards is just retarded.
Sorry Net, I never said I was trying to.
Now please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 03:52:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on April 26, 2011, 03:25:32 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on April 26, 2011, 03:12:20 PM
That is a gotcha question?
:lulz:
Nowhere did I say that you were anywhere near good at it.
I'd invite you to take your head out of your ass, but it appears your skull is ergonomically shaped to accomodate.
Sorry LMNO, trying to apply journalism standards to message boards is just retarded.
Christ, what an asshole you are.
Just saying.
It's a good thing Requia isn't here. A board can have only so much pedantry at a given time.
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter.
What's Chaos without a little Discord? :lulz:
Oh my god. :oops:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
It's funny. I also post on a political message board and marijuana legalization will come up fairly often as a topic. And a somewhat similar pattern evolves where it is most of the board vs. me. Well, there are a couple of Conservatives who are on "my side", though their arguments aren't really research or informed it's just the "Drugz are evil!" stuff.
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter. Over at the political board everyone is like, "and you consider yourself a Discordian? Fo realz?"
1. You should post that political board's URL. For SCIENCE.
2. Many - most - people have a very odd view of Discordianism. They expect us to wear a uniform...A zany uniform, but a uniform all the same.
hxxp://www.politicalpanic.com
It is the new Political Crossfire, after its server went splodey.
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 26, 2011, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
It's funny. I also post on a political message board and marijuana legalization will come up fairly often as a topic. And a somewhat similar pattern evolves where it is most of the board vs. me. Well, there are a couple of Conservatives who are on "my side", though their arguments aren't really research or informed it's just the "Drugz are evil!" stuff.
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter. Over at the political board everyone is like, "and you consider yourself a Discordian? Fo realz?"
1. You should post that political board's URL. For SCIENCE.
2. Many - most - people have a very odd view of Discordianism. They expect us to wear a uniform...A zany uniform, but a uniform all the same.
hxxp://www.politicalpanic.com
It is the new Political Crossfire, after its server went splodey.
Oh, yeah. Heard about that one. I shall have to check it out. I will reg as either Doktor Howl or Professor Zero.
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
It's funny. I also post on a political message board and marijuana legalization will come up fairly often as a topic. And a somewhat similar pattern evolves where it is most of the board vs. me. Well, there are a couple of Conservatives who are on "my side", though their arguments aren't really research or informed it's just the "Drugz are evil!" stuff.
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter. Over at the political board everyone is like, "and you consider yourself a Discordian? Fo realz?"
Well, proclaiming someone "not a really real Discordian" would kind of go against the spirit of this board.
I actually think supporting the war on drugs could easily fit even into a Discordian stereotype, as an "imposition of order leads to escalation of disorder" sort of thing.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 26, 2011, 08:31:43 PM
Quote from: stop what you're doin, cause i'm about to RWHN.... on April 26, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
It's funny. I also post on a political message board and marijuana legalization will come up fairly often as a topic. And a somewhat similar pattern evolves where it is most of the board vs. me. Well, there are a couple of Conservatives who are on "my side", though their arguments aren't really research or informed it's just the "Drugz are evil!" stuff.
Though, what I do appreciate about here is that no one challenges my Discordian-ness despite my position on this matter. Over at the political board everyone is like, "and you consider yourself a Discordian? Fo realz?"
Well, proclaiming someone "not a really real Discordian" would kind of go against the spirit of this board.
I actually think supporting the war on drugs could easily fit even into a Discordian stereotype, as an "imposition of order leads to escalation of disorder" sort of thing.
I think this is a "Think for yourself shmuck!!!" situation.
Going on 50 pages. Oh, and remember that story about how officers on the ground can flip a warrant to "no knock" at their own whim? Not necessary any more, as long as you claim you "smelled marijuana and heard some-one make 'scurrying' sounds".
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20110517,0,6746878.story
Supreme Court gives police leeway in home searches
Officers may break in if they hear sounds and suspect that evidence is being destroyed, the justices say in an 8-1 decision. Justice Ginsburg dissents.
Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence otherwise might be destroyed.
Ruling in a Kentucky case Monday, the justices said that officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs. [NOTE! This guy had nothing to do with the person that the officers chased into the apartment building.]
Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. for an 8-1 majority.
In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she feared the ruling gave police an easy way to ignore 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She said the amendment's "core requirement" is that officers have probable cause and a search warrant before they break into a house.
"How 'secure' do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and ...forcibly enter?" Ginsburg asked.
An expert on criminal searches said the decision would encourage the police to undertake "knock and talk" raids.
"I'm surprised the Supreme Court would condone this, that if the police hear suspicious noises inside, they can break in. I'm even more surprised that nearly all of them went along," said John Wesley Hall, a criminal defense lawyer in Little Rock, Ark.
In the past, the court has insisted that homes are special preserves. As Alito said, "The 4th Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." One exception to the search warrant rule involves an emergency, such as screams coming from a house. Police may also pursue a fleeing suspect who enters a residence.
The Kentucky case began when police in Lexington sought to arrest a man who had sold crack cocaine to an informer. They followed the man to an apartment building, but lost contact with him. They smelled marijuana coming from one apartment. Though it turned out not to be the apartment of their suspect, they pounded on the door, called, "Police," and heard people moving inside.
At this, the officers announced they were coming in and broke down the door. Instead of the original suspect, they found Hollis King smoking marijuana and arrested him. They also found powder cocaine. King was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
The Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky vs. King that the officers' conduct "was entirely lawful," and they were justified in breaking in to prevent the destruction of the evidence.
"When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen may do," Alito wrote. A resident need not respond, he added. But the sounds of people moving and perhaps toilets being flushed could justify police entering without a warrant.
The ruling was not a final loss for King. The justices said the Kentucky state court should consider again whether police had faced an emergency situation in this case.
--------------------------
Can we just end this farce already? Cannabis doesn't have an LD50 level reachable by humans. Chance of death purely due to the chemicals acting on the body = ZERO.
And yet, it get used as an excuse to take away more and more of our "rights".
Fuck those Supreme Court idiots who made this ruling.
Drug issues aside, trampling the 4th amendment is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
I don't think you CAN "put the drug issues aside" in this case. Drug issues and this ruling are inextricably linked.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on May 18, 2011, 04:14:52 PM
I don't think you CAN "put the drug issues aside" in this case. Drug issues and this ruling are inextricably linked.
Ironic that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written on hemp :lulz:
ETA: Correction - Apparently they were not written on hemp and thats just an urban legend...
http://blogs.computerworld.com/18335/bitcoin_miners_busted_police_confuse_bitcoin_power_usage_for_pot_farm
Bitcoin miners busted? Police confuse bitcoin power usage for pot farm
Bitcoin, one of the world's newest currencies, is an open source, peer-to-peer currency that does not exist in physical form. It's owned and traded by means of an anonymous P2P network, without any third-party intermediary like a payment processor, without any government issuing or tracking the virtual currency. While there is a limit of only 21 million bitcoins to be generated by the year 2140, bitcoin is "free" to generate and is created by "bitcoin miners."
I haven't played around with bitcoin, but Launch called bitcoin peer-to-peer currency "the most dangerous project we've ever seen," suggesting it could "topple governments, destabilize economies and create uncontrollable global bazaars for contraband."
According to Big Think, bitcoin will be a bank for Anonymous. "The hacktivists now have a virtual currency that's untraceable, unhackable, and completely Anonymous."
Wired UK tried to explain how bitcoin miners dedicate their CPU/GPU to generate the virtual currency. "It's generated by Bitcoin 'miners' over time by using CPUs and GPUs to solve a cryptographic problem -- hashing some data against a function. If your computer manages to generate a hash that's numerically lower than a defined value, then you shout it out to the rest of the network, and get to pocket the newly-minted Bitcoins, while also signing a series of transactions and making sure they're legitimate."
One of the issues, other than if governments will try to outlaw bitcoin, is the high amount of electricity needed to create a single bitcoin. It might cost more to generate a bitcoin than the actual value a bitcoin is currently traded at. High electricity bills can lead to marijuana busts. And it is this unusual power consumption needed that caught my attention since it appears as a bitcoin miner has been mistaken as a person running a marijuana growing operation.
Blogger Mike Esspe captured an IRC chat that supports the rumor floating around that at least one bitcoin miner has been arrested.
In regards to if being a miner will bring the cops to your doorstep, according to the Bitcoin Miner, the power consumption will be somewhat like the electric usage for "marijuana grow-op." An example was "The Canadian town of Mission, BC has a bylaw that allows the town's Public Safety Inspection Team to search people's homes for grow ops if they are using more than 93 kWh of electricity per day." There have allegedly been reports floating in IRC of two different cases of police showing up at a bitcoin miner's residence with a search warrant.
Will it become more common to confuse bitcoin miners with weed-growing operations? It is somewhat common for police to monitor unusually high power consumption if a person is a "suspect." For example, as NetworkWorld noted, Ohio police and the DEA file at least 60 subpoenas each month for energy-use records of people suspected of running an indoor pot growing operation. If a stakeout does not uncover anything illegal or point to a "grow house," then utility consumption records can be sought. DEA Agent Anthony Marotta said high electricity usage does not always mean the residence is an indoor pot farm and has surprised federal agents. "We thought it was a major grow operation ... but this guy had some kind of business involving computers. I don't know how many computer servers we found in his home."
It is unclear at this point if more bitcoin miners will have police show up with a warrant on their doorstep after more false positives, mistaking the power consumption to create virtual P2P currency as electricity usage needed to grow weed.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on April 26, 2011, 03:50:22 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on April 26, 2011, 03:40:30 AM
There's a wrong way to use it? What the hell does that even look like? Not disputing the god among men comment, though.
Yes, yes there is.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the speaker assumes the initial point is true without any backing or evidence.
However, common usage of the term is used synonymously with "to raise the question", which is incorrect.
You used it correctly. :mrgreen:
Note: It would be wise to let continue to worship you as an Internet god.
It's a pet peeve of mine too, darling. Awesome to see someone use it /right/.
So this isn't directly connected to Teh War on DruGz, but you can totally see the connections (I have a backlog of some recent events that I need to post).
That movement militarized our LOCAL police forces. Now the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION has the authority to serve paramilitary "no knock" warrants on some-one being investigated for FINANCIAL FRAUD. No surprise after the Vet shot in Arizona, right?
Let me repeat. The DoE can now shove a machine gun barrel in your face and hold you face down on you lawn in front of your children. And then "just let you go" 3 hours later, no charges filed, no damaged paid for your broken shit.
http://www.newsherald.com/articles/excessive-94324-force-.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 10, 2011 08:00:00 AM
"Dynamic entries" into private homes by law enforcement SWAT teams have become part and parcel of the government's War on Drugs. But now those tactics appear to have been extended to the war on ... financial aid fraud.
At 6 a.m. Tuesday in Stockton, Calif., about a dozen heavily armed federal agents from the U.S. Department of Education — yes, you read that right — broke down the door of Kenneth Wright's home. They dragged him from the house while he was clad only in his boxer shorts, threw him down on the front lawn and handcuffed him, all while his three children — ages 3, 9 and 11 — watched, crying uncontrollably.
Wright sat in the back of a patrol car for six hours while the agents searched his house. They didn't find what they were looking for — Wright's estranged wife. Wright eventually was released and not charged.
Initial reports indicated the government was pursuing an unpaid student loan. But the Department of Education swiftly moved to quash that story.
No, no, no, officials said, this raid wasn't about something as trivial as that. It was much worse. A search warrant (http://tinyurl.com/4y24yku) for the home indicated the DOE and its Office of the Inspector General were looking for evidence related to financial aid fraud, conspiracy, theft of government funds, false statements to government agency and wire fraud.
Oh, well, in that case ...
Sorry, no. Unless the feds produce a completely different and valid explanation, this raid was insane.
The alleged crimes were non-violent in nature — white-collar paper violations. If the feds had reason to fear that in addition to the alleged fraud that Wright might be armed and dangerous and engaged in more serious criminal activity, then those offenses should have been the focus and the operation should have been conducted by local police or federal law enforcement.
Why the need to conduct a dawn raid in a home containing young children? Those tactics elevate the risks for everyone involved. There are numerous examples of "dynamic entries" resulting in confused police shooting innocent people, or startled and scared homeowners firing on the officers to protect their property. These kinds of raids should be employed sparingly, only in extreme circumstances where there is a high probability that the suspects will not submit peacefully and where there is a low likelihood of innocents being on the premises.
Using them because officials fear evidence will be destroyed is an insufficient excuse. That could be said for almost any criminal investigation.
An even bigger question is: Why is the Department of Education, through its OIG, conducting these operations?
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 granted law enforcement powers to the DOE and several other federal departments with OIGs, including the authority to use deadly force. Thus, agents of the Small Business Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Railroad Retirement Board (among others) can legally break down your front door and point automatic weapons at you so as to serve a search warrant.
Did we mention that this is insane?
The pursuit of bribery, fraud and embezzlement of federal student aid funds does not warrant paramilitary action. The Stockton raid represents a dangerous and unfounded expansion of federal police power and a threat to individual liberty. Congress should investigate this immediately.
Ok, Ok... something ON TOPIC.
Mothers who test positive for just cannabinoids have lower rates of infant death than mothers who test positive for other drugs AND mothers who don't test positive for any drugs. This seems to mirror the lung cancer studies which showed that cannabis-only use reduces the chances of lung cancer more than not smoking anything, and that mixed cannabis/tobacco users had lower cancer rates than just-tobacco users.
Mortality Within the First 2 Years in Infants Exposed to Cocaine, Opiate, or Cannabinoid During GestationPediatrics Vol. 100 No. 1 July 1, 1997
Enrique M. Ostrea Jr, MD*,
Anthony R. Ostrea, BS*,
Pippa M. Simpson, PhD
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/1/79.short (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/1/79.short)
QuoteConclusion. We conclude that prenatal drug exposure in infants, although associated with a high perinatal morbidity, is not associated with an overall increase in their mortality rate or incidence of SIDS during the first 2 years of life. However, a significantly higher mortality rate was observed among low birth weight infants (≤2500 g) who were positive for both cocaine and opiate.
This is probably because of the anti-inflammatory effects of cannabinoids on the digestive tract. Opiate and Concaine use tend to disrupt functioning in the "lower brain", the Enteric Nervous system, but cannabis is pretty consistently shown to provide neuro-protective and anti-inflammatory effects. This also lines up with the studies done in Jamaca on Rasta mothers using cannabis tea.
-----------------------
Ok, so that's interesting. What else have I got in a tab here....
Ah, here we have the current state of yellow-journalism on the matter -
Why did Bob Marley smoke marijuana/cannabis?May 11, 2011
http://www.sierraexpressmedia.com/archives/23709 (http://www.sierraexpressmedia.com/archives/23709)
The author doesn't even spell "Rasta" correctly, doesn't list sources for any of the claims, and pushes the Gateway/Children rhetoric. Then claims that Bob would be 'disappointed' that all the "non raster kids" (lol, as if only children listen to Bob Marley) are freely smoking herb on his Birthday. Every single comment on the article calls it out on it's half-truths and outright lies... but these articles keep getting written, which means some-bodies pouring money into it.
---------------------------
Of course, it also seems that most of the really interesting "fact finding" research is only done outside of the United States. Not only 'done', but also only Publicized outside of the US:
Cannabinoid Function in the CNS May 22-27, 2011
Les Diablerets Conference Center
Les Diablerets, Switzerland
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2011&program=cannab (http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2011&program=cannab)
QuoteThe Gordon Conference on "Cannabinoid Function in The CNS" in 2011, the fourth in its series, will present the most recent advances on the multitude of physiological and pathophysiological roles of this lipid signalling system in the CNS, and discuss provocative new ideas and hypotheses, helping to integrate endocannabinoid function into other major CNS signalling systems, both in adult physiology and in neural development, as well as in various disease states. The conference will bring together established investigators of various disciplines, such as chemistry, biochemistry, pharmacology, physiology and genetics, but will also give plenty of opportunities to young investigators and students from around of the world, in order to attract new prospective leaders to this exciting research area. Several poster presenters will be selected for podium presentations, thus giving researchers early in their career the opportunity to present their results to the whole audience. All speakers will be encouraged to discuss unpublished results, thus enhancing the aspects of novelty and cutting edge research. In the opening talk on Sunday evening, Pierre Magistrettí from the EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland, will address the metabolic coupling between glial cells and neurons and discuss plasticity processes regulated by neuron-glia interactions, a topic of great interest for the further understanding of endocannabinoid function in the entire brain. Further topics will include the role of the endocannabinoid system in neurodegenerative disorders, neuroimmune interactions, memory processing, pain, and feeding behaviour, but the meeting will focus also on endocannabinoid interactions with other signalling systems, dietary influences on endocannabinoid signalling, novel techniques for the study of endocannabinoid signalling, novel pharmacological and genetic tools, and studies on non-THC phytocannabinoids. The collegial atmosphere at the conference, with plenty of opportunities for informal gatherings in the afternoon, with leisure time and long poster sessions, and in the evening, will promote cross-disciplinary collaborations and likely unify the different disciplines applied to research on cannabinoid function in the CNS.
---------------------
Which is probably one of the big reasons that Jimmy Cater says END THE DRUG WAR NOW, and mentions the Global Commission On Drugs Report (http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report):
Call Off the Global Drug WarBy JIMMY CARTER
Published: June 16, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html?_r=1)
--------------------
But it seems FaceBook has a problem with the message:
http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/whats-facebooks-problem-with-marijuana-is-safer/ (http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/whats-facebooks-problem-with-marijuana-is-safer/)
--------------------
Which is odd, because CNN has no problem running a story critical on the current DEA policies:
Organized crime won the war on drugsBy Evan Wood, Special to CNN
June 7, 2011 12:08 p.m. EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/07/wood.failed.war.on.drugs/index.html?hpt=op_t1#0_undefined,0_ (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/07/wood.failed.war.on.drugs/index.html?hpt=op_t1#0_undefined,0_)
--------------------
Everyone reading this thread also should be aware of LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. They recently tried to deliver a fact-finding report to the current head of the DEA, Gil Kerlikowske (http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/16/franklin-despite-the-best-enforcement-efforts-of-cops-like-me-we-have-lost-the-war-on-drugs/). Good ol Gil wouldn't even be seen in the same room as them (he knows his PR-fu), so he sent down an Aid instead. Poor Aid looks seriously embarrassed at being such an obvious political pawn.
Neill Franklin, head of LEAP on the left. Gil's skittish aide on the rght:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/255034_10150199998032131_76358352130_7358153_97333_n.jpg)
But Gil & Co have decided to "end the War on drugs" by simply changing the rhetoric and not using the word 'War'.
http://www.theroot.com/views/why-wont-obama-end-war-drugs
QuoteIt's gotten this bad: On Tuesday, representatives of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition sought a hearing with Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, who has refused repeated requests for even a simple sit-down. LEAP includes officers, judges, prosecutors, agents and military officers united in the conclusion that the war on drugs has been a failure, and all they wanted was to put in Kerlikowske's hands their new report on the issue.
Kerlikowske wouldn't even appear, instead sending down a skittish aide. Just look at how the encounter played out in this photo, of LEAP's executive director, Neill Franklin, on the left, with the aide in question. Serious people with a serious concern seek a bit of face time with the administration devoted to change we can believe in, and they get treated as if they're a bunch of 11-year-olds agitating for one more Harry Potter movie.
Kerlikowske has actually claimed that the Obama administration has ended the war on drugs -- but what he means is that they have decided not to call it that. This is mere semantics of the "It depends on what 'is' is" kind. Obama has said, "We have to think more about drugs as a public health problem," but under his watch, punishment for drug possession and use has been funded more highly, while funds for treatment under the Department of Education have been slashed by a third.
It gets worse. Drug arrests during Obama's first year in office were higher than they were in George Bush's first year. There have been about 100 marijuana raids under the Obama administration so far, while during all eight of the Bush years, there were only about 200.
--------------------
I mean, these laws are doing ACTUAL HARM to people not even involved with 'drugs'. This poor woman in Florida was a pagany/hippie bird watcher who burnt some sage for meditative purposes before she'd leave the area. The cops confiscated it, let her go, and then busted her later WHILE AT WORK for 'possession of marijuana'. When it got to trial, it was discovered that the sage smudge stick she had was never even tested in a lab.
Birdwatcher Arrested For Sage In Botched Marijuana Busthttp://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/birdwatcher_arrested_for_sage_in_botched_marijuana.php (http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/birdwatcher_arrested_for_sage_in_botched_marijuana.php)
Quote"Our policy is to make sure the evidence is tested at the very least before trial," claimed Ron Ishoy, spokesman for the Broward State Attorney's Office. "Looking back now at this specific police report, it would have been the better practice to test the evidence before filing a formal charge," said Captain Obvious, I mean spokesman Ishoy.
The Police Culture which our current Drug Laws and Rhetoric encourage and reinforce are blindly crushing the freedoms we have.
Even the Governor and Attourney General of Arizona can see this. They have filed suit against Eric Holder (US Attourney General) and goold ol Gil (head of the dEA) in their official capacities. The Claim for Relief in this Federal Lawsuit includes this language:
Quote"Citizens of Arizona and the United States have a right to reasonable certainty with respect to the application of both state and federal law, especially with regard to making medical and business decisions."
...
"Recently, the principles of the Ogden Memo have been systematically modified by a series of letters from U.S. Attorneys, including the letter attached as Exhibit B, which has had a negative effect and created uncertainty as to the application of federal law to state medical marijuana programs, which has harmed the Plaintiffs."
And interestingly enough, the ACLU has jumped in to the suit:
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/05/aclu_to_defend_medical_marijua.php (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/05/aclu_to_defend_medical_marijua.php)
--------------
Oh, and the Canadian Courts just recently found that the Canadian Drug Control Laws violated their Charter (Constitution), and if not ammended within 90 days would fall TOTALLY VOID:
http://www.iamm.com/lsd.htm#RvMernagh (http://www.iamm.com/lsd.htm#RvMernagh)
QuoteATTENTION MEDICINAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATES & PATIENTS
By virtue of the Reasons for Judgment of Justice Taliano J.,
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc2121/2011onsc2121.html
pronounced, April 11, 2011, in the Supreme Court of Ontario File No.: 1640/09,
[Citation: R. v. Mernagh, 2011 ONSC 2121], (See Disposition below) s. 4 (possession) and s. 7 (Production/Cultivation) under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations were declared at "constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect" and the Declaration of invalidity was "suspended 3 months".
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU?
If by JULY 11, 2011, Parliament has not complied with this judgment, the Medicinal Marijuana Laws will become constitutionally invalid and of no force or effect. It will therefore be lawful for anyone to produce and possess marijuana for medicinal purposes without a Doctors approval on an Application to Health Canada.
AND TAKE NOTICE THAT: If you want a license from Health Canada, and cannot find a Doctor who will prescribe Medicinal Marijuana, simply forward your application to Health Canada upon based upon the references at the conclusion of the case:
[5] This figure would include the patient witness MC whose evidence was presented in the Berin trial. Her request for medical approval of her application to Health Canada was rejected by 7 physicians in British Columbia. (Exhibit 21(i)) [6] The reference to 19 communities would not be accurate because several of the 21 patient witnesses testified that they tried to access marihuana through doctors in several communities. [7] See the affidavit of Jeannine Ritchot Exhibit 17 at p. 6.
EXCERPT FROM: COURT FILE NO.: 1640/09
Read full case here. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc2121/2011onsc2121.html
DISPOSITION
[345] For the foregoing reasons, this court declares that:
1. The Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-226 and the prohibitions against the possession and production of cannabis (marihuana) contained in sections 4 and 7 respectively of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, C. 19 are constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect;
2. This declaration of invalidity is suspended for a period of three (3) months;
3. The criminal charge against the applicant is permanently stayed;
4. The applicant is granted a personal exemption to possess and/or produce cannabis (marihuana) during the above noted period of suspension.
· Health Canada Medicinal Marijuana Forms:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/how-comment/applicant-demandeur/index-eng.php
The Canada courts have also assisted in preparing this report on indigenous ritualistic and social use in cultures which immigrate to Canada:
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL USES OF CANNABIS AND THE CANADIAN "MARIJUANA CLASH"Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs
Leah Spicer
Law and Government Division
12 April 2002
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/Spicer-e.htm (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/Spicer-e.htm)
Which definitely reinforces the argument that if Medical Cannabis is approved in a state, then Religious use must be approved as well (US/Canada have similar religious freedom language in the Constitution/Charter).
Does the prohibition of cannabis restrict religious freedom? Marijuana and the First Amendmenthttp://nugmag.com/2011/06/does-the-prohibition-of-cannabis-restrict-religious-freedom-marijuana-and-the-first-amendment/ (http://nugmag.com/2011/06/does-the-prohibition-of-cannabis-restrict-religious-freedom-marijuana-and-the-first-amendment/)
At which point I'd like to remind everyone that Roger Christie is still being denied Bail in Hawaii in Federal Court for expressing and practicing his religious beliefs. They've postponed the trail again, but Roger has gotten a new lawyer (the previous one was actively blocking his arguments to the court).
-----------------------
Finally, I'll leave this post with some very very good documents about some recent Science!
Scientists Uncover How CBD Treats MS, Alters Cholesterol Metabolismhttp://www.freedomisgreen.com/cbd-in-marijuana-treats-ms-alters-cholesterol-metabolism/
Inhaled Cannabis Beneficial For Fibromyalgia Patients, Study Says http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/health-and-fitness/24362-inhaled-cannabis-beneficial-for-fibromyalgia-patients-study-says.html
The Endocannabinoid System Controls Key Epileptogenic Circuits in the Hippocampushttp://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273%2806%2900546-0
Oh, and remember when the National Cancer Institute (the NCI is a Federal Agency), actually had language on it's website (for a brief moment) declaring that Cannabis had recognized medical value? Remember how fast that got pulled down? Well a recent FOI request has turned up the story behind that:
Documents reveal inter-agency politicking that led to changes to marijuana entry in federal cancer treatment databasehttp://washingtonindependent.com/110168/documents-reveal-inter-agency-politicking-that-led-to-changes-to-marijuana-entry-in-federal-cancer-treatment-database (http://washingtonindependent.com/110168/documents-reveal-inter-agency-politicking-that-led-to-changes-to-marijuana-entry-in-federal-cancer-treatment-database)
QuoteAs stated on NCI's website, the treatment database is called the Physician Data Query (PDQ); the PDQ entry on marijuana ("cannabis and cannabinoids" are the terms NCI uses) is maintained by the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Editorial Board. The lead reviewer of the marijuana summary statement is CAM board member Donald Abrams, the director of Integrative Oncology at the University of California-San Francisco cancer center.
Abrams is an advocate of the use of marijuana in cancer treatment, and his desire to provide a complete picture of its medical application becomes clear early in the documents. As the CAM board discussed the upcoming PDQ entry back in December, board director Jeffrey White asked for Abrams' approval in including controversial results of an African study that some have claimed links marijuana use to cancer. Abrams came back with:
Quote from: Donald AbramsGee, I would rather not. It flies in the face of all that is known. And it seems far-fetched to have to go to northwestern Africa to find a case control study. Could be a number of confounders! What's wrong with the Tashkin study from LA[?] Or the Kaiser cohort? We could run the article by Tashkin and I will have a look myself, but I would strongly object to adding this and would prefer to delete the whole Cannabis section! I guess I feel pretty strongly about it!
If you are interested in actually debating or discussing these items, it would help if you didn't post so many of them in one post. If that was your intent. I know, I know, I'm like the only voice of dissent seemingly, but still.
Anyway, a couple of points. Gateway isn't rhetoric. It is a predictable and provable phenomenon in drug use. It is true, and the article states, that marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug, but it certainly is one of them. This is because of the ease of access.
As far as children, when you look at adolescence and brain development we are coming to understand more and more that when you disrupt or alter brain chemistry in the crucial periods of development, it can have a very real and irreversible effect. And of course, as with anything, it isn't 100%. It isn't destiny. It doesn't mean that if a kid smokes a joint they are going to ruing their brain. It does, however, present very real and measurable risks and I, for one, am not about condoning behaviors that pose negative health risks and negative development risks.
As far as the "War on Drugs", that is old news. I've brought this up several times in all of our discussions that it is no longer called the "War on Drugs". But the pro-legalization movement keeps using it as a way to demonize and characterize those who work in substance abuse prevention, which includes law enforcement and the courts.
I would also point out that you should be very careful about the conclusions you draw from arrest data. An increase in arrest data can be a result of varying factors. More arrests can result from a larger police force. A lot of police departments these days are stretched thin because of thin city budgets. This certainly dwindles their capacity to enforce laws. When that capacity is then, increased, you are obviously better able to enforce laws, thus an increase in arrests.
Increases in arrests can also be the result of more people violating the law. In the case of drug arrests, we are in a shitty economy right now. People tend to turn towards escapist vices in tough times such as drugs and alcohol. This will obviously also contribute to increased arrests. So it isn't an automatic that just because arrests were higher in year one of Obamas administration than Bush's that it means Obama is being more of a hard-ass on the "War on Drugs". You have to take the other factors into account, such as the fact the economy under year one of Obama is much shittier than it was under Bush when the federal government had a goddamned surplus.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 21, 2011, 01:49:26 PM
As far as children, when you look at adolescence and brain development we are coming to understand more and more that when you disrupt or alter brain chemistry in the crucial periods of development, it can have a very real and irreversible effect....and I, for one, am not about condoning behaviors that pose negative health risks and negative development risks.
One quick question:
Do you let your kids watch TV?
My son, no. My daughter can but is more interested in playing outside and engaging in creative activities like drawing, playing music, etc.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 21, 2011, 01:49:26 PM
If you are interested in actually debating or discussing these items, it would help if you didn't post so many of them in one post. If that was your intent. I know, I know, I'm like the only voice of dissent seemingly, but still.
Anyway, a couple of points. Gateway isn't rhetoric. It is a predictable and provable phenomenon in drug use. It is true, and the article states, that marijuana isn't the ONLY gateway drug, but it certainly is one of them. This is because of the ease of access.
As far as children, when you look at adolescence and brain development we are coming to understand more and more that when you disrupt or alter brain chemistry in the crucial periods of development, it can have a very real and irreversible effect. And of course, as with anything, it isn't 100%. It isn't destiny. It doesn't mean that if a kid smokes a joint they are going to ruing their brain. It does, however, present very real and measurable risks and I, for one, am not about condoning behaviors that pose negative health risks and negative development risks.
As far as the "War on Drugs", that is old news. I've brought this up several times in all of our discussions that it is no longer called the "War on Drugs". But the pro-legalization movement keeps using it as a way to demonize and characterize those who work in substance abuse prevention, which includes law enforcement and the courts.
I would also point out that you should be very careful about the conclusions you draw from arrest data. An increase in arrest data can be a result of varying factors. More arrests can result from a larger police force. A lot of police departments these days are stretched thin because of thin city budgets. This certainly dwindles their capacity to enforce laws. When that capacity is then, increased, you are obviously better able to enforce laws, thus an increase in arrests.
Increases in arrests can also be the result of more people violating the law. In the case of drug arrests, we are in a shitty economy right now. People tend to turn towards escapist vices in tough times such as drugs and alcohol. This will obviously also contribute to increased arrests. So it isn't an automatic that just because arrests were higher in year one of Obamas administration than Bush's that it means Obama is being more of a hard-ass on the "War on Drugs". You have to take the other factors into account, such as the fact the economy under year one of Obama is much shittier than it was under Bush when the federal government had a goddamned surplus.
BAWK! POT DESTROYS CHILDREN!
\
(http://i.imgur.com/qIIss.gif)
/
DRUG LAWS DON'T HURT ANYONE! BAWK!
LET
IT
DIE
Hey Telarus, check your PMs.
Debating with substance is hard.
This thread ruined my life.
I mostly had to dump a bunch of Tabs so my Firefox would stop crashing every 5 minutes.
I appreciate your input RWHN. You're willing to have these discussions. Granted, the government isn't calling it a "War on Drugs" anymore, but the tactics haven't changed, and the budget numbers back that up pretty well. It was brought up in another thread, but our current judicial system isn't concerned with Rehabilitation, but about Punishment and Fear-Based Diversion. As such, if you come out of prison a better person, it's because you were actively fighting against the system in there.
That we've recently won standing as individuals (not States) to challenge the constitutionality federal laws which would harm us if applied to us, and the fact that the federal scheduling of Cannabis is inconsistent with the CSA itself (it's own definitions), and declared medical safety practices in the states, I see the total Prohibition of Cannabis is a very weak position right now. As noted, the Governer and Attourney General of Arizona have sued the feds for the creation of this "harm" from "unnecessary uncertainty".
I still think that Gil Kerlikowske pawning off accepting a report from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition onto an Aide was a dick move (a well calculated dick move). At least RWHN has the balls to discuss this himself.
I totally agree with you that children with developing brain structure shouldn't arbitrarily experiment with psychoactive substances... But I disagree that some-one possessing or using Cannabis in private poses enough of a threat of Harm to any specific individual or to a community that they deserved to be punished with the removal of basic rights like Liberty.
My question for RWHN is: If total Prohibition fails, do you have new any strategies for your prevention work?
Also, this is another subject I was interested in your opinion on: Random Drug Testing in Schools
The government is not allowed (constitutionally) to use random "suspicion-less" drug-test on Government Employees, including Teachers. What is your opinion of the State arbitrarily using that power to tear up the same Privacy of the minors in it's care?
The state is acting in loco parentis over children in school. So basically if it would be acceptable for parents to do something it is acceptable for the school to do so.
I'm not real keen on the whole in loco parentis approach, but so long as that is the one being used they can indeed drug test kids.
Thanks, that was the search term I was missing.
Anyway, this still stands:
My question for RWHN is: If total Prohibition fails, do you have new any strategies for your prevention work?
Quote from: Telarus on June 22, 2011, 04:20:17 AM
I appreciate your input RWHN. You're willing to have these discussions. Granted, the government isn't calling it a "War on Drugs" anymore, but the tactics haven't changed, and the budget numbers back that up pretty well.
But that isn't the fault of the law, that is the fault of the politicians and policy makers. I would certainly advocate for the numbers to look different. More moneys should be shifted to prevention, but instead, lawmakers, on BOTH sides of the aisle, are cutting that money instead of increasing it.
QuoteIt was brought up in another thread, but our current judicial system isn't concerned with Rehabilitation, but about Punishment and Fear-Based Diversion. As such, if you come out of prison a better person, it's because you were actively fighting against the system in there.
That may be true in some cases but not all. Here in Maine we have a fairly progressive judicial and corrections system that do their best to hook inmates up with services to help them turn their lives around. I personally know drug counselors who've worked in the county jails and I've personally met some of the inmates they work with. They are very grateful and appreciative to have access to those services. They don't go to them out of fear from the system, they go to them out of a desire to make a better life for themselves. But you don't hear about those stories because they aren't as headline-grabbing and as sexy as the headlines about how everything is about the judicial and corrections systems acting like uncaring iron fists.
QuoteI still think that Gil Kerlikowske pawning off accepting a report from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition onto an Aide was a dick move (a well calculated dick move). At least RWHN has the balls to discuss this himself.
Well, sure, and partly why I like to discuss it is because I really don't think the pro-legalization side looks for nor receives the full picture of the situation. My goal in these discussions is always to expose some of you to different sources of information than you may be used to seeing. I know a consistent criticism of Government sources is that they ignore data and information that is contrary to their policies and ideologies. Well, I think its foolhardy to suggest the pro-legalization movement isn't subject to that same pitfall.
QuoteI totally agree with you that children with developing brain structure shouldn't arbitrarily experiment with psychoactive substances... But I disagree that some-one possessing or using Cannabis in private poses enough of a threat of Harm to any specific individual or to a community that they deserved to be punished with the removal of basic rights like Liberty.
The problem is that it isn't possible for adults to have that freedom and have it not spillover and impact children in our society. If you were going to go up into the mountains, grow your own and smoke your own, and agree to never have children or be around children, then I would advocate for you to have the right to do that. The reality is that adults, necessarily, have to share their communities with children. Communities, obviously, need children to grow, thrive, and sustain. It is, then, in the interest of societies to advocate policies and norms that are most conducive to positive youth development. Legalized marijuana and other drugs simply doesn't fit in with that model.
QuoteMy question for RWHN is: If total Prohibition fails, do you have new any strategies for your prevention work?
You first need to define success and failure. I certainly hope you don't think success means complete eradication of substance abuse. Because that is obviously not a realistic, nor an actual, goal. So how exactly are you defining failure and success?
QuoteAlso, this is another subject I was interested in your opinion on: Random Drug Testing in Schools
The government is not allowed (constitutionally) to use random "suspicion-less" drug-test on Government Employees, including Teachers. What is your opinion of the State arbitrarily using that power to tear up the same Privacy of the minors in it's care?
I wouldn't advocate school-wide random drug testing. And to the best of my knowledge that isn't anything that happens in my State. There are schools that will randomly bring in drug-sniffing dogs, and I'm okay with that because it is, after all, school property. Of course kids being crafty, those things don't always work very well because kids will just keep their drugs in their cars or their friends cars.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 22, 2011, 05:51:04 PM
The problem is that it isn't possible for adults to have that freedom and have it not spillover and impact children in our society. If you were going to go up into the mountains, grow your own and smoke your own, and agree to never have children or be around children, then I would advocate for you to have the right to do that. The reality is that adults, necessarily, have to share their communities with children. Communities, obviously, need children to grow, thrive, and sustain. It is, then, in the interest of societies to advocate policies and norms that are most conducive to positive youth development. Legalized marijuana and other drugs simply doesn't fit in with that model.
This statement confuses me, sorry if you've already been asked this.. but, what do you want to happen to marijuana? I mean, to the plant in general? As long as it exists people are going to want to smoke it whether its legal or not and where there are procreating adults there are always going to be children, so do you advocate complete eradication of the plant altogether? Or.. ???
I advocate NOT making it legal. I don't want anything to happen to it. I just don't want to see it become a legal product.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 22, 2011, 06:54:26 PM
I advocate NOT making it legal. I don't want anything to happen to it. I just don't want to see it become a legal product.
OK, wasn't sure.
Two...more...pages....
:D
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 22, 2011, 05:51:04 PMIt is, then, in the interest of societies to advocate policies and norms that are most conducive to positive youth development. Legalized marijuana and other drugs simply doesn't fit in with that model.
Personally, all of your arguments carry a lot of weight for me on almost every other substance that is currently under Prohibition. The only meaningful difference between heroin and Percoset to an end user is the supply chain (unknown contaminants, vs acetaminophen contaminant), and length of effect (amount needed to sustain the addiction). And these types of drugs are embedded in our medical system, they're not going away even if we totally eradicated the ability of the black-market to make opiates and stimulants.
Things like refined heroin, other opiates, cocaine, meth, and those style of stimulants (not to mention prescription drugs of abuse which fall into the same stimulant categories, like Ritalin, and others) all have very very acute damaging 'harm' effects if abused. They all have very narrow
LD50 levels (meaning high chance of death or serious immediate brain injury from exceeding a specific dose-to-body-weight-ratio). These substances are in Schedule 1 because abuse leads to catastrophic health problems.
I can clearly see that the possible harm from substances like heroin, meth, etc moving into an accepted position in our society would FAR outweigh the harm in Prohibiting them. So I see your point there, there should be policies an norms that focus on harm prevention, and keeping these substances (and Nicotine, Alcohol, and Cannabis) away from children definitely is a good idea.
But I really cannot see the level of possible harm that Cannabis presents as comparable to these other substances. Driving a substance into a black market which has an LD50 level not even reachable by normal human consumption methods, where brain change (reduction or 'downregulation' of CB1 receptors) from use is reversible (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/study-examines-chronic-marijuana-use-affect-on-brain) (details here (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/744324)), where it's ilelgal status is used as a profit motive for violent criminals is not the best way to reduce overall harm to any community.
According to the FBI arrest figures (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr) for 2009, the most recent compiled figures (these are arrests and not prosecutions, although the trend will be obvious), approximately 1,663,582 arrests were made for "Drug Abuse Violations". Yup, 1.6 Million. Of this 1.6 Million, marijuana arrests accounted for (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Crime) 858,408 arrests, or about 51.6 % of all arrests. Of these 99,815 were for 'Trafficking/Sale', and 758,593 were for 'Possession'.
So that's about 45.6% of all drug arrests nationwide for a whole year for Possession (not Sale/Trafficking/Cultivation) of Marijuana. This leads to situations exactly like the woman who was arrested for carrying a SAGE stick. So, that's where I'll have to be convinced, that the proposed harm to the children in a community will outweight the actual harm that is happening right now (to individuals and to our rights as a whole) from it's Prohibition. If you have any links to studies on other long-term effects, either children or adults (as I know you'd probably have more of the child focused material), I'd be happy to read them.
------
Ok, by 'the failure of total prohibition', I mean that if things like the Arizona lawsuit (and the just announced Washington 2012 Legislation that has a former US Attorney as a backer (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/21/here-we-go-washington), and the fact that Miracle Grow is now directly marketing to the Medical Marijuana movement (http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/201106201482/green/eco-news/miracle-gro-targets-cannabis-growers.html))
leads to actual change in the Federal Scheduling, taking Cannabis out of Schedule 1, how do you see your side of the prevention field adjusting the message? If you cannot rely upon the "it's totally illegal to posses and you will be punished, including loss of possible school aid" anymore, due to a change in the Law itself (and then due to the societal approval of use by a portion of the community), how do you see the prevention field responding?
I know you don't advocate that position, but you have to some logistics to deal with the possibility.
:edit:
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 22, 2011, 06:54:26 PM
I advocate NOT making it legal. I don't want anything to happen to it. I just don't want to see it become a legal product.
Ah, this is concrete... so you don't want it's use commercialized, "a product". So you see that as inevitable if possession is decriminalized?
I will be honest and I really don't like the comparative argument. The argument that since marijuana isn't as bad as heroin and cocaine, etc., etc., that it's crazy to make it illegal. Imagine that same argument being made for pesticides, that a certain pesticide should be legal because, well, the health effects for humans isn't as bad as say, DDT. I personally think it is a bit of obfuscation and conflation. I think the effects of marijuana upon youth and society, on its own merits not compared to something else, are to the point that prohibition is warranted.
Further, if you read the work of Hawkins and Catalano you will see that there is extensive evidence that communities that set clear standards and norms for alcohol and other drugs tend to have less issues with youth substance abuse, precisely because those standards and norms are huge protective factors.
I see this firsthand in my own community where through a variety of means it is established, overall, that underage drinking isn't something this community endorses or condones. That is why the vast majority of our kids don't drink. It's why the vast majority of our kids don't do pot. The community norms are there, the school norms are there. If you lift the legal barrier, you go in the other direction. We don't want to go in the other direction with our youth.
Next, when we talk to kids about drug and alcohol use, we don't beat them over the head with, "It's illegal and if you do it you'll go to jail." That isn't part of our message at all. We educate on the consequences as relates to health, brain development, biological development (for example the negative impact it can have on young males and they're anatomy. That tends to be a show stopper.), etc. It certainly is put out there that it is illegal and they are told it is ONE consequence to consider, but it isn't used as this big scary club.
Actually, that talk, about the legal consequences, tends to be shifted more towards the parents. There are a lot of parents out there who have a very permissive attitude when it comes to alcohol and marijuana. I mean, there are parents who will smoke up with their kids. Especially the parents of the "good kids". The ones with the good grades, who are athletes, and looking to move on to college. These are the parents who when their kids get caught violating the law, will try to persuade the police to just drop it. Or when the kid gets caught at school with drugs, they'll ask the principal to not suspend them or write them up. Because they are concerned about the college scholarship, etc. They don't care about the fact that their kid likely has a substance use issue that needs to be addressed, they just don't want their son or daughter's chance to follow in their hallowed footsteps to be dashed. Fucked up priorities.
As for the arrest data, it really isn't all that surprising that a lot of the drug violation arrests are for possession and for marijuana possession. Obviously marijuana is one of the more widespread substances as far as use amongst the population. But that only tells you one part of the story. How many of those caught for possession didn't also have other charges they were arrested for? How many were non-violent? And very important, how many of those actually wind up in jail or prison for any appreciable time? Arrest data alone doesn't really give you that much of a picture.
My problem is simple cost-benefits analysis.
I just don't believe the massive policing-intelligence-paramilitary effort focused on the vast majority of drugs is a sensible investment. I think the treatment end requires more investment, and by freeing up the resources tied up in the "COIN effort on Restricted Narcotics" or whatever pseudonym they're using for the War on Drugs nowadays there would be an overall improvement general crime prevention, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and so on, and money saved at the same time.
The tricky part, however, is that the cartels are increasingly becoming involved in the prescription drug black market. That's diverting legal prescription drugs to dealers AND flooding local markets with counterfeit prescription drugs. And these counterfeits are making it into chain pharmacies like CVS, Walgreens, etc. So this goes beyond impacting just the drug dealer and the drug abuser.
I think we still want the DEA to be pursuing that and shutting those operations down. But these are some of the same cartels involved in the illicit drug trade. So it's a bit messy at this point because of how the cartels have diversified.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 23, 2011, 01:22:42 PMThat is why the vast majority of our kids don't drink. It's why the vast majority of our kids don't do pot.
This really isn't meant to be snarky, but are you talking about just the L/A area or Maine in general? I can't believe that a "vast majority" of kids in eastern Maine don't drink, unless you're tweaking the stats by including everyone under the age of 18 instead of just the age group where drinking is actually a concern (say, 10 years old and up). Do you have any published source for this? And if so, does it break down by county/region/town at all?
The latest data is available at this link: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=101987&an=1
According to this survey data, it is roughly 2 out of 3 kids in Maine that don't drink alcohol. Drinking as in regular use. If you ask the question about lifetime use it is obviously higher at 65% but that captures everything from the binge drinker to the kids who had one beer and that was it. But the measure we tend to go by is the measure of drinking in the past 30 days. That is the State's survey.
The grant that employs me did a survey of the schools in my region, and the number of kids who drank in the past 30 days was much lower. So there is a little fuzziness to the numbers but I would wager that the actual number is somewhere in between, which means either way it is still the majority of kids in Maine, and in my area, that don't drink.
The data is similar for marijuana.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 23, 2011, 06:08:19 PM
The latest data is available at this link: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=101987&an=1
According to this survey data, it is roughly 2 out of 3 kids in Maine that don't drink alcohol. Drinking as in regular use. If you ask the question about lifetime use it is obviously higher at 65% but that captures everything from the binge drinker to the kids who had one beer and that was it. But the measure we tend to go by is the measure of drinking in the past 30 days. That is the State's survey.
The grant that employs me did a survey of the schools in my region, and the number of kids who drank in the past 30 days was much lower. So there is a little fuzziness to the numbers but I would wager that the actual number is somewhere in between, which means either way it is still the majority of kids in Maine, and in my area, that don't drink.
The data is similar for marijuana.
If the data for marijuana usage is similar to that of drinking, why is it a problem?
Because if you take that percentage, and take into account the population of the schools, you are talking about hundreds of kids. Real kids, not robots. I want to see that minority of kids drinking and using drugs get smaller, not bigger.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 23, 2011, 06:08:19 PM
The latest data is available at this link: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=101987&an=1
According to this survey data, it is roughly 2 out of 3 kids in Maine that don't drink alcohol. Drinking as in regular use. If you ask the question about lifetime use it is obviously higher at 65% but that captures everything from the binge drinker to the kids who had one beer and that was it. But the measure we tend to go by is the measure of drinking in the past 30 days. That is the State's survey.
The grant that employs me did a survey of the schools in my region, and the number of kids who drank in the past 30 days was much lower. So there is a little fuzziness to the numbers but I would wager that the actual number is somewhere in between, which means either way it is still the majority of kids in Maine, and in my area, that don't drink.
The data is similar for marijuana.
Cool, thanks! I'm always pleasantly surprised that a state as otherwise backwards as Maine has the best/most useful state government website of any state I've seen. I suppose that if you use the last 30 days as a qualifier and don't include the "kids" who are out of school but not old enough to drink yet it makes more sense.
Of course, kids will ALWAYS lie on surveys (especially those conducted in school), but you can't control for that so there's little point in getting hung up on it.
Actually, the survey instrument they use in the schools is pretty sophisticated and has built-in mechanisms that do a pretty good job of picking up when a student is lying or exaggerating. So the results are pretty accurate. Otherwise you would see huge fluctuations from year to year, which you don't, so the instrument has pretty reliable validity.
RWHN, you got a data system similar to http://www.kidsdata.org/ that we have in CA? This place has been a godsend for those of us using the data for pro-kid leg and the like.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 23, 2011, 01:22:42 PM
I will be honest and I really don't like the comparative argument. The argument that since marijuana isn't as bad as heroin and cocaine, etc., etc., that it's crazy to make it illegal. Imagine that same argument being made for pesticides, that a certain pesticide should be legal because, well, the health effects for humans isn't as bad as say, DDT. I personally think it is a bit of obfuscation and conflation. I think the effects of marijuana upon youth and society, on its own merits not compared to something else, are to the point that prohibition is warranted.
If a pesticide is less bad than a pesticide that is currently in use then the arguement makes perfect sense.
Comparing it to DDT doesn't work, because DDT is forbidden. Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.
Actually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 24, 2011, 03:03:47 AM
Actually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.
Wait, so if weed is legal then people will stop drinking?
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Jenne on June 24, 2011, 12:55:29 AM
RWHN, you got a data system similar to http://www.kidsdata.org/ that we have in CA? This place has been a godsend for those of us using the data for pro-kid leg and the like.
Yeah, we have a report that comes out every year called Kids Count that summarizes all sorts of data concerning youth, youth health, youth development, etc. It's been pretty helpful for grants, reporting, and such.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 24, 2011, 03:03:47 AM
Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.
So? It still has significant harmful impacts on youth. I don't care if it isn't "as bad". Bad is bad in my book when it comes to youth.
QuoteActually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.
You're kidding right? Kids and adults, more and more, are becoming poly-drug users. They don't approach substance use from a linear, rational, and mathematical perspective. A kid that has been using alcohol regularly isn't going to see marijuana becoming legal and say, "Gee, I guess I'll put down the bottle and just smoke weed. It's the same thing."
C'mon. This is the real world we're talking about. A lot of the kids who are smoking marijuana are also drinking, and vice versa. That argument doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 01:32:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 24, 2011, 03:03:47 AM
Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.
So? It still has significant harmful impacts on youth. I don't care if it isn't "as bad". Bad is bad in my book when it comes to youth.
QuoteActually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.
You're kidding right? Kids and adults, more and more, are becoming poly-drug users. They don't approach substance use from a linear, rational, and mathematical perspective. A kid that has been using alcohol regularly isn't going to see marijuana becoming legal and say, "Gee, I guess I'll put down the bottle and just smoke weed. It's the same thing."
C'mon. This is the real world we're talking about. A lot of the kids who are smoking marijuana are also drinking, and vice versa. That argument doesn't make any sense.
Right, I was arguing that a pesticide is a direct replacement, whereas weed may or may not be a replacement. I was bashing your metaphor, not your arguement.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 24, 2011, 03:45:41 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 01:32:03 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 24, 2011, 03:03:47 AM
Comparing it to something that is legal does work and marijuana compares favorably to Alcohol.
So? It still has significant harmful impacts on youth. I don't care if it isn't "as bad". Bad is bad in my book when it comes to youth.
QuoteActually a pesticide would be an even better case for that sort of comparision than a drug, since it is a direct replacement for the more dangerous pesticide while weed may or may not directly replace alcohol use as a recreational drug.
You're kidding right? Kids and adults, more and more, are becoming poly-drug users. They don't approach substance use from a linear, rational, and mathematical perspective. A kid that has been using alcohol regularly isn't going to see marijuana becoming legal and say, "Gee, I guess I'll put down the bottle and just smoke weed. It's the same thing."
C'mon. This is the real world we're talking about. A lot of the kids who are smoking marijuana are also drinking, and vice versa. That argument doesn't make any sense.
Right, I was arguing that a pesticide is a direct replacement, whereas weed may or may not be a replacement. I was bashing your metaphor, not your arguement.
Yeah, but actually all you did was make yourself sound dumb and/or stoned.
also...
FUCK THE FUCK YEAH!!! 50 PAGES BITCHES!!!!
:banana: :jebus: :thumb: :tao&evt: :hanging:
100 or bust!
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 24, 2011, 03:45:41 PM
Right, I was arguing that a pesticide is a direct replacement, whereas weed may or may not be a replacement. I was bashing your metaphor, not your arguement.
Well, no. a pesticide may or may not be a direct replacement given that there are a variety of pesticides on the market with different qualities. Marijuana absolutely would not be a replacement.
The thrust of my point however remains, which is that whether or not marijuana is "as bad" as other drugs or not is immaterial. It still presents a level of bad to users, namely minors, and therefore warrants prohibition on its own merits.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 05:08:50 PM
The thrust of my point however remains, which is that whether or not marijuana is "as bad" as other drugs or not is immaterial. It still presents a level of bad to users, namely minors, and therefore warrants prohibition on its own merits.
You have a good point, but have you considered that, for many minors, unless they have help from someone of age who is okay with the idea of them drinking, alcohol is often more difficult to obtain then marijuana!
Source: http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/380-2009%20Teen%20Survey%20Report.pdf
The reason for this is exactly because it is illegal. I agree that teens and children smoking pot is
bad. But when you outright ban a substance that a large potion of the population clearly wants to use, there goes any chance at regulating said substance and setting age limits on it.
Most drug dealers give a rat's ass how old a customer is, they aren't checkin ID. But unless the minor has help from a parent or older sibling, they can't walk into a liquor store and grab themselves a beer.
Food for thought.
- trix
Also, consider that buying street weed comes with other risks too, as there is nothing in place to assure what the buyer is getting is pure and doesn't have other drugs or chemicals or pocket lint or insects in it that are being smoked as well.
Not to mention, an adult should be free to make his/her own decision on what they wish to consume, especially when the health risks for adults smoking marijuana have been proven less harmful than most other legal diversions. If your problem is with minors obtaining and consuming pot, then legalization seems to be an effective method at allowing laws and regulations to be passed to help keep it out of the hands of our youth.
Also, the gateway drug argument comes in no small part from the fact that, again, marijuana is illegal. Thus, the types that people often have to go to, to obtain some weed, can also help them to get other drugs, or at least point them in the direction. If it were legal, and regulated, and sold at, say, liquor or tobacco stores, even minors that find a way to obtain and experiment, will have far less contact with users of other, more "hardcore" drugs.
- trix
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 06:40:18 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 05:08:50 PM
The thrust of my point however remains, which is that whether or not marijuana is "as bad" as other drugs or not is immaterial. It still presents a level of bad to users, namely minors, and therefore warrants prohibition on its own merits.
You have a good point, but have you considered that, for many minors, unless they have help from someone of age who is okay with the idea of them drinking, alcohol is often more difficult to obtain then marijuana!
Source: http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/380-2009%20Teen%20Survey%20Report.pdf
You maybe were referring to this part of the report?:
QuoteBetween 2007 and 2009 there was a 37 percent increase in the percentage of teens who say marijuana is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs, from 19 percent to 26 percent.
You do realize that if 26 percent are saying it is easier to get than alcohol that means that 74 percent are NOT saying it is easier to get than alcohol. Right?
And alcohol is still very easy for a minor to obtain even given the laws. It has become much more difficult for a minor to just walk in and impersonate a legal adult, and buy the alcohol themselves. That is true. But kids will have plenty of legal-age social access points, where it really isn't that much of a barrier for them.
QuoteThe reason for this is exactly because it is illegal. I agree that teens and children smoking pot is bad. But when you outright ban a substance that a large potion of the population clearly wants to use, there goes any chance at regulating said substance and setting age limits on it.
But age limits won't work because as I mentioned, there are plenty of social access points for minors to get marijuana.
QuoteMost drug dealers give a rat's ass how old a customer is, they aren't checkin ID. But unless the minor has help from a parent or older sibling, they can't walk into a liquor store and grab themselves a beer.
They don't need to, because there are plenty of legal adults who are willing to help them out and buy it for them. Again, social access.
QuoteFood for thought.
At the risk of sounding like a condescending, patronizing prick (a risk I'm willing to take), you should know that I am a professional in the field of substance abuse prevention. I know you are new to the boards so I can't expect you to know that. So I have a pretty good background on access and how kids do or don't get their alcohol and drugs.
Someday we will all agree to disagree on this topic.... :lol:
trix: It would do you good to read all 50 pages of this thread, plus the other threads on the subject. The points you brought up are in no way new.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 06:46:42 PM
Also, consider that buying street weed comes with other risks too, as there is nothing in place to assure what the buyer is getting is pure and doesn't have other drugs or chemicals or pocket lint or insects in it that are being smoked as well.
So? You think legalization is going to end that? If marijuana is legalized that means composition will have to be regulated. When the government regulated marijuana fails to give the end user their bang for their buck they are going to go right back to the cartels who will change their business model to compete with government marijuana. So it is very likely your hardcore marijuana user will still be dealing with the black market and will still be getting product with mystery ingredients.
QuoteNot to mention, an adult should be free to make his/her own decision on what they wish to consume, especially when the health risks for adults smoking marijuana have been proven less harmful than most other legal diversions. If your problem is with minors obtaining and consuming pot, then legalization seems to be an effective method at allowing laws and regulations to be passed to help keep it out of the hands of our youth.
No, it is not. Because it puts more pot in more homes. More homes with kids. More kids with easy access to marijuana. It doesn't take a terribly large leap to figure out that means use amongst minors will go up. Because many minors get their access to pot through social sources. Age limits will do fuck-all about that.
QuoteAlso, the gateway drug argument comes in no small part from the fact that, again, marijuana is illegal. Thus, the types that people often have to go to, to obtain some weed, can also help them to get other drugs, or at least point them in the direction. If it were legal, and regulated, and sold at, say, liquor or tobacco stores, even minors that find a way to obtain and experiment, will have far less contact with users of other, more "hardcore" drugs.
It would still be illegal for minors which means minors would still need to access adults to get the drugs. Which means they are pretty likely to still encounter the types of people who would also know how to access other illicit substances. But more to the point, if and when a child decides they want to experiment with a harder drug, they will find access to it. Particularly when they become an addict. In my experience the larger and more prominent factor in the gateway effect is access. Gateway drugs are those that are easy to get and include legal substances such as prescription drugs and inhalants, and of course alcohol and tobacco. Legalizing marijuana is simply going to create even greater social access to pot.
Quote from: Khara on Hiatus.... on June 24, 2011, 06:57:43 PM
Someday we will all agree to disagree on this topic.... :lol:
Well, this is my wheelhouse, granted I'm on the other side of the wheelhouse compared to Telarus, but I like discussing the topic even if I hold a minority perspective. Of course we'll never agree, but it's fun anyway.
I'm gonna argue in favor of weed, on account of keeping useless stupid people on the couch where they belong.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 06:40:18 PM
You have a good point, but have you considered that, for many minors, unless they have help from someone of age who is okay with the idea of them drinking, alcohol is often more difficult to obtain then marijuana!
Source: http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/articlefiles/380-2009%20Teen%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Just wanted to point out in the source you posted, on page 14. figure 4.E, it shows where kids are most likely to get marijuana.
Did you notice what the top two were?
Friends
School
What was at the bottom?
Drug Dealers
Parents
Yeah, age limits aren't going to even touch that.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on June 24, 2011, 06:59:52 PM
trix: It would do you good to read all 50 pages of this thread, plus the other threads on the subject. The points you brought up are in no way new.
Yeah, being a 50 page topic it does seem as though any point I could think to make has probably been brought up already. Unfortunately, however, I don't really have the time for that exhaustive amount of catching up. At least not today. Which, I suppose, means I should have just STFU until I did have the time, but I had recently read the "easier access to marijuana than alcohol" article on NORML (yeah, I know, biased as all hell) and wanted to hear the other side of that argument. I find myself, when holding an opinion, more often trying to find and read dissent, than agreement. It seems more useful. Anyway I wandered off topic.
To R.W.H.N.: To avoid quoting that entire post for space reasons, I'll just respond generally. Upon reading the survey you are right, it does seem to be lacking in the "marijuana easier to get" data that it has been used as a source for by at least 15 news sources that google has shown me. Unfortunately, I did the dumbass thing of reading the articles, seeing how often it was linked as a source, and assumed ( :argh!: ) that the data must be reflecting that information for it to be used so widely. My mistake.
That said, however, I still strongly believe that as a reasonably intelligent and responsible adult, I should have the freedom to unwind in any manner I deem appropriate, and if the concern is the use by minors, that should be addressed on it's own. Of course, as with most things relating to minors, the biggest issue is the parents.
So while you make good points, and I agree with many of them, in the end, as Khara says, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have children, and telling me my freedom to do what I please should be restricted because other people can't parent their children properly, is something I simply cannot agree with.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:14:01 PM
I'm gonna argue in favor of weed, on account of keeping useless stupid people on the couch where they belong.
Hah, you're just jealous because I have hair.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:30:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:14:01 PM
I'm gonna argue in favor of weed, on account of keeping useless stupid people on the couch where they belong.
Hah, you're just jealous because I have hair.
HAIR JUST GETS IN THE WAY OF MY TESTOSTERONE PROJECTION.
TODAY, I COULD SMELL THE H2D BITCHES PHEROMONES BEGGING ME TO HIT THE TRAMPOLINE TO DISPLAY MY DOMINANCE.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:20:05 PM
That said, however, I still strongly believe that as a reasonably intelligent and responsible adult, I should have the freedom to unwind in any manner I deem appropriate, and if the concern is the use by minors, that should be addressed on it's own. Of course, as with most things relating to minors, the biggest issue is the parents.
Parents play a pivotal role for sure, but there are other factors at play as well. Good parents who are attentive and involved in their child's development can still have kids who get involved with substances. There are factors in the community, there is peer pressure at school, there are mental health factors, there are societal norms at play, etc. It isn't as simple as all of the problems associated with youth substance abuse being linked to bad parenting.
QuoteSo while you make good points, and I agree with many of them, in the end, as Khara says, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have children, and telling me my freedom to do what I please should be restricted because other people can't parent their children properly, is something I simply cannot agree with.
If that was an accurate summary of the youth substance abuse issue I would agree. But it isn't as I described above. Like it or not, youth are part of every community for obvious reasons. A thriving community needs a youth that thrives. As such, I believe it is in the best interest of communities to make those choices regarding policy that creates the best possible environment in which youth can thrive. That does necessitate some limits on the freedoms of adults. I don't see any way around that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:35:41 PM
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:30:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:14:01 PM
I'm gonna argue in favor of weed, on account of keeping useless stupid people on the couch where they belong.
Hah, you're just jealous because I have hair.
HAIR JUST GETS IN THE WAY OF MY TESTOSTERONE PROJECTION.
TODAY, I COULD SMELL THE H2D BITCHES PHEROMONES BEGGING ME TO HIT THE TRAMPOLINE TO DISPLAY MY DOMINANCE.
But but, all the H2D bitches LOVE stroking my hair! Which is why I'm trying to grow it down to my cock.
Wait, YOU HAVE A TRAMPOLINE!? No WONDER you gets all the bitches!
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:41:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:35:41 PM
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:30:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:14:01 PM
I'm gonna argue in favor of weed, on account of keeping useless stupid people on the couch where they belong.
Hah, you're just jealous because I have hair.
HAIR JUST GETS IN THE WAY OF MY TESTOSTERONE PROJECTION.
TODAY, I COULD SMELL THE H2D BITCHES PHEROMONES BEGGING ME TO HIT THE TRAMPOLINE TO DISPLAY MY DOMINANCE.
But but, all the H2D bitches LOVE stroking my hair! Which is why I'm trying to grow it down to my cock.
Wait, YOU HAVE A TRAMPOLINE!? No WONDER you gets all the bitches!
THERE ISNT MUCH YOU CAN DO IF I WANT TO RUN THE BASES AT YOUR SOFTBALL GAME
YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A GAME? DEAL.
I'M FASTER THAN GREASED LIGHTING, TUBBY.
HELMET? WHAT DO YOU THINK THESE MICKEY MOUSE EARS ARE, SON?
JUST MEET ME AT HOME PLATE IN ABOUT ONE MINUTE.
BRING A BAGGY FOR YOUR TEETH, THERE WILL BE A PLAY AT HOME PLATE.
DOK,
TAKES THIS SHIT SERIOUSLY
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 07:39:10 PM
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:20:05 PM
That said, however, I still strongly believe that as a reasonably intelligent and responsible adult, I should have the freedom to unwind in any manner I deem appropriate, and if the concern is the use by minors, that should be addressed on it's own. Of course, as with most things relating to minors, the biggest issue is the parents.
Parents play a pivotal role for sure, but there are other factors at play as well. Good parents who are attentive and involved in their child's development can still have kids who get involved with substances. There are factors in the community, there is peer pressure at school, there are mental health factors, there are societal norms at play, etc. It isn't as simple as all of the problems associated with youth substance abuse being linked to bad parenting.
QuoteSo while you make good points, and I agree with many of them, in the end, as Khara says, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have children, and telling me my freedom to do what I please should be restricted because other people can't parent their children properly, is something I simply cannot agree with.
If that was an accurate summary of the youth substance abuse issue I would agree. But it isn't as I described above. Like it or not, youth are part of every community for obvious reasons. A thriving community needs a youth that thrives. As such, I believe it is in the best interest of communities to make those choices regarding policy that creates the best possible environment in which youth can thrive. That does necessitate some limits on the freedoms of adults. I don't see any way around that.
We could always imprison all kids in cells until they hit 18!
But yeah, you do make some good points. However I still believe properly raising and educating children would mitigate the issue far more effectively than simply banning anything that might harm them. I'm not okay with my freedoms being restricted period, children or no.
In fact, I'd love to go live in a community where children themselves are banned! But I suppose the community would die off after one generation. Ah well.
So do you think speed limits should be eliminated?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 07:55:40 PM
So do you think speed limits should be eliminated?
Yes.
And cars should be armed with .50 machine guns.
But only I should have bullets.
Can't I at least get a grenade launcher?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
Can't I at least get a grenade launcher?
Sorry, I wouldn't trust the American public with anything more dangerous than silly string.
And I'd keep that away from Maine.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:56:32 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 07:55:40 PM
So do you think speed limits should be eliminated?
Yes.
And cars should be armed with .50 machine guns.
But only I should have bullets.
Bwahahahaha!
I see the point of your analogy, of course, and yes there are many situations where certain laws are needed for safety reasons, but if it is
more or less safe for ME to smoke a bowl after work, fuck anyone that tells me I can't.
I think we should bring back woodchips on playgrounds, and replace all the new rounded cornered soft plastic bullshit slides and equipment, and bring back the hard metal rusty hot-as-fuck-in-the-daytime stuff. Kids these days are turning into huge pussies.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:02:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
Can't I at least get a grenade launcher?
Sorry, I wouldn't trust the American public with anything more dangerous than silly string.
And I'd keep that away from Maine.
(http://www.legaljuice.com/silly%20string%20illegal%20law%20parade.jpg)
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 08:07:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:02:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
Can't I at least get a grenade launcher?
Sorry, I wouldn't trust the American public with anything more dangerous than silly string.
And I'd keep that away from Maine.
(http://www.legaljuice.com/silly%20string%20illegal%20law%20parade.jpg)
LAND OF TEH FREE!
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 08:06:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 07:56:32 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 07:55:40 PM
So do you think speed limits should be eliminated?
Yes.
And cars should be armed with .50 machine guns.
But only I should have bullets.
Bwahahahaha!
I see the point of your analogy, of course, and yes there are many situations where certain laws are needed for safety reasons, but if it is
more or less safe for ME to smoke a bowl after work, fuck anyone that tells me I can't.
I think we should bring back woodchips on playgrounds, and replace all the new rounded cornered soft plastic bullshit slides and equipment, and bring back the hard metal rusty hot-as-fuck-in-the-daytime stuff. Kids these days are turning into huge pussies.
They still have woodchips here. Of course this town is in the middle ages in a lot of other respects, so I suppose it isn't surprising that nobody else uses them.
Wait. Wood chips are now unsafe?
When I was a kid, we had steel monkeybars over CONCRETE.
There was a penalty for lack of strength and agility.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:16:38 PM
Wait. Wood chips are now unsafe?
When I was a kid, we had steel monkeybars over CONCRETE.
There was a penalty for lack of strength and agility.
Yes, wood chips became dangerous about the same time they banned dodge ball and red rover from most school systems across the country.
We still have wood chips AND dodge ball AND red rover in Maine.
We also have Paul LePage, so take that for what its worth.
We had steel bars over blacktop. That shit burns chemicals into your lungs after it heats up and gets soft. Your shoes start to sink into it nicely after about 95'F or so.
You hadn't been on the playground unless you got rusty blisters and blackened, bloody knees.
Quote from: Khara on Hiatus.... on June 24, 2011, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:16:38 PM
Wait. Wood chips are now unsafe?
When I was a kid, we had steel monkeybars over CONCRETE.
There was a penalty for lack of strength and agility.
Yes, wood chips became dangerous about the same time they banned dodge ball and red rover from most school systems across the country.
We're fucked when the Visigoths show up.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:16:38 PM
Wait. Wood chips are now unsafe?
When I was a kid, we had steel monkeybars over CONCRETE.
There was a penalty for lack of strength and agility.
Apparently. In Wisconsin at least, they've replaced all wood'n'metal playgrounds with soft plasticky toy equipment and the ground is covered with this blue soft bouncy foam crap, teaching kids that when you jump from the swing while swinging high (which they've also replaced the chains with straight plastic that purposefully stops kids from swinging too high) and hit the ground face first, nothing bad will happen.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:16:38 PM
Wait. Wood chips are now unsafe?
When I was a kid, we had steel monkeybars over CONCRETE.
There was a penalty for lack of strength and agility.
Apparently. In Wisconsin at least, they've replaced all wood'n'metal playgrounds with soft plasticky toy equipment and the ground is covered with this blue soft bouncy foam crap, teaching kids that when you jump from the swing while swinging high (which they've also replaced the chains with straight plastic that purposefully stops kids from swinging too high) and hit the ground face first, nothing bad will happen.
Aww...they're just keeping consistent with the rest of society's myths. You gotta give 'em that.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 08:27:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 24, 2011, 08:16:38 PM
Wait. Wood chips are now unsafe?
When I was a kid, we had steel monkeybars over CONCRETE.
There was a penalty for lack of strength and agility.
Apparently. In Wisconsin at least, they've replaced all wood'n'metal playgrounds with soft plasticky toy equipment and the ground is covered with this blue soft bouncy foam crap, teaching kids that when you jump from the swing while swinging high (which they've also replaced the chains with straight plastic that purposefully stops kids from swinging too high) and hit the ground face first, nothing bad will happen.
What the hell's gonna happen anyway? The kid is gonna plough into a snowdrift, no harm done.
I mean, this is Wisconsin, right? The only risk is getting stepped on by a cow.
Or becoming a union worker.
:thanks:
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 08:32:21 PM
Or becoming a union worker.
:lol:
And cheese curd poisoning.
"Just another sad case of over-cheese".
I've been reading this thread, I think I might have even read the whole darned thing, and I have a few questions. If it was already covered and I missed it, well you all are going to be closer to your 100 page thread.
Parenting is part of the issue, but unless you keep your kids at home in a bubble the parents aren't the only ones influencing kids. Not only that, but in preteen and teen years kids are wired to push limits, rebel, figure out what it means to be independent and make their own decisions and deal with their own fuck ups (unless the parents pad the fuck ups, but that's another topic). It is normal for other factors in their lives to start taking on nearly as much importance as family. If that didn't happen they'd never grow up and leave the house.
Experimenting with drugs and alcohol is often one of the ways kids do this (not saying it's a good idea by any means) and unless the substances literally don't exist someone, somewhere will make them available at some point (unless the parents are using that bubble). I was in Friday Night Live (no drinking, but I remember reading once that kids in the program actually had a higher drinking rate than kids not in it... might be misremembering though), had great grades, did all the clubs, had a strong supportive family and I still experimented with stuff in high school and know lots of other kids who did as well and are not alcoholics or drug addicts. I also know a few that went on to try harder things and ended up fucked up (prison for murder in fact). The people who did go further I really feel would have gone further one way or the other if they had any access to anything. It was just the type of personalities they had.
So, since we can't make substances go away and since we can't wrap our kids in bubbles, wouldn't the most sensible thing be to legalize (at least medically), regulate and pay extra special attention to prevention especially in kids that might be prone to addiction and risky behavior? It just seems to me that the money would go to better use in this scenario instead of going into enforcement and taxes on the product could go to prevention as well. I do know that some of this has been gone over, but that's my two cents after having read all this.
The part that I'm really curious about is opinions on "If marijuana is legalized for medical purposes what makes it any different from all the other prescription drugs that kids aren't supposed to get their hands on (and still do)?"
I mean the proof of it being helpful medically is out there and much stronger and more dangerous substances are prescribed every day. This hits home with me because I have kids and my doctor is discussing writing me a prescription. I also know parents with medical cards.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 06:46:42 PM
Also, consider that buying street weed comes with other risks too, as there is nothing in place to assure what the buyer is getting is pure and doesn't have other drugs or chemicals or pocket lint or insects in it that are being smoked as well.
Not to mention, an adult should be free to make his/her own decision on what they wish to consume, especially when the health risks for adults smoking marijuana have been proven less harmful than most other legal diversions. If your problem is with minors obtaining and consuming pot, then legalization seems to be an effective method at allowing laws and regulations to be passed to help keep it out of the hands of our youth.
Also, the gateway drug argument comes in no small part from the fact that, again, marijuana is illegal. Thus, the types that people often have to go to, to obtain some weed, can also help them to get other drugs, or at least point them in the direction. If it were legal, and regulated, and sold at, say, liquor or tobacco stores, even minors that find a way to obtain and experiment, will have far less contact with users of other, more "hardcore" drugs.
- trix
I was gonna totally ignore you since everything you posted has been said a dozen or more times by a dozen or more posters (which you'd have known if you'd bothered to read the thread before jumping in with both feet firmly in your mouth), but...
JESUS FUCKING FUCK YOU FUCKING NUMB CUNTSACK NOBODY "LACES" WEED OR ADULTERATES IT WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAYBE SOME SUGAR CRYSTALS TO MAKE IT LOOK DANKER AND EVEN THEN ONLY SOME HIGH SCHOOL DIPSHIT WOULD FALL FOR THAT. WEED IS CHEAP BOTH TO PRODUCE AND TO PURCHASE. POT DEALERS PROBABLY WOULDN'T STAY IN BUSINESS LONG IF THEY PUT SHIT IN THEIR WEED THAT MADE IT LESS PROFITABLE FOR THEM, NEVERMIND ALL THE PISSED-OFF CUSTOMERS WHO ONLY WANTED WEED AND NOT SOME COKE OR METH OR WHATEVER OTHER RIDICULOUS THING YOU THINK PEOPLE ACTUALLY PUT IN WEED THEY INTEND TO SELL.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 07:07:14 PM
So? You think legalization is going to end that? If marijuana is legalized that means composition will have to be regulated. When the government regulated marijuana fails to give the end user their bang for their buck they are going to go right back to the cartels who will change their business model to compete with government marijuana. So it is very likely your hardcore marijuana user will still be dealing with the black market and will still be getting product with mystery ingredients.
DOESN'T HAPPEN.
DOESN'T HAPPEN.
DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.
Quote from: trix on June 24, 2011, 07:20:05 PMtelling me my freedom to do what I please should be restricted because other people can't parent their children properly, is something I simply cannot agree with.
OK, you're reedeemed. This is really the only thing that ever needed to be said ITT.
Quote from: Wyldkat on June 24, 2011, 11:17:46 PM
TL;DR
As it turns out, we STILL don't give a shit about anything you think or anything you have to say until you stand up on two legs and resign from TCC.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 24, 2011, 11:50:43 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 24, 2011, 07:07:14 PM
So? You think legalization is going to end that? If marijuana is legalized that means composition will have to be regulated. When the government regulated marijuana fails to give the end user their bang for their buck they are going to go right back to the cartels who will change their business model to compete with government marijuana. So it is very likely your hardcore marijuana user will still be dealing with the black market and will still be getting product with mystery ingredients.
DOESN'T HAPPEN.
DOESN'T HAPPEN.
DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.
Sure it does. The DEA has seized marijuana joints that are laced with PCP.
Yeah, because the person whose joints they were WANTED to smoke some PCP with their weed. Or because they had a market of willing customers who WANTED PCP in their weed. Nobody sells laced weed to people who don't want it, unless maybe it's a form of revenge for being ripped off by that person or something like that.
Also, I don't know how many DEA field agents you've ever known, but every single one I've ever known has been just as big a scumbag as the dealers they pretend to go after. Wouldn't put it past them at all to plant shit like that every once in a while to justify their tactics and/or budget. Obviously, that's strictly conjecture and not meant to be a rational point of debate.
And it looks like there's a decent chance we'll get to put your theories to the test, RWHN:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/legalize-it/Content?oid=8743947
If this passes in November, it will be legal under Washington State law for adults over the age of 21 to buy up to an ounce of pot in state-run stores for recreational purposes. We'll see if it turns Seattle into a scene from The Warriors or not.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 24, 2011, 11:57:29 PM
Quote from: Wyldkat on June 24, 2011, 11:17:46 PM
TL;DR
As it turns out, we STILL don't give a shit about anything you think or anything you have to say until you stand up on two legs and resign from TCC.
She did that already.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 25, 2011, 01:01:51 AM
And it looks like there's a decent chance we'll get to put your theories to the test, RWHN:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/legalize-it/Content?oid=8743947
If this passes in November, it will be legal under Washington State law for adults over the age of 21 to buy up to an ounce of pot in state-run stores for recreational purposes. We'll see if it turns Seattle into a scene from The Warriors or not.
I wonder how they will test for this:
QuoteMeanwhile, it would establish penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana....
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I think it's high time the states changed their laws.
(But wouldn't the federal law put a kink in the state's law) - Not that it is stopping anyone currently from producing and distributing in the states that it is currently legal in.
Anyway-back to my train of thought, how in the hell would anyone be able to establish the fact that someone was driving under the influence of pot?
Quote from: maphdet on June 25, 2011, 01:22:30 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 25, 2011, 01:01:51 AM
And it looks like there's a decent chance we'll get to put your theories to the test, RWHN:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/legalize-it/Content?oid=8743947
If this passes in November, it will be legal under Washington State law for adults over the age of 21 to buy up to an ounce of pot in state-run stores for recreational purposes. We'll see if it turns Seattle into a scene from The Warriors or not.
I wonder how they will test for this:
QuoteMeanwhile, it would establish penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana....
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I think it's high time the states changed their laws.
(But wouldn't the federal law put a kink in the state's law) - Not that it is stopping anyone currently from producing and distributing in the states that it is currently legal in.
Anyway-back to my train of thought, how in the hell would anyone be able to establish the fact that someone was driving under the influence of pot?
co-ordinations tests I expect. Driving under the influence of pot is already a crime that some people get busted for.
As I read the article, it will be done with a blood test. Says they've already established a THC level that is the impairment equivalent of .08 BAC.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 25, 2011, 01:07:20 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 24, 2011, 11:57:29 PM
Quote from: Wyldkat on June 24, 2011, 11:17:46 PM
TL;DR
As it turns out, we STILL don't give a shit about anything you think or anything you have to say until you stand up on two legs and resign from TCC.
She did that already.
Hmm. And I
still don't give a shit about anything she has to say. Now what?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 25, 2011, 01:30:29 AM
Quote from: maphdet on June 25, 2011, 01:22:30 AM
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 25, 2011, 01:01:51 AM
And it looks like there's a decent chance we'll get to put your theories to the test, RWHN:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/legalize-it/Content?oid=8743947
If this passes in November, it will be legal under Washington State law for adults over the age of 21 to buy up to an ounce of pot in state-run stores for recreational purposes. We'll see if it turns Seattle into a scene from The Warriors or not.
I wonder how they will test for this:
QuoteMeanwhile, it would establish penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana....
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I think it's high time the states changed their laws.
(But wouldn't the federal law put a kink in the state's law) - Not that it is stopping anyone currently from producing and distributing in the states that it is currently legal in.
Anyway-back to my train of thought, how in the hell would anyone be able to establish the fact that someone was driving under the influence of pot?
co-ordinations tests I expect. Driving under the influence of pot is already a crime that some people get busted for.
Yeah-But in all honesty, unless someone is smoking in the car or has any pot on them or in the car, i just do not understand how this would be enforced-effectively.
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on June 25, 2011, 01:40:37 AM
As I read the article, it will be done with a blood test. Says they've already established a THC level that is the impairment equivalent of .08 BAC.
Well-shit-I should read the whole fucking article before posting eh.
:::edit::: to say-never mind-carry on.
In Seattle, it probably won't be enforced at all unless someone is already pulled over for driving like an asshole. They've already got a city ordinance that designates marijuana posession, consumption, and small-time transfer (i.e. you won't get busted for selling if you bought an ounce and sold your buddy half of it) as the absolute lowest priority crime for enforcement. By law, inside the city limits of Seattle, if a cop sees you smoking a joint on the sidewalk and sees somebody jaywalking down on the corner, he's required to go fuck with the jaywalker before he fucks with you. I am not sure about this, but I believe that school-zone related penalties supersede that ordinance (meaning that if you smoke a joint across the street from the middle school you're still getting busted for being a shitneck).
(edited to remove accidental quote)
As far as the rest of the state, the eastside and northend suburbs will probably end up in a sort of "at the cop's discretion" mode, the southend, Eastern Washington, and the rural parts of Western Washington will probably enforce it as stringently as they do drunk driving laws if not more stringently, and Bellingham, Olympia, and Vancouver will probably end up more or less like Seattle.
Vancouver will probably turn into some sort of bizzaro-version of Vancouver BC, because it's in the Portland metro area and also will be the closest place to buy legal weed for anyone headed north on I-5 from Cailfornia.
Also, watching this all the way until November (and possibly after) pretty much guarantees that this thread will reach
100 PAGES
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 01:57:08 AM
Also, watching this all the way until November (and possibly after) pretty much guarantees that this thread will reach
100 PAGES
Yes it does. Maybe even sooner than November.
=)
Lacing doesn't happen? I've SEEN IT happen. In fact, a few years ago there was all this hoopla in Milwaukee because some drug dealers laced a bunch of crack with weed they sold to high school kids, to get them addicted and coming back for more. I don't know if the addiction worked or not but a few kids were seriously hurt from over-smoking the shit and having heart problems.
Personally, I've never had my shit laced. But I'm no high school kid, and I buy from friends, not some random Rasta in the park. But it DOES happen, however rare.
- trix
EDIT: Typed too quickly, fixed.
Although, to be fair, that combo seems to be popular among certain types in Milwaukee, they call the laced joints "fry daddies" and they grind up the rock and roll it into the J, usually charging much more for a fry daddy.
So it might just be a local thing.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 01:00:09 AM
Yeah, because the person whose joints they were WANTED to smoke some PCP with their weed. Or because they had a market of willing customers who WANTED PCP in their weed. Nobody sells laced weed to people who don't want it, unless maybe it's a form of revenge for being ripped off by that person or something like that.
Also, I don't know how many DEA field agents you've ever known, but every single one I've ever known has been just as big a scumbag as the dealers they pretend to go after. Wouldn't put it past them at all to plant shit like that every once in a while to justify their tactics and/or budget. Obviously, that's strictly conjecture and not meant to be a rational point of debate.
Bottom line is that it does happen and it is the case that sometimes people don't 100% know what they're buying, whether the dealer deceives them, or simply doesn't know 100% what they are selling. Of course, since it is a black market product, there is no way to know how widespread it is or how often it occurs but it does occur.
And I work very closely with a person in the DEA somewhat high on the food chain. He's one of the nicest guys I've ever met and had the pleasure to work with. I mean, the other thing to consider, why motivation does the DEA have to lie to those working along with them? I mean, I could see the conspiracy theory that they are lying to the public so they can keep on doing what they're doing. But they have absolutely NO incentive to lie to me.
I'm sorry but if your dumb enough to buy from someone that you do not know then....
When I was a kid and still smoked- :-) Even when I was in high school-I knew better than to buy shit from people I did not know.
I'm sure the the lacing does happen at some levels-but it happens to people who really have no business smoking or whatnot AND being dumb.
Just saying is all.
Quote from: trix on June 25, 2011, 05:54:41 AM
Lacing doesn't happen? I've SEEN IT happen. In fact, a few years ago there was all this hoopla in Milwaukee because some drug dealers laced a bunch of crack with weed they sold to high school kids, to get them addicted and coming back for more. I don't know if the addiction worked or not but a few kids were seriously hurt from over-smoking the shit and having heart problems.
Personally, I've never had my shit laced. But I'm no high school kid, and I buy from friends, not some random Rasta in the park. But it DOES happen, however rare.
- trix
EDIT: Typed too quickly, fixed.
"All this hoopla", huh?
:lulz:
Dude, first of all you don't get addicted to crack by accidentally taking one hit with your weed.
Second of all, you wouldn't even BE smoking crack since you wouldn't be getting it hot enough to vaporize with just one bic lighter.
Try knowing what the fuck you're talking about before you weigh in.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 25, 2011, 11:28:52 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 01:00:09 AM
Yeah, because the person whose joints they were WANTED to smoke some PCP with their weed. Or because they had a market of willing customers who WANTED PCP in their weed. Nobody sells laced weed to people who don't want it, unless maybe it's a form of revenge for being ripped off by that person or something like that.
Also, I don't know how many DEA field agents you've ever known, but every single one I've ever known has been just as big a scumbag as the dealers they pretend to go after. Wouldn't put it past them at all to plant shit like that every once in a while to justify their tactics and/or budget. Obviously, that's strictly conjecture and not meant to be a rational point of debate.
Bottom line is that it does happen and it is the case that sometimes people don't 100% know what they're buying, whether the dealer deceives them, or simply doesn't know 100% what they are selling. Of course, since it is a black market product, there is no way to know how widespread it is or how often it occurs but it does occur.
And I work very closely with a person in the DEA somewhat high on the food chain. He's one of the nicest guys I've ever met and had the pleasure to work with. I mean, the other thing to consider, why motivation does the DEA have to lie to those working along with them? I mean, I could see the conspiracy theory that they are lying to the public so they can keep on doing what they're doing. But they have absolutely NO incentive to lie to me.
You missed the part where I specified that I was talking about field agents.
You know, the ones who are providing your desk jockey nice guy with his "information".
You also missed the point where I specified that my observations about DEA field agents (and believe me, they are extensive observations) were never meant to be a point of debate, just an observational aside.
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Eh, I think I have a clue, even though I'm pretty naive about a lot of things. My ex was a heroin junkie so I picked up a lot from him, and I know a few growers and dealers so the shit rubs off.
One thing that a bunch of these fucksticks are missing is that there's a huge difference between people combining drugs in a joint (I have friends who grow their own opium and will put some sticky in a joint, people put all kinds of things in when they're rolling for their own consumption) and people lacing pot to sell.
And Trix just believes everything she sees on the local news, which is lulzy in itself.
Seriously, people care like coffee snobs about how pure/well cured/dank their marijuana is. They fucking buy it BY THE STRAIN. "I'll have a half of the Cheese and a half of the Blue". They want to sample it before they choose. Prices are so low that people compete to produce/offer the very best pot money can buy. Adding crack to marijuana (I am laughing at this, it's such a stupid thing to believe for a WIDE VARIETY of reasons) is as stupid as adding Mountain Dew to coffee. Buyers are picky bitches. Sellers know their growers personally. People do not fuck with their product quality with pot. With meth, yes. With pot, no.
In addition, if you just pretended none of the above was true, adding a secondary drug to marijuana is an expensive proposition, and it would be a fool's errand to do it and then not sell it as a value-added product. However, people don't want a value-added product; they want the freedom of choice to mix their own if so desired.
Lastly, FUCKING HELL TRIX, there are so many reasons the "they put crack in the marijuana" story is TOTALLY RETARDED that I can't even start, even beginning from a purely practical standpoint... I can't believe anyone believes that.
:lulz:
Fuck.
I try to mostly avoid this thread because of the rampant naivete and outright stupidity it contains, but I got sucked in. Shit.
Quote from: Your Mom on June 25, 2011, 04:59:19 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Eh, I think I have a clue, even though I'm pretty naive about a lot of things. My ex was a heroin junkie so I picked up a lot from him, and I know a few growers and dealers so the shit rubs off.
One thing that a bunch of these fucksticks are missing is that there's a huge difference between people combining drugs in a joint (I have friends who grow their own opium and will put some sticky in a joint, people put all kinds of things in when they're rolling for their own consumption) and people lacing pot to sell.
And Trix just believes everything she sees on the local news, which is lulzy in itself.
SO MUCH THIS.
And yeah, I know that there are plenty of people here who are passingly (or more) familiar with the black market and/or the drug business, but I'm guessing I'm the only one here who qualifies as an "expert".
:lulz:
Statute of limitations have all expired, so I don't give much of a shit who knows that.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:10:43 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 25, 2011, 11:28:52 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 01:00:09 AM
Yeah, because the person whose joints they were WANTED to smoke some PCP with their weed. Or because they had a market of willing customers who WANTED PCP in their weed. Nobody sells laced weed to people who don't want it, unless maybe it's a form of revenge for being ripped off by that person or something like that.
Also, I don't know how many DEA field agents you've ever known, but every single one I've ever known has been just as big a scumbag as the dealers they pretend to go after. Wouldn't put it past them at all to plant shit like that every once in a while to justify their tactics and/or budget. Obviously, that's strictly conjecture and not meant to be a rational point of debate.
Bottom line is that it does happen and it is the case that sometimes people don't 100% know what they're buying, whether the dealer deceives them, or simply doesn't know 100% what they are selling. Of course, since it is a black market product, there is no way to know how widespread it is or how often it occurs but it does occur.
And I work very closely with a person in the DEA somewhat high on the food chain. He's one of the nicest guys I've ever met and had the pleasure to work with. I mean, the other thing to consider, why motivation does the DEA have to lie to those working along with them? I mean, I could see the conspiracy theory that they are lying to the public so they can keep on doing what they're doing. But they have absolutely NO incentive to lie to me.
You missed the part where I specified that I was talking about field agents.
You know, the ones who are providing your desk jockey nice guy with his "information".
He is a field agent. A leader of field agents, but a field agent nonetheless. And he would love to be a "desk jockey" and be out of the field completely. But he isn't yet.
QuoteYou also missed the point where I specified that my observations about DEA field agents (and believe me, they are extensive observations) were never meant to be a point of debate, just an observational aside.
I didn't miss it at all. But if you're going to post it, I'm going to debate it.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Your feeling would be inaccurate.
Really?
How many times have you bought dope on the street?
How many times have you bought it from a mid-level dealer?
How many times have you bought it right from the source?
How many times have you smuggled it across an international border?
What is the estimated dollar value of the largest deal you have ever been part of as either a buyer, seller, or middleman?
Say what you want, but if the answer to these questions is "zero" then you're missing a rather critical perspective on the reality of your field of interest.
God fucking dammit just let this thread full of fascist prohibitionist bullshit die, I'm tired of seeing it show up in my "new posts" feed.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 25, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Your feeling would be inaccurate.
:lulz: Oh come on, RWHN. You are probably the least credible authority here on the reality of drug trading other than Trix. You mostly regurgitate Department Approved™ propaganda, most of which appears to have been written by Nancy Reagan.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on June 25, 2011, 10:26:54 PM
God fucking dammit just let this thread full of fascist prohibitionist bullshit die, I'm tired of seeing it show up in my "new posts" feed.
1. I like this thread. its full of perspective I would not have otherwise come across.
2. The word fascist in this context makes me shit my molars.
3. Please to note the numerous requests ITT to let this thread die. Note the page count.
Yeah, as much as we enjoy going at each other ITT, there's still an underlying respect between the people having the majority of the debate. Calling it "fascist prohibitionist bullshit" just shows your lack of nuance.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 10:12:14 PM
Really?
How many times have you bought dope on the street?
How many times have you bought it from a mid-level dealer?
How many times have you bought it right from the source?
How many times have you smuggled it across an international border?
What is the estimated dollar value of the largest deal you have ever been part of as either a buyer, seller, or middleman?
Say what you want, but if the answer to these questions is "zero" then you're missing a rather critical perspective on the reality of your field of interest.
Not really, especially given that I have the luxury of having that kind of information from the many, many drug dealers and buyers that have encountered the local, state, and federal law enforcement officials I've worked with. So I rather think I'm likely to have a broader prespecive in that area compared to a single person who has had singular experience.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 25, 2011, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 25, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Your feeling would be inaccurate.
:lulz: Oh come on, RWHN. You are probably the least credible authority here on the reality of drug trading other than Trix. You mostly regurgitate Department Approved™ propaganda, most of which appears to have been written by Nancy Reagan.
Did you get this right out of the Dick Armey playbook? When you can't debate someone on substance, just attack them with lazy, misinformed generalities. I have to tell you that is a mighty crushing blow to my credibility! :lulz:
I actually did want to know what RWHN would say about my question, but it either got ignored or missed. If you ignored it, fine, but if you missed it I can bump it for you. Thanks.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 01:37:39 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 10:12:14 PM
Really?
How many times have you bought dope on the street?
How many times have you bought it from a mid-level dealer?
How many times have you bought it right from the source?
How many times have you smuggled it across an international border?
What is the estimated dollar value of the largest deal you have ever been part of as either a buyer, seller, or middleman?
Say what you want, but if the answer to these questions is "zero" then you're missing a rather critical perspective on the reality of your field of interest.
Not really, especially given that I have the luxury of having that kind of information from the many, many drug dealers and buyers that have encountered the local, state, and federal law enforcement officials I've worked with. So I rather think I'm likely to have a broader prespecive in that area compared to a single person who has had singular experience.
Are you friggin' serious? :lulz:
I'm sure the 3rd-hand information you have from the dealers via the cops is 100% guaranteed no-bullshit accurate. Lord knows nobody I know has ever lied to a cop.
Your argument is akin to a sportswriter saying that since he knows a whole lot on paper about a whole lot of basketball players he could beat Kobe bryant in a game of one-on-one.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 01:39:09 AM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 25, 2011, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 25, 2011, 09:06:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 25, 2011, 04:12:04 PM
I sometimes get the feeling that I might be the only person here who ACTUALLY has a fucking clue how the black market for drugs really works.
Your feeling would be inaccurate.
:lulz: Oh come on, RWHN. You are probably the least credible authority here on the reality of drug trading other than Trix. You mostly regurgitate Department Approved™ propaganda, most of which appears to have been written by Nancy Reagan.
Did you get this right out of the Dick Armey playbook? When you can't debate someone on substance, just attack them with lazy, misinformed generalities. I have to tell you that is a mighty crushing blow to my credibility! :lulz:
I'm sorry, but that is exactly how I see you on this subject, and that's one of the reasons I try not to engage with you on it.
It only makes it obvious that you don't actually read anything I post with any kind of detail or attention. I mean if you can't, you can't but do you really have to go with the lazy cop-out?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 02:36:38 AM
I'm sure the 3rd-hand information you have from the dealers via the cops is 100% guaranteed no-bullshit accurate. Lord knows nobody I know has ever lied to a cop.
It's like in any other area of law enforcement when you gather data and intel from criminals. Obviously they will lie but there are also those who will sing for a deal. Either way, whether you care to admit it or recognize it or not, the truth is that there is quite a bit of information on the drug trade that is amassed through the various operations and investigations.
Besides, if you think the black market is the same black market you were in when you bought some drugs from some guy, how many years ago, you're kidding yourself. It has evolved quite a bit since those times. A prime example being as I explained before how the cartels have become heavily involved in the diversion of Prescription drugs as well as the counterfeit pharmaceuticals. While they continue to push and try to breach the Northern New England market with meth as they have done pretty much throughout the rest of the country.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 03:06:27 AM
It only makes it obvious that you don't actually read anything I post with any kind of detail or attention. I mean if you can't, you can't but do you really have to go with the lazy cop-out?
Actually, I do. Or at least I did in the beginning... I don't waste my time with religion anymore.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 10:26:00 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 02:36:38 AM
I'm sure the 3rd-hand information you have from the dealers via the cops is 100% guaranteed no-bullshit accurate. Lord knows nobody I know has ever lied to a cop.
It's like in any other area of law enforcement when you gather data and intel from criminals. Obviously they will lie but there are also those who will sing for a deal. Either way, whether you care to admit it or recognize it or not, the truth is that there is quite a bit of information on the drug trade that is amassed through the various operations and investigations.
Besides, if you think the black market is the same black market you were in when you bought some drugs from some guy, how many years ago, you're kidding yourself. It has evolved quite a bit since those times. A prime example being as I explained before how the cartels have become heavily involved in the diversion of Prescription drugs as well as the counterfeit pharmaceuticals. While they continue to push and try to breach the Northern New England market with meth as they have done pretty much throughout the rest of the country.
"that time I bought some drugs from some guy" :lulz:
Dude, I come from a line of smugglers that goes back to the Revolutionary War (and yes, I'm proud of that). Have you ever read the book "Reefer Men"? It's mostly about my dad and his buddies. If you haven't you really should as it's an excellent read and quite informative regardless of your perspective on the subject matter.
Point is, I've been involved in the black market for most of my life and at almost every level from selling bags at the high school bus stop before school to growing hundreds of pounds hydroponically in a warehouse to being the distributor for most of the lab-quality crystal the Yak's started bringing into Seattle in the mid 90's to smuggling 30,000 E-bombs from the lab in Ensenada to the buyer in Anaheim.
Now, I don't go around claiming to have 100% of the available perspective on the drug trade. Why? Because I've never worked as a cop or a substance abuse counselor or anything like that. I'm missing the experience that would allow me to understand that aspect of things in intimate detail. That's why I value your input on the subject - you have that perspective and since I'm interested in knowing more about things than I do now, I want to learn from your perspective.
You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.
I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.
So, is the whole "adulterated drugs" argument for or against legalization?
I can never remember. :?
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 26, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 03:06:27 AM
It only makes it obvious that you don't actually read anything I post with any kind of detail or attention. I mean if you can't, you can't but do you really have to go with the lazy cop-out?
Actually, I do. Or at least I did in the beginning... I don't waste my time with religion anymore.
Another cop out. I mean, if you think my arguments are that bad, misinformed, whatever, you should be able to easily take me to town. I mean really, put up or shut up.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 26, 2011, 08:53:45 PM
So, is the whole "adulterated drugs" argument for or against legalization?
I can never remember. :?
From my perspective it's neither. Just an interesting aside.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 05:18:55 PM
You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.
I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.
I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention. When I lack information on a partiular angle, I seek it out. Whether it is my contacts at the DEA or the State Office of Substance Abuse, interviewing people in jail, reading the latest peer-reviewed research, consulting with my mentors and learned professionals in the field, etc. etc.,
Pardon my brag, but I'm a pretty smart and intelligent fellow. I have a Masters Degree in Public POlicy, I'm an NIH certified researcher, I have published research, I've created 5-year plans that have demonstrably reduced substance abuse, I have a pretty good name recognition and reputation in the state. I'll put all that up as pretty ample evidence that I know what the fuck I am doing. Experience can easily be supplimented with information, if you know how to research and know what you are doing.
But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap.
Quote from: Laughin Jude on June 25, 2011, 10:26:54 PM
God fucking dammit just let this thread full of fascist prohibitionist bullshit die, I'm tired of seeing it show up in my "new posts" feed.
It's a debate that is going to keep on happening, probably indefinitely. Having it in this thread keeps it from spilling over everywhere.
If RWHN alone makes you feel the thread is filled with prohibitionist sentiment then I have to say he's done an impressive job, since he is the lone voice for prohibition arguing against a crowd in favor of legalization.
Also, this being a democratic nation, if we want legalization to happen we have to convince people that i8t is the right way for the country )or at least for our individual states) I don't think anyone is going to convince RWHN of this, but seeing his arguements lets us realize the sort of thoughts people we debate with have, and lets us address those thoughts.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:06:45 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 26, 2011, 03:27:22 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 03:06:27 AM
It only makes it obvious that you don't actually read anything I post with any kind of detail or attention. I mean if you can't, you can't but do you really have to go with the lazy cop-out?
Actually, I do. Or at least I did in the beginning... I don't waste my time with religion anymore.
Another cop out. I mean, if you think my arguments are that bad, misinformed, whatever, you should be able to easily take me to town. I mean really, put up or shut up.
It's a religion with you, and it just goes in circles. Plus, when I (or anyone) have called you out on bad information in the past, and provided credible sources, you've simply resorted to a hissy fit. It's a no-win, non-productive conversation; that's why I generally avoid it now. But I got sucked into this completely retarded thread by the absolutely laughable "pot could might be laced with harder stuffs!" claim.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap.
Yes, the fact that ECH doesn't have kids negates his experience with the black market in drugs, and thereby proves that marijuana is frequently laced with crack.
Excellent argument!
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 26, 2011, 10:13:40 PM
It's a religion with you
Prove it.
QuotePlus, when I (or anyone) have called you out on bad information in the past, and provided credible sources, you've simply resorted to a hissy fit.
Prove it. Post some evidence of this. Put up or shut up.
I do go toe to toe with anyone who decides they are going to insult me instead of debate me, but I think pretty much everyone else in this thread would attest that when I'm presented with an argument, I counter it with counter evidence.
QuoteIt's a no-win, non-productive conversation; that's why I generally avoid it now. But I got sucked into this completely retarded thread by the absolutely laughable "pot could might be laced with harder stuffs!" claim.
And this just goes to show how much you aren't paying attention. It does happen, whether it is widespread or not. But if you actually paid attention to anything I posted you would know it has never been central to my argument against legalization. But you don't pay attention. Which is why you must resuort to lazy ad hominem attacks.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 26, 2011, 10:16:29 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap.
Yes, the fact that ECH doesn't have kids negates his experience with the black market in drugs, and thereby proves that marijuana is frequently laced with crack.
Excellent argument!
Must I lead you to the water? I would think it is obvious to anyone who pays more than 2 seconds thinking about it that my comment was aimed to show how futile the experiential argument is. The argument being that since I've not dealt drugs I can't understand the black market. Well, then since ECH has no experience as a parent he obviously cannot understand legalization as relates to youth substance abuse.
I happen to think the experiential argument is bullshit which was why I posted what I posted.
I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism. It's another hallow and lazy argument. I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:12:02 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 05:18:55 PM
You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.
I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.
I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention.
As you should, since it's not at all what I was saying nor am I even certain how you managed to interpret it like that. but just because you're already effective (and more than plenty smart) doesn't mean you couldn't be even MORE effective, and balancing out the official information with some "reality of the streets" might help and certainly can't hurt. I mean, you don't have to USE the information you acquire from unofficial channels but I can't see the point in being blind to it or willfully ignoring it in favor of data that fits your preconceptions, which is what you SEEM to be doing now.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap.
No argument at all. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I was missing a big part of the overall perspective as well? And that that's why I enjoy having this debate with someone (you) who has credible academic AND experiential perspective on those areas?
Sometimes I don't think you actually read my posts before you formulate your response.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 11:29:58 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:12:02 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 05:18:55 PM
You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.
I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.
I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention.
As you should, since it's not at all what I was saying nor am I even certain how you managed to interpret it like that. but just because you're already effective (and more than plenty smart) doesn't mean you couldn't be even MORE effective, and balancing out the official information with some "reality of the streets" might help and certainly can't hurt. I mean, you don't have to USE the information you acquire from unofficial channels but I can't see the point in being blind to it or willfully ignoring it in favor of data that fits your preconceptions, which is what you SEEM to be doing now.
I've already explained this. I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement. How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations? Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them? No, they have informants, intelligence, etc. And I can get access to that information through those channels. I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 11:31:57 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:45:56 PM
But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap.
No argument at all. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I was missing a big part of the overall perspective as well? And that that's why I enjoy having this debate with someone (you) who has credible academic AND experiential perspective on those areas?
Sometimes I don't think you actually read my posts before you formulate your response.
Well that post was in response to your experiential premise, not a particular post. And it was intended to demonstrate the futility of the experiential argument. So can't we just go back to debating the actual substance of the issue instead of figuring out who's drug-peen is bigger than the other?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 11:44:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 11:29:58 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 09:12:02 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 26, 2011, 05:18:55 PM
You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.
I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.
I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention.
As you should, since it's not at all what I was saying nor am I even certain how you managed to interpret it like that. but just because you're already effective (and more than plenty smart) doesn't mean you couldn't be even MORE effective, and balancing out the official information with some "reality of the streets" might help and certainly can't hurt. I mean, you don't have to USE the information you acquire from unofficial channels but I can't see the point in being blind to it or willfully ignoring it in favor of data that fits your preconceptions, which is what you SEEM to be doing now.
I've already explained this. I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement. How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations? Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them? No, they have informants, intelligence, etc. And I can get access to that information through those channels. I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information.
And I'm trying to explain to you that due to the nature of the subject matter, your information in that particular aspect of things is not as reliable as mine and probably never will be. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept, especially given that I'm hoping you use whatever information you glean from me to be more effective in your field.
It's like you're putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I ALREADY READ A BOOK ABOUT THAT AND ATTENDED A LECTURE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR INPUT FROM ANYONE WHO HAS MEANINGFUL AND EXTENSIVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE IN THIS BECAUSE THAT CAN'T POSSIBLE BE AS GOOD."
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 10:34:05 PM
I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism. It's another hallow and lazy argument. I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.
When you repeatedly do things like:
• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children
• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"
• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient
• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture
• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana
• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")
• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"
people will think you're wrong.
:horrormirth:
Rampant assumptions about how much credibility I lack, knowing practically nothing about me, is above you, Nigel. Your Ex was a ex-heroin junkie? Whoopdie fuckin doo.
*
Just because some shit goes some way in your area does not make your experience true everywhere. And it's a bit ridiculous that I have to point that out.
Quote from: trix on June 27, 2011, 02:40:19 AM
(edited at Trix's request since BH will never be here to edit it himself, thank fucking Christ for small favors)
You do realize that your IP is being logged, and that unlike ECH your statute of limitation has NOT passed?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 02:42:05 AM
Quote from: trix on June 27, 2011, 02:40:19 AM
:horrormirth:
Rampant assumptions about how much credibility I lack, knowing practically nothing about me, is above you, Nigel. Your Ex was a ex-heroin junkie? Whoopdie fuckin doo.
*
Just because some shit goes some way in your area does not make your experience true everywhere. And it's a bit ridiculous that I have to point that out.
You do realize that your IP is being logged, and that unlike ECH your statute of limitation has NOT passed?
My internet usage is via McDonalds wifi, so go ahead, make my day. Make sure to hang out at McD's looking for a guy that looks like that blurry 10 year old photo in my avatar. You'll be waiting a long time...
I think he was just pointing it out for your benefit in case it hadn't occurred to you how dumb it is to talk about that shit when you're still involved in it.
Also, anyone who smokes these "fry daddies" is retarded. Not just because they're smoking crack with weed (what's the fuckin' point of that, even?) but because the temperature at which a joint smolders is not going to be hot enough to vaporize most of the crack, so they're essentially wasting at least 50% of the rock they put in there.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 03:19:14 AM
I think he was just pointing it out for your benefit in case it hadn't occurred to you how dumb it is to talk about that shit when you're still involved in it.
Also, anyone who smokes these "fry daddies" is retarded. Not just because they're smoking crack with weed (what's the fuckin' point of that, even?) but because the temperature at which a joint smolders is not going to be hot enough to vaporize most of the crack, so they're essentially wasting at least 50% of the rock they put in there.
I agree that it's retarded, most of the ghetto shwag loving gangbangers into that shit aren't very intelligent. But it does happen.
I've wondered if maybe some acid, at some point, somewhere, did have some strychnine in it because some idiot with a vial and some blotter paper heard that you have to use it to get the LSD to stick to the paper, or whatever reason it was that people said acid had strychnine in it.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 27, 2011, 05:38:16 AM
I've wondered if maybe some acid, at some point, somewhere, did have some strychnine in it because some idiot with a vial and some blotter paper heard that you have to use it to get the LSD to stick to the paper, or whatever reason it was that people said acid had strychnine in it.
As far as I understand it, when making blotter Acid, a small amount of strychnine keeps the liquid Acid stable and increases it's shelf life. But the amounts are negligible. Acid on gelatin sheets didn't need to have any strychnine. The worst effect from it anyway was the occasional stomach cramp, but if you were peaking on a 500 mike trip, and you got a cramp, it's easy enough to convince yourself you are slowly dying from strychnine poisoning, when in fact, you are not. Hilarious.
Quote from: trix on June 25, 2011, 05:54:41 AM
Lacing doesn't happen? I've SEEN IT happen. In fact, a few years ago there was all this hoopla in Milwaukee because some drug dealers laced a bunch of crack with weed they sold to high school kids, to get them addicted and coming back for more. I don't know if the addiction worked or not but a few kids were seriously hurt from over-smoking the shit and having heart problems.
Personally, I've never had my shit laced. But I'm no high school kid, and I buy from friends, not some random Rasta in the park. But it DOES happen, however rare.
- trix
EDIT: Typed too quickly, fixed.
Why haven't I been qualifying all
1 my descriptions to include the possibility of very rare events?
1 -
By "all"2 I refer to its incidence on the first line of this response meaning "not literally all the time, but for the vast fucking majority of the fucking time, for fucks sake really?"2 - I'm using '"all"'3 here to refer to the reference of its incidence on the first line of this response ("this response" referring to material that is not a footnote—should one consider responses to occasionally include footnotes, which I do, I exclude them all unconditionally in this post except the contents of this parenthesis).
3 -Just in case you accidentally'd some fry daddies, and needed such clarification.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 10:34:05 PM
I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism. It's another hallow and lazy argument. I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.
When you repeatedly do things like:
• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children
• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"
• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient
• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture
• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana
• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")
• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"
people will think you're wrong.
Mostly this. But really, I got a little pissed off at the fact that RWHN actually tries to scare children out of smoking weed by telling them that it effects their "anatomy." That's a horrible little slice of misinformation to be scaring kids with right there. You may as well just tell them they'll go to hell if they smoke weed. Although, telling them that their junk will shrivel away might be scarier for a teenage boy.
Plus, the argument against legalization because it introduces weed into the social system (or however he phrased it) and therefore is more available to kids, well, sorry, but it's available either way. EVERYWHERE. Wouldn't it make more sense to be able to regulate and controll it? To know where it comes from? Y'know, I don't know ANY weed dealers that check ID's.
You and the police exchanging information? Isn't that called an echo chamber? Either way, the cops are just parroting back at you the same stuff you put out. Every cop I've encountered has been tragically out of touch.
Different things effect different people in different ways. To make blanket statements about what weed does and doesn't do is ridiculous. To use these blanket statements to scare kids is pretty evil. The only way for sure to know how weed will or won't effect you is to smoke a joint. One WON'T kill you.
I just want to know what weed did to you that got you all pissed off. Seriously, most of what you said in here was insulting and offensive to me. Do you think everyone here is a brain-dead, maladjusted, drug-monger with a shrunken dick? It's one thing to spread some bull-shit, it's another to actually believe it.
That's funny; earlier you claimed you saw it in a news report, and now you're claiming that you have firsthand knowledge that the shitty brick weed in the ghetto is laced with "ground-up crack" (Which is, by the way, called "cocaine"). I absolutely believe that dealers will TELL their users that the shit is laced with crack to get them to spend money on it, but until I see evidence otherwise it's firmly in the realm of urban legend.
And no, I don't believe for one fucking second that you've SEEN it. I think you've HEARD of it, as you said before, and are now trying to pass hearsay off as firsthand experience.
I will confess to being surprised you're in college... I had you pegged for a 10th-grader.
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 06:44:23 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 10:34:05 PM
I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism. It's another hallow and lazy argument. I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.
When you repeatedly do things like:
• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children
• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"
• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient
• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture
• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana
• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")
• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"
people will think you're wrong.
Mostly this. But really, I got a little pissed off at the fact that RWHN actually tries to scare children out of smoking weed by telling them that it effects their "anatomy." That's a horrible little slice of misinformation to be scaring kids with right there. You may as well just tell them they'll go to hell if they smoke weed. Although, telling them that their junk will shrivel away might be scarier for a teenage boy.
Plus, the argument against legalization because it introduces weed into the social system (or however he phrased it) and therefore is more available to kids, well, sorry, but it's available either way. EVERYWHERE. Wouldn't it make more sense to be able to regulate and controll it? To know where it comes from? Y'know, I don't know ANY weed dealers that check ID's.
You and the police exchanging information? Isn't that called an echo chamber? Either way, the cops are just parroting back at you the same stuff you put out. Every cop I've encountered has been tragically out of touch.
Different things effect different people in different ways. To make blanket statements about what weed does and doesn't do is ridiculous. To use these blanket statements to scare kids is pretty evil. The only way for sure to know how weed will or won't effect you is to smoke a joint. One WON'T kill you.
I just want to know what weed did to you that got you all pissed off. Seriously, most of what you said in here was insulting and offensive to me. Do you think everyone here is a brain-dead, maladjusted, drug-monger with a shrunken dick? It's one thing to spread some bull-shit, it's another to actually believe it.
The reason I don't like the lies is that kids figure out it's bullshit and then assume that adults are lying to them about other, more damaging drugs as well. After all, if we're lying to them about pot, why wouldn't we be lying to them about meth? I think it's absolutely not only counterproductive, but also dangerously irresponsible.
Curious that Trix called me "Nigel" despite (ostensibly) never having known me as Nigel.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:03:46 AM
Curious that Trix called me "Nigel" despite (ostensibly) never having known me as Nigel.
:x POPTARD!!! :x
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:01:43 AM
The reason I don't like the lies is that kids figure out it's bullshit and then assume that adults are lying to them about other, more damaging drugs as well. After all, if we're lying to them about pot, why wouldn't we be lying to them about meth? I think it's absolutely not only counterproductive, but also dangerously irresponsible.
Agreed, AND bolded!
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 06:59:40 AM
Quote from: trix on June 27, 2011, 02:40:19 AM
(quote edited at Trix's request to remove incriminating statements)
That's funny; earlier you claimed you saw it in a news report, and now you're claiming that you have firsthand knowledge that the shitty brick weed in the ghetto is laced with "ground-up crack" (Which is, by the way, called "cocaine"). I absolutely believe that dealers will TELL their users that the shit is laced with crack to get them to spend money on it, but until I see evidence otherwise it's firmly in the realm of urban legend.
Totally this, except that you can't grind crack back into powder cocaine. Snorting ground crack won't do a thing.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 07:12:03 AM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 06:59:40 AM
That's funny; earlier you claimed you saw it in a news report, and now you're claiming that you have firsthand knowledge that the shitty brick weed in the ghetto is laced with "ground-up crack" (Which is, by the way, called "cocaine"). I absolutely believe that dealers will TELL their users that the shit is laced with crack to get them to spend money on it, but until I see evidence otherwise it's firmly in the realm of urban legend.
Totally this, except that you can't grind crack back into powder cocaine. Snorting ground crack won't do a thing.
(It does if it's been treated with a little lemon juice or vinegar, but that's neither here nor there. I don't even know why I know this. :x)
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 06:59:40 AM
Quote from: trix on June 27, 2011, 02:40:19 AM
:horrormirth:
Rampant assumptions about how much credibility I lack, knowing practically nothing about me, is above you, Nigel. Your Ex was a ex-heroin junkie? Whoopdie fuckin doo.
*
Just because some shit goes some way in your area does not make your experience true everywhere. And it's a bit ridiculous that I have to point that out.
That's funny; earlier you claimed you saw it in a news report, and now you're claiming that you have firsthand knowledge that the shitty brick weed in the ghetto is laced with "ground-up crack" (Which is, by the way, called "cocaine"). I absolutely believe that dealers will TELL their users that the shit is laced with crack to get them to spend money on it, but until I see evidence otherwise it's firmly in the realm of urban legend.
And no, I don't believe for one fucking second that you've SEEN it. I think you've HEARD of it, as you said before, and are now trying to pass hearsay off as firsthand experience.
I will confess to being surprised you're in college... I had you pegged for a 10th-grader.
Reading Comprehension case 1:
I HEARD that kids ended up getting ahold of this laced weed, mostly from that news report. I've SEEN, first-hand, ghetto folk lacing their shit weed, here it is common knowledge that it happens, hence why it has a nick name.
Reading Comprehension case 2:
I specifically stated in my original rant, the one that caused your obvious grudge against me, that I am a college student, and that my work is in Electronic Engineering, which is also my major.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:03:46 AM
Curious that Trix called me "Nigel" despite (ostensibly) never having known me as Nigel.
Since you changed your forum name, continuing to call you Your_mom wouldn't make much sense, and since typing out your ridiculous new forum name would annoy me, I decided to call you what everyone else here has been calling you.
It's not like I bother reading most of what you write, because it's entirely annoying and 90% made up.
Also, racist.
Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.
But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:35:57 AM
Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.
But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.
First, my followup responses directed at you were intended to give you the attention you were
clearly asking for, with your original response being all jealous of the attention TGRR was getting. At the time, I made the mistake of assuming you had the intelligence and thickness of skin to see my responses for what they were, and not take them personally.
Second, I kind of prefer your grudge anyway, since it seems to be clouding your mind enough to make the ridiculous leaps and assumptions you keep making.
Third: 90% made up. Of course. Because
you would know. See #2 above.
EDIT:
Also, racist? Since when is "ghetto" a race? ...see #2, again.
EDIT2: Ahh, I think I see where you're getting racist from. I mentioned the local mexicans selling brick-weed. Well, they do. The mexicans that live in my area, sell shitty brick weed they get from (gasp!) Mexico. It's a fact. But yeah, keep putting spin on everything. It's making you smarter!
Dusting weed with crack is a really poor delivery system. And pretty wasteful. Prohibitively expensive too.
Also, what is the reasoning behind it?
Is it
A/ To make the Weed more addictive?
I doubt it. Kids smoke the fucking stuff all day long anyway.
B/ To surreptitiously introduce new customers to the Crack side of your business?
Nope. Cocaine finds it's own market. If you are selling Rock, there's people banging your door down 24/7 as it is, without trying to trick some Stoner Kids into turning up too. They usually stay too long anyway.
C/ A way to enhance the Weed hit? Make it stronger?
C'mon, If the stuff had anymore fucking THC in it, you'd just have to look at it to get your buzz on.
Plus, people generally don't like their Weed to be fucked about with.
I'm not saying you're making it up, just that you are mistaken if you think dealers are lacing good Hydro with crack. PCP would be far more likely to be the substance involved. Cheaper, and noticeable when added to a spliff, thereby justifying the market for "Fry Daddy" (wtf,btw?) as a separate product.
One scam I do know was going on here in the UK, is people getting hold of large amounts of Agricultural Hemp, then as it gets split up and packed for distribution, spraying it down with plant misters, containing a solution of hash oil in ethanol or acetone, mixed with Formaldehyde. So what you get is a product that costs next to nothing, that has been grown outside in some Farmer's field, (no growing overheads) that you can store in quantity, with no risk of prosecution if you get a spin. The "activation formula" can be stored inconspicuously at another location, and you can still sell it at 2.5K a key all day long.
The Hash oil solution ensures there is a noticeable cannabis hit when you smoke it, and the Formaldehyde wrecks you, so you know you got stoned on it. The H.A. here were selling loads of that a couple of years ago. Even sprinkling fine white sand on it to seem like it was full of sap crystals.
So for a product that cost maybe £80 a key to produce, that's quite a mark up.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 27, 2011, 08:54:51 AM
Dusting weed with crack is a really poor delivery system. And pretty wasteful. Prohibitively expensive too.
Also, what is the reasoning behind it?
I have no idea, I'm not one of the ones that do it.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 27, 2011, 08:54:51 AM
I'm not saying you're making it up, just that you are mistaken if you think dealers are lacing good Hydro with crack. PCP would be far more likely to be the substance involved. Cheaper, and noticeable when added to a spliff, thereby justifying the market for "Fry Daddy" (wtf,btw?) as a separate product.
I never said it was good hydro, in fact quite the opposite... it's usually the crappy shwag that local gangbangers take and "spike" with ground up crack. I agree (again) that it is stupid and ridiculous, which mirrors my opinion of crack in general, but it happens. As to the why, you'd have to ask someone that sells the shit.
Also, RE the name, lol I don't know, maybe somebody thought it sounded cool? Or maybe some gangbanger ran the fry machine at McDonalds and had the nickname when he started rolling blunts with crack in them? I just tried to look it up in urbandictionary but the only definition in there doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 02:31:24 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 11:44:55 PM
I've already explained this. I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement. How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations? Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them? No, they have informants, intelligence, etc. And I can get access to that information through those channels. I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information.
And I'm trying to explain to you that due to the nature of the subject matter, your information in that particular aspect of things is not as reliable as mine and probably never will be. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept, especially given that I'm hoping you use whatever information you glean from me to be more effective in your field.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I have a lot of resources at my disposal and if I need to find certain information, I have plenty of angles to get that information and to get information that is reliable and verified.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 10:34:05 PM
I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism. It's another hallow and lazy argument. I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.
When you repeatedly do things like:
• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
Well, this is not completely true. I have time and time again said that there is definitely room for improvements in law enforcement when it comes to marijuana. Such as those who have personal amounts of the substances should not be going to jail and instead should be diverted to education, treatment, or community service, depending on the results of a substance abuse assessment.
That said, I have argued against where I see stats misused, conflated, or exaggerated. Such as focusing on arrests and not looking at how many of those arrested for simple possession actually end up in a jail or prison cell for more than an overnight. Or looking at how many people are in prison for marijuana offenses and ignoring the fact that many had another con-current offense, a violent offense, or were dealers. If you were to present me with a clear cut set of data that shows a majority of people in prison were in there ONLY for simple possession charges, then we'd have something to talk about.
Quote• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children
BECAUSE THAT'S MY JOB! It's also the central reason I oppose marijuana legalization or decriminalization. Yeah, in a happy sunny Rainbow world, adults would be able to do whatever the hell they want and a magic force field would go up keeping their bad decisions from affecting youth. That world doesn't exist. Like it or not, children are a part of our society. Like it or not, our society needs thriving youth to produce thriving communities. Yeah, unfortunately, that means adults need to give up compete and unquestioned freedom.
Quote• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"
Are you arguing that there aren't people in the legalization movement who's primary motivation is to be able to freely enjoy marijuana without facing criminal penalties? I mean, your bullet above kind of heads in the direction of "adults should be able to enjoy adult activities, the children be damned." Doesn't it? Otherwise, why object to bringing up the damaging effects on youth? So of course an element of that exists. Is it everyone in the movement? Obviously not. But you can't seriously expect me to believe it isn't part of the motivation.
Quote• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient
You're going to have to prove that accusation.
Quote• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture
I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well. You conveniently leave those out. But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information. If you don't or can't, that's not on me. If you think it's bogus, prove it. Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.
But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.
Quote• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana
No, I remember quite clearly providing evidence that this claim was overstated. Feel free to go back and review to refresh your memory.
Quote• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
Such as? [citation needed]
Quote• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")
Such as? [citation needed]
Quote• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"
It is immaterial. It doesn't matter that other drugs are more harmful. Harm is harm and marijuana causes significant harm to the development of an adolescent in and of itself. I don't believe that the disposition of substances should be dependent on whether or not something is better or worse. It should be decided on its own merits.
Quotepeople will think you're wrong.
It's a free country. Even if their suppositions and claims are invalid.
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 06:44:23 AM
Mostly this. But really, I got a little pissed off at the fact that RWHN actually tries to scare children out of smoking weed by telling them that it effects their "anatomy." That's a horrible little slice of misinformation to be scaring kids with right there. You may as well just tell them they'll go to hell if they smoke weed. Although, telling them that their junk will shrivel away might be scarier for a teenage boy.
Well, *I*, don't tell them this. My particular job doesn't actually involve lecturing or talking to kids. My job is about policy change and environmental change. It's more working with the school systems, parents, community leaders, etc., etc., But, that bit of information IS true. Technically, what it can do is delay the onset of puberty and decrease sperm production.
QuotePlus, the argument against legalization because it introduces weed into the social system (or however he phrased it) and therefore is more available to kids, well, sorry, but it's available either way. EVERYWHERE. Wouldn't it make more sense to be able to regulate and controll it? To know where it comes from? Y'know, I don't know ANY weed dealers that check ID's.
No, because as we can see with alcohol and tobacco that doesn't work. Sure, it is better in that kids can't directly buy from a retail location. But is very easy for them to get an older sibling, an older sibling of a friend, an uncle, some guy you know to go and buy it for you.
QuoteYou and the police exchanging information? Isn't that called an echo chamber? Either way, the cops are just parroting back at you the same stuff you put out. Every cop I've encountered has been tragically out of touch.
Uh, no. Police deal with law enforcement issues. I deal with environmental, policy, and parenting issues. It's a bit more nuanced and complex than what you are assuming.
QuoteDifferent things effect different people in different ways. To make blanket statements about what weed does and doesn't do is ridiculous. To use these blanket statements to scare kids is pretty evil. The only way for sure to know how weed will or won't effect you is to smoke a joint. One WON'T kill you.
It's called research and it's called education. The information that kids are presented by a responsible drug educator is backed by peer-review research. That's research using the scientific method. No one uses scare tactics anymore, save maybe those approaching this from a strict moralistic perspective. We don't do that however. Our approach is fact-based and health-based. We very much treat substance abuse as a public health issue. We don't moralize. We don't tell them "smoking weed is bad", we tell them "smoking weed can be bad for your health" Which is a very true statement that is backed by science. It doesn't have to kill to be harmful.
QuoteI just want to know what weed did to you that got you all pissed off. Seriously, most of what you said in here was insulting and offensive to me. Do you think everyone here is a brain-dead, maladjusted, drug-monger with a shrunken dick? It's one thing to spread some bull-shit, it's another to actually believe it.
Yep, that's exactly what I think. Brilliant deduction Sherlock! You might try reading a little slower next time.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:01:43 AM
The reason I don't like the lies is that kids figure out it's bullshit and then assume that adults are lying to them about other, more damaging drugs as well. After all, if we're lying to them about pot, why wouldn't we be lying to them about meth? I think it's absolutely not only counterproductive, but also dangerously irresponsible.
We aren't lying to them about pot. But feel free to actually demonstrate precisely where they are being lied to about pot. I mean, just throwing out an emotional generalized statement really doesn't do that.
Of course you can easily label this as "all-talk", and I definitely will want to see the walk as well, but at least you do see public acknowledgment from Gil Kerlikowske for the need to use different approaches that divert non-violent offenders out of the prison system:
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/alcohol/two-new-reports-tackle-drug-policy-during-40th-anniversary-of-nixon%E2%80%99s-declaration-of-%E2%80%98war-on-drugs%E2%80%99
Quote"These findings illustrate why we must approach our nation's drug problem as a public health and safety problem," Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement. "Drug addiction is too often the root of crime in our communities. Supporting innovative initiatives that divert non-violent offenders into treatment, instead of jail, and expand treatment access for incarcerated individuals can help break the vicious cycle of drug use and crime, reduce recidivism and make our communities healthier and safer."
Quote from: trix on June 27, 2011, 07:44:13 AM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:35:57 AM
Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.
But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.
First, my followup responses directed at you were intended to give you the attention you were clearly asking for, with your original response being all jealous of the attention TGRR was getting.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:37:08 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:01:43 AM
The reason I don't like the lies is that kids figure out it's bullshit and then assume that adults are lying to them about other, more damaging drugs as well. After all, if we're lying to them about pot, why wouldn't we be lying to them about meth? I think it's absolutely not only counterproductive, but also dangerously irresponsible.
We aren't lying to them about pot. But feel free to actually demonstrate precisely where they are being lied to about pot. I mean, just throwing out an emotional generalized statement really doesn't do that.
Yes you are, you just THINK you're telling them the truth because you refuse to accept that any source of information that differs from or contradicts your own sources might actually be better and more truthful information. You, who have absolutely ZERO personal experience in the production or sale of drugs, think that the bullshit that you read in some report or "academic" study is infallible and that the firsthand information you're being given from people who have extensive personal experience in those areas is somehow invalid.
In other words, you're being willfully ignorant to an alarming degree. I don't think your mindset in the context of this subject is at all conducive to helping kids make the right choices. Why would they listen to somebody who is feeding them a bunch of bullshit and refuses to listen to reality?
Pretty fuckin' sad if you ask me. And I think I'm done debating this subject with you as though you were debating in good faith.
Good faith? Is good faith going on and on about how someone is wrong without actually posting any substance or information that actually demonstrates how I'm wrong? I mean, just because you two say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Offer up some counter-evidence.
And I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about. It just isn't coming from you, personally. Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 02:31:24 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 11:44:55 PM
I've already explained this. I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement. How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations? Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them? No, they have informants, intelligence, etc. And I can get access to that information through those channels. I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information.
And I'm trying to explain to you that due to the nature of the subject matter, your information in that particular aspect of things is not as reliable as mine and probably never will be. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept, especially given that I'm hoping you use whatever information you glean from me to be more effective in your field.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I have a lot of resources at my disposal and if I need to find certain information, I have plenty of angles to get that information and to get information that is reliable and verified.
Verified by who? The people who suffer from the exact same lack of experience and perspective as you?
Have you ever heard of a feedback loop?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Good faith? Is good faith going on and on about how someone is wrong without actually posting any substance or information that actually demonstrates how I'm wrong? I mean, just because you two say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Offer up some counter-evidence.
And I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about. It just isn't coming from you, personally. Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
Dude, I'm not trying to set myself up as some sort of "Deep Throat" of the prevention field. It's just painfully obvious from the way you conduct this debate here how you react to valid information that comes from a source you don't personally approve of. It's impossible for me to conceive of any way that you WOULD get accurate info on those things. And because you have zero experience in "The Game" (I hate that term but I'm sick of typing long shit out and everyone knows what that means) you're not even capable of understanding WHY that's the case.
I mean, fuck, you'd have a better perspective if you watched a few seasons of The Wire, let alone actually talked to some scumbags yourself.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 04:06:33 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Good faith? Is good faith going on and on about how someone is wrong without actually posting any substance or information that actually demonstrates how I'm wrong? I mean, just because you two say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Offer up some counter-evidence.
And I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about. It just isn't coming from you, personally. Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
Dude, I'm not trying to set myself up as some sort of "Deep Throat" of the prevention field. It's just painfully obvious from the way you conduct this debate here how you react to valid information that comes from a source you don't personally approve of.
Give me an example of this. I'm really getting tired of the generalizations coming from you and Nigel and Net about how I've done this or how I've done that. Give some concrete examples of that which you are accusing me.
QuoteIt's impossible for me to conceive of any way that you WOULD get accurate info on those things.
So? Because you can't conceive of it it doesn't exist? Really? I would point out to you again that there are plenty of people on the ground besides just the dealer. I ask again, how do you think law enforcement gets the information that leads them to their busts? You think they're all a bunch of Chris Columbus that accidentally bump into drug operations? And you suppose when they do bust up an operation that they might, gee, gather evidence? Maybe evidence that sheds light on an operation. Maybe evidence that leads them in some new directions?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:00:25 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 02:31:24 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 11:44:55 PM
I've already explained this. I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement. How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations? Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them? No, they have informants, intelligence, etc. And I can get access to that information through those channels. I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information.
And I'm trying to explain to you that due to the nature of the subject matter, your information in that particular aspect of things is not as reliable as mine and probably never will be. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept, especially given that I'm hoping you use whatever information you glean from me to be more effective in your field.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I have a lot of resources at my disposal and if I need to find certain information, I have plenty of angles to get that information and to get information that is reliable and verified.
Verified by who? The people who suffer from the exact same lack of experience and perspective as you?
Have you ever heard of a feedback loop?
The people who are observing it with their eyes and ears. The guys on the ground coming face to face with the operations. The guys going in and busting the operations. Is it really that hard to conceptualize that when law enforcement makes a bust that they gather information both from simple observation of what's around them and from the apprehended criminals themselves? C'mon, this isn't rocket science. It's fundamental law enforcement techniques.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:01:21 PMSorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
This is dumb. How does keeping an open mind when being presented with information endanger your job and family?
So, by the way, since I think pretty much none of us are politicians or diplomats, should we just go ahead and close down this sub-forum? I mean, none of us have that experience so how the hell can any of us know what we're talking about? How the hell could we ever be informed enough to speak on any of these issues if we haven't been right there on the ground?
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:12:02 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 04:06:33 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:01:21 PM
Good faith? Is good faith going on and on about how someone is wrong without actually posting any substance or information that actually demonstrates how I'm wrong? I mean, just because you two say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Offer up some counter-evidence.
And I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about. It just isn't coming from you, personally. Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
Dude, I'm not trying to set myself up as some sort of "Deep Throat" of the prevention field. It's just painfully obvious from the way you conduct this debate here how you react to valid information that comes from a source you don't personally approve of.
Give me an example of this. I'm really getting tired of the generalizations coming from you and Nigel and Net about how I've done this or how I've done that. Give some concrete examples of that which you are accusing me.
QuoteIt's impossible for me to conceive of any way that you WOULD get accurate info on those things.
So? Because you can't conceive of it it doesn't exist? Really? I would point out to you again that there are plenty of people on the ground besides just the dealer. I ask again, how do you think law enforcement gets the information that leads them to their busts? You think they're all a bunch of Chris Columbus that accidentally bump into drug operations? And you suppose when they do bust up an operation that they might, gee, gather evidence? Maybe evidence that sheds light on an operation. Maybe evidence that leads them in some new directions?
I thought you were in the prevention field? What is the relevance of LEO information regarding evidence gathered to make a case stick?
I'm just saying that if you want kids to listen to you and take you more seriously once they reach an age where they're starting to be personally exposed to that scene then you're doing yourself a disservice by ONLY using information from LEO and other official sources. Those kids are gonna know as soon as you feed them something that's bullshit
even if YOU don't know that it's bullshit and it's gonna fuck your credibility with them.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:17:54 PM
So, by the way, since I think pretty much none of us are politicians or diplomats, should we just go ahead and close down this sub-forum? I mean, none of us have that experience so how the hell can any of us know what we're talking about? How the hell could we ever be informed enough to speak on any of these issues if we haven't been right there on the ground?
Last I checked, politicians and diplomats were conducting (ostensibly) legal business that we can read about in the newspaper.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 04:17:38 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:01:21 PMSorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
This is dumb. How does keeping an open mind when being presented with information endanger your job and family?
When you don't destroy the context it is pretty apparent:
QuoteAnd I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about. It just isn't coming from you, personally. Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious. (Like protecting my job and my family)
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 04:20:50 PM
I thought you were in the prevention field? What is the relevance of LEO information regarding evidence gathered to make a case stick?
*sigh* I dunno, why are you grilling me on the topic? I made a simple observation about PCP laced joints, which I said very clearly had exactly ZERO to do with why I think marijuana shouldn't be legalized. You and Nigel then seemed to want to use this as a way to show how I and others are spreading nothing but lies to the kids we work with. Honestly, it really isn't a big deal in my day to day work. But since you guys decided it was a big deal, I am explaining to you how, IF AND WHEN, I need information about cartels, black market, etc., I have places to go to get that information.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:17:54 PM
So, by the way, since I think pretty much none of us are politicians or diplomats, should we just go ahead and close down this sub-forum? I mean, none of us have that experience so how the hell can any of us know what we're talking about? How the hell could we ever be informed enough to speak on any of these issues if we haven't been right there on the ground?
Last I checked, politicians and diplomats were conducting (ostensibly) legal business that we can read about in the newspaper.
And you can read about cartel and black market activities here:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/
Yeah, I know, I know. DEA, bad, lies, etc., etc.,
Quote from: trix on June 27, 2011, 07:44:13 AM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 07:35:57 AM
Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.
But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.
First, my followup responses directed at you were intended to give you the attention you were clearly asking for, with your original response being all jealous of the attention TGRR was getting. At the time, I made the mistake of assuming you had the intelligence and thickness of skin to see my responses for what they were, and not take them personally.
Second, I kind of prefer your grudge anyway, since it seems to be clouding your mind enough to make the ridiculous leaps and assumptions you keep making.
Third: 90% made up. Of course. Because you would know. See #2 above.
EDIT:
Also, racist? Since when is "ghetto" a race? ...see #2, again.
EDIT2: Ahh, I think I see where you're getting racist from. I mentioned the local mexicans selling brick-weed. Well, they do. The mexicans that live in my area, sell shitty brick weed they get from (gasp!) Mexico. It's a fact. But yeah, keep putting spin on everything. It's making you smarter!
I didn't take anything personally, because you were behaving like an ass to everyone. I just decided to take the opportunity you were offering so generously to make you my kicktoy.
Also, I bet you found the term fry daddy on urbandictionary in the first place. :lulz:
You've mentioned ghettos, Mexicans, and gangbangers enough times with enough context that I get the picture. I bet you don't even live in Milwaukee; you're probably from Appleton. Another spoiled little white kid who thinks he's "street" because he sold a couple ounces once.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:33:06 PM
Yeah, I know, I know. DEA, bad, lies, etc., etc.,
Well, yeah. I trust the DEA as much as I trust the TSA.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
No argument with the notion that there are plenty of irresponsible parents.
However, limiting the freedom of individuals because some are irresponsible is not an option, as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Won't help. This bad boy is going 100 pages+.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Won't help. This bad boy is going 100 pages+.
If this reaches 100 pages, I'll eat my hat.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
No argument with the notion that there are plenty of irresponsible parents.
However, limiting the freedom of individuals because some are irresponsible is not an option, as far as I am concerned.
And so what is to be done with their children?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
No argument with the notion that there are plenty of irresponsible parents.
However, limiting the freedom of individuals because some are irresponsible is not an option, as far as I am concerned.
And so what is to be done with their children?
I'd say that's where people like you come in. I'm all about prevention and treatment, RWHN. I'm not about prohibition, both on grounds of principle, and also because it doesn't work.
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Won't help. This bad boy is going 100 pages+.
If this reaches 100 pages, I'll eat my hat.
Get the paprika ready.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
No argument with the notion that there are plenty of irresponsible parents.
However, limiting the freedom of individuals because some are irresponsible is not an option, as far as I am concerned.
And so what is to be done with their children?
They'll find their own way, or not. That's life, man. It's not the weed, it's the person smoking it. If they want to use it as an excuse as to why they are so lazy, stupid and unmotivated, then that's their bad, not weeds.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:43:55 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Won't help. This bad boy is going 100 pages+.
If this reaches 100 pages, I'll eat my hat.
Get the paprika ready.
Oh shit, man, did I really say that? Sry, dude, I must have been too high to realize what I was typing.
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:47:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:43:55 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Won't help. This bad boy is going 100 pages+.
If this reaches 100 pages, I'll eat my hat.
Get the paprika ready.
Oh shit, man, did I really say that? Sry, dude, I must have been too high to realize what I was typing.
Friends don't let Guineas type stoned.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
No argument with the notion that there are plenty of irresponsible parents.
However, limiting the freedom of individuals because some are irresponsible is not an option, as far as I am concerned.
And so what is to be done with their children?
I'd say that's where people like you come in. I'm all about prevention and treatment, RWHN. I'm not about prohibition, both on grounds of principle, and also because it doesn't work.
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
This would be the smart, compassionate, effective way of dealing with it.
But our government isn't really into "effective". Let alone "smart" or "compassionate".
I'm coming in a bit late, but---
I think it's unfair to say that RHWN can't fairly discuss this topic, even though its his professional field, because the data he's using came from cops instead of drug dealers/users. I also think it's weak to dismiss him based on vague perceptions about him or his discussion style, rather than disagreeing with actual specific things he's said.
He works in youth prevention - if you don't think that kids drug use should influence drug law or you don't think that he should get data from law enforcement, you're obviously not going to see eye to eye with him. But don't act like he's debating unfairly or just not capable of understanding - the dude debates more rationally and substantively than most people on this board.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
This is a very good point. However, what percentage of the DEA is used to handle fake prescription drugs?
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 27, 2011, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
This would be the smart, compassionate, effective way of dealing with it.
But our government isn't really into "effective". Let alone "smart" or "compassionate".
No government is. Governments are huge stupid beasts that use hammers for every situation. Hammers are good for some things...We DO need government. However, there are some things that the government shouldn't be involved in, and this is one of them.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 27, 2011, 04:55:36 PM
I'm coming in a bit late, but---
I think it's unfair to say that RHWN can't fairly discuss this topic, even though its his professional field, because the data he's using came from cops instead of drug dealers/users.
I agree...I think both sources are obviously biased, and if one is okay to use, they both are.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
This is a very good point. However, what percentage of the DEA is used to handle fake prescription drugs?
I don't know other than it is going up.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:10:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
This is a very good point. However, what percentage of the DEA is used to handle fake prescription drugs?
I don't know other than it is going up.
Fair enough. I still think the proper answer is prevention & treatment, though, not ruining kids' lives over a joint or two.
I know you don't advocate that, but it IS the inevitable result of prohibition...Along with all the border violence we have down here (and even worse in Texas).
So, let me ask you, RWHN...What's more harmful? A kid smoking pot, or a kid going to the big house?
The latter. But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The latter. But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence.
Pretty sure we don't have that here.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.
When you repeatedly do things like:
• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
Well, this is not completely true. I have time and time again said that there is definitely room for improvements in law enforcement when it comes to marijuana. Such as those who have personal amounts of the substances should not be going to jail and instead should be diverted to education, treatment, or community service, depending on the results of a substance abuse assessment.
That said, I have argued against where I see stats misused, conflated, or exaggerated. Such as focusing on arrests and not looking at how many of those arrested for simple possession actually end up in a jail or prison cell for more than an overnight. Or looking at how many people are in prison for marijuana offenses and ignoring the fact that many had another con-current offense, a violent offense, or were dealers. If you were to present me with a clear cut set of data that shows a majority of people in prison were in there ONLY for simple possession charges, then we'd have something to talk about.
You also tend to completely ignore the harm that prohibition does to non-users, due to it's role in financing organized crime.
As far as arrests and jail time most of us disagree with you over whether or not a dealer should be doing jail time. If there isn't something wrong with adults possessing and using the drug there's also nothing wrong with distributing the drug to adults, or "manufacturing" (growing) the drug for personal use or for distribution to adults. Also, if more than a certain amount is found on a person they are not charged with possession, they are charged with distribution. Same with if they are the one who serves as the connection to a larger dealer for a buy among friends. (to make that clear, if Joe, John, Diana, and Annie all want some weed, and they get together to buy a quarter pound, because it is cheaper buying in bulk, and Joe is the one who goes and buys it and then splits it up among his friends and gets caught somewhere in the process he's dealing, not possessing, even though he makes no profit on the deal) Even if Joe buys a quarter pound purely for personal use, and gets busted for it, he'll still be charged with dealing, simply because of the quantity he's been found with.
Looking at the statistics for people serving jail time for possession versus distribution is deceptive since many of those people in jail for distribution are not weed dealers. Also, manufacturing carries heavier penalties than distribution and someone who is growing a few plants for personal use, thus staying out of the whole black market economy entirely, is going to be hit with manufacturing.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
That looks like work for the FDA.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The latter. But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence.
or distribution, which as I pointed out doesn't necesarially mean he's actually selling weed.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
You also tend to completely ignore the harm that prohibition does to non-users, due to it's role in financing organized crime.
That's assuming that organized crime would in fact go away if marijuana were legalized. Considering the rise in the black market for diverted prescription drugs and counterfeit prescription drugs, I'm not sure that would be the case.
QuoteAs far as arrests and jail time most of us disagree with you over whether or not a dealer should be doing jail time. If there isn't something wrong with adults possessing and using the drug there's also nothing wrong with distributing the drug to adults, or "manufacturing" (growing) the drug for personal use or for distribution to adults.
To adults. Yes, that is true. But you do concede that even in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct? I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
That looks like work for the FDA.
Why would you want to spend all of that time and money training FDA employees to do what DEA employees already know how to do? Seems like a big waste to me.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
You also tend to completely ignore the harm that prohibition does to non-users, due to it's role in financing organized crime.
That's assuming that organized crime would in fact go away if marijuana were legalized. Considering the rise in the black market for diverted prescription drugs and counterfeit prescription drugs, I'm not sure that would be the case.
QuoteAs far as arrests and jail time most of us disagree with you over whether or not a dealer should be doing jail time. If there isn't something wrong with adults possessing and using the drug there's also nothing wrong with distributing the drug to adults, or "manufacturing" (growing) the drug for personal use or for distribution to adults.
To adults. Yes, that is true. But you do concede that even in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct? I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.
Since distribution isn't charged differently based on the customer I doubt those statistics are accessible.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The latter. But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence.
or distribution, which as I pointed out doesn't necesarially mean he's actually selling weed.
How often does this occur? What percentage of those charged with distribution are not distributing?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
That looks like work for the FDA.
Why would you want to spend all of that time and money training FDA employees to do what DEA employees already know how to do? Seems like a big waste to me.
well, if the DEA has been dismantled you just take those same employees and put them under the FDA. Counterfeit medication or adulterated medication is pretty clearly an FDA issue.
Prescription diversion may be a whole different matter, but seeing how the DEA tends to deal with problems I'm not sure I want them dealing with adulterated medication in any case.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The latter. But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence.
or distribution, which as I pointed out doesn't necesarially mean he's actually selling weed.
How often does this occur? What percentage of those charged with distribution are not distributing?
Those statistics are not tracked, so I do not know. They're not really trackable in any reliable way as the police mark anyone caught with more than a certain amount (varies by state) as a dealer and any dealer who has an amount that is not absurd is going to claim that he did not intend to distribute it.
How many people are caught in the act of selling as compared to how many are caught with an amount that qualifies them to be charged with distribution is trackable, but I am not aware of anywhere to access that information.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
That looks like work for the FDA.
Why would you want to spend all of that time and money training FDA employees to do what DEA employees already know how to do? Seems like a big waste to me.
well, if the DEA has been dismantled you just take those same employees and put them under the FDA. Counterfeit medication or adulterated medication is pretty clearly an FDA issue.
Prescription diversion may be a whole different matter, but seeing how the DEA tends to deal with problems I'm not sure I want them dealing with adulterated medication in any case.
And how do they tend to deal with problems?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
As far as arrests and jail time most of us disagree with you over whether or not a dealer should be doing jail time. If there isn't something wrong with adults possessing and using the drug there's also nothing wrong with distributing the drug to adults, or "manufacturing" (growing) the drug for personal use or for distribution to adults. Also, if more than a certain amount is found on a person they are not charged with possession, they are charged with distribution. Same with if they are the one who serves as the connection to a larger dealer for a buy among friends. (to make that clear, if Joe, John, Diana, and Annie all want some weed, and they get together to buy a quarter pound, because it is cheaper buying in bulk, and Joe is the one who goes and buys it and then splits it up among his friends and gets caught somewhere in the process he's dealing, not possessing, even though he makes no profit on the deal) Even if Joe buys a quarter pound purely for personal use, and gets busted for it, he'll still be charged with dealing, simply because of the quantity he's been found with.
Looking at the statistics for people serving jail time for possession versus distribution is deceptive since many of those people in jail for distribution are not weed dealers. Also, manufacturing carries heavier penalties than distribution and someone who is growing a few plants for personal use, thus staying out of the whole black market economy entirely, is going to be hit with manufacturing.
THIS.
Involvement in the weed trade would, of course, easily land anyone involved in prison. Wisconsin is probably an unusual case in that the local cops aren't much worried about the weed trade, and it's common when pulled over with under a pound or two to have the cops take the weed and let us go. But the fact remains that local warehouses sell cheap to the 10lbs-a-week guys, who sell to the 1/2lb-a-week guys, who sell the 'personal' size bags to the college students and friends. AFAIK that's the common scenario for most of the sources of hydro around here. The chain isn't very long, and most people know each other pretty well, and it's been going for years. If a major bust were to come out of the woodwork and lock us all up, a bunch of college students would go to prison, and other college students that love to smoke would fill the void with their own grow op. Those at the lower end of distribution are heroes to their customers. It's
very profitable, friendly, and rather easy. Except for harvest, trimming that many plants with a small crew takes for fucking EVER.
Locking everyone up accomplishes nothing except throwing away contributing members of society, that almost always work other jobs as well or go to college. The business is transitive; those involve change up every few years. Some move on, replacements come in, some stick around, some branch out, etc. It is simply not possible to put anything but an extremely temporary dent in the trade, which makes the "war" not only futile, but ridiculous.
Bottom line is, plenty of people love to smoke weed. This cannot, and will not, be stopped, no matter how draconian the government or police get about it.
EDIT: KYFMS? I suppose. Though nothing I had said got anywhere approaching specific. It's not like the way it happens around here is unique. But, I suppose it's better to err on the side of paranoid.
KYFMS rule, ITT.
Dumbfucks.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 07:10:11 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:01:57 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:50:01 PM
We need more funding for that to happen. We are under-funded as it is, with a Democratic President. I would say, nationally, we really don't have the capacity to do justice to the problem that exists today. I mean, we have managed to make progress with the peanuts we have but we could do more. I just fear that legalizing marijuana will tip the balance and we'll lose the progress we've made, and then some. Ethically, I can't condone taking that leap of faith.
1. I'm reasonably certain that everyone who WILL smoke shit IS smoking shit, based on 4 decades of observation.
2. Eliminate the DEA, give funding to you guys. You get funding, the kids get counseling, etc, instead of going to prison for 7 years or so, and coming out ruined.
Even if you legalize marijuana you still need the DEA. Even if you legalized all drugs you'd still need the DEA. Just the operation to combat prescription drug diversion and counterfeit prescription drugs is a mountain of work that someone needs to do. It's not a good thing for people to be getting fake VIOXX and Lipitor.
That looks like work for the FDA.
Why would you want to spend all of that time and money training FDA employees to do what DEA employees already know how to do? Seems like a big waste to me.
well, if the DEA has been dismantled you just take those same employees and put them under the FDA. Counterfeit medication or adulterated medication is pretty clearly an FDA issue.
Prescription diversion may be a whole different matter, but seeing how the DEA tends to deal with problems I'm not sure I want them dealing with adulterated medication in any case.
And how do they tend to deal with problems?
swat teams.
But, see, the counterfeit medications many times are going back to the same kinds of organizations involved in diverting drugs. Sure, the FDA can tackle the problem on the pharmacy end or the user end, but they aren't equipped to go back and deal with the criminal element that got them there in the first place.
I"m glad we're keeping things relatively civil.
Prohibition forces the black market to make an end run around regulations and control to reach the end user. I consider the harm from this to outweigh harm from a natural substance that humans have been using therapeutically and religiously for thousands of years.
Case in point: the recent explosion in "synthetic cannabinoids". When I first heard about 'Spice', I totally didn't believe it. Why the fuck would some-one bother to go through the chemical process to fake a cannabinoid?
The last few articles I've read have explained that because laws like the CSA are written towards specific chemical structures, many 'synthetic cannabinoids' which activate CB1 and CB2 receptors aren't actually illegal. In this article, we actually have the invetor of one of these substances (a medical researcher here in the states), warn that these substances have a much higher chance of abuse because of their singular chemical composition, and may have unseen-as-yet side effects including the possibility of death from overdose (not possible with vegetable cannabinoids).
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/legalize-marijuana-inventor-spice-chemicals/story?id=13782613#.TgjOKYLKEVQ
QuoteWhen John W. Huffman invented a whole class of chemicals that mimic the effect of marijuana on the human brain, he never intended for them to launch a whole "legal marijuana" industry.
But now that "Spice" and other forms of imitation pot are sending users to emergency rooms across America, the retired professor has an idea of how to stem the epidemic. If the federal government would legalize the real thing, says Huffman, maybe consumers wouldn't turn to the far more dangerous fake stuff.
Huffman, who developed more than 400 "cannabinoids" as an organic chemist at Clemson University, says that marijuana has the benefit of being a known quantity, and not a very harmful one. We know the biological effects of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, Huffman told ABC News, because they have been thoroughly studied. "The scientific evidence is that it's not a particularly dangerous drug," said Huffman.
The "JWH" class of compounds that Huffman invented to mimic marijuana's effects, meanwhile, have not been tested the same way. "The physiological compounds effects of [JWH] compounds have never been examined in humans," said Huffman. What we do know, he says, is that "it doesn't hit the brain in the same way as marijuana, and that's why it's dangerous."
While they are known to elevate blood pressure -- unlike marijuana -- and to cause increased heart rate and anxiety, to date most of the evidence of their effects is anecdotal, and comes from things like visits to emergency rooms. "There have been a number of people who've committed suicide after using them," said Huffman.
Huffman began working on the cannabinoids in the early 1990s using a grant from the National Institute for Drug Abuse. He published academic papers that gave information on the chemical steps to make the compounds, including JWH-018, one of the easiest of the class to make and the one most often found in Spice products.
"JWH-018 can be made by a halfway decent undergraduate chemistry major," said Huffman, "in three steps using commercially available materials."
In 2008, says Huffman, someone sent him an article from the German magazine Der Spiegel about a young man using the JWH chemicals to get high. He subsequently learned that the "imitation marijuana" drugs based on his chemicals had popped up in Europe in 2006, not long after he'd published a paper describing how to make the compounds. The compounds were also being used commercially in South Korea as a plant growth product, and Huffman speculates that they migrated from there to China, where they are now being manufactured for use in Spice.
"I figured that somewhere along the line, some enterprising individual would try to smoke it," said Huffman. He didn't figure that it would become a global industry.
Anyone who ingests it recreationally, Huffman stressed, is "foolish" and playing "Russian Roulette," and the head shop owners who are selling it know what they are doing. "They can read the newspapers, they can watch TV," said Huffman. "They know what's in it. And I think they're exploiting the young people who buy them." A representative of a head shop trade group told ABC News that the products should be regulated but not outlawed.
Huffman, who opposes prohibition in general, doubts that a ban on the substances will keep kids away from it. "We declared marijuana illegal in 1937. The federal government passed the law. Now, that really did a lot of good to keep people from smoking marijuana, didn't it?"
Huffman said that making all the JWH compounds illegal would probably have similar results, but emphasizes that any decision to legalize JWH compounds should hinge on a thorough study of how they affect humans. The DEA currently bans five cannabinoids, including JWH-018 and one other JWH chemical, but Congress is weighing a more sweeping ban.
Huffman does believes marijuana should be legalized, since its effects are known. "It should be sold only to people 21 and older. It should be heavily, heavily taxed."
One of the benefits of decriminalizing marijuana, he said, would be diminishing the allure of its more dangerous substitutes.
"I talked to a marijuana provider from California, a doctor, a physician," explained Huffman, "and he said that in California, that these things are not near the problem they are in the rest of the country simply because they can get marijuana. And marijuana, even for recreational use is quite easy to get in California, and it's essentially decriminalized. And marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as these compounds."
Compare this reporting (tone, narrative presented) to a similar peice on this subject from New Zeland...when asked if they should be outlawed, and he says "Probably not, look what prohibition of cannabis has done"... the reporter goes and finds a scientist who is willing to say it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10734721
If the effects of Prohibition are the spread of toxic versions of cannabinoids (which may lead to underage deaths, due to a different dose-to-bodyweight ratio for the LD50 level and unknown effects in humans), then Prohibition is the wrong approach.
Quote from: Telarus on June 27, 2011, 07:46:10 PM
I"m glad we're keeping things relatively civil.
HATE HATE BLAH SHIT HATE HATE SHIT BLAH BLAH HATE PUKE TROLL GRRR
I think you would first have to do some kind of study to separate the "I'm doing this because it's legal and marijuana is not" from the "hey look at this new drug, I'm going to try it and see what happens"
The latter of which you see exemplified in the "bath salt" fad that has popped up in recent months:
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/bath-salts-abuse-hits-michigan-cdc-reports
Wat. It's Marketed as a legal cannabis replacement.
Because of that, it's a "3 to 5 billion dollar industry (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/taxpayer-money-created-legal-marijuana-teens/story?id=13772490&page=2#.TgjWwILKEVQ)", smoke shops carry it and continue to sell it even they know the anecdotal evidence of people calling poison centers and going to the emergency room because of these substances (from the first article).
BTW, here's the National Institute of Drug Abuse's response to the ABC articles (which correctly points out that they funded the creation of these chemicals).
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/taxpayer-money-created-legal-marijuana-teens/story?id=13772490&page=3#.TgjVkoLKEVQ
QuoteA NIDA spokesperson defended the agency's funding for Huffman's research, saying that studying "artificial variations of brain chemicals ... has yielded major research and clinical advances."
Research into cannabinoids, said the spokesperson, "has the potential to usher in the next generation of pain medications," as well as possible treatments for obesity and multiple sclerosis."
"The scientific record demonstrates that the cost of discontinuing the pursuit of potentially life-saving medications, because such compounds could be illegally diverted and abused, would be unacceptably high."
So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal? If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth?
Quote from: Telarus on June 27, 2011, 07:46:10 PM
I"m glad we're keeping things relatively civil.
Prohibition forces the black market to make an end run around regulations and control to reach the end user. I consider the harm from this to outweigh harm from a natural substance that humans have been using therapeutically and religiously for thousands of years.
Case in point: the recent explosion in "synthetic cannabinoids". When I first heard about 'Spice', I totally didn't believe it. Why the fuck would some-one bother to go through the chemical process to fake a cannabinoid?
The last few articles I've read have explained that because laws like the CSA are written towards specific chemical structures, many 'synthetic cannabinoids' which activate CB1 and CB2 receptors aren't actually illegal. In this article, we actually have the invetor of one of these substances (a medical researcher here in the states), warn that these substances have a much higher chance of abuse because of their singular chemical composition, and may have unseen-as-yet side effects including the possibility of death from overdose (not possible with vegetable cannabinoids).
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/legalize-marijuana-inventor-spice-chemicals/story?id=13782613#.TgjOKYLKEVQ
QuoteWhen John W. Huffman invented a whole class of chemicals that mimic the effect of marijuana on the human brain, he never intended for them to launch a whole "legal marijuana" industry.
But now that "Spice" and other forms of imitation pot are sending users to emergency rooms across America, the retired professor has an idea of how to stem the epidemic. If the federal government would legalize the real thing, says Huffman, maybe consumers wouldn't turn to the far more dangerous fake stuff.
Huffman, who developed more than 400 "cannabinoids" as an organic chemist at Clemson University, says that marijuana has the benefit of being a known quantity, and not a very harmful one. We know the biological effects of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, Huffman told ABC News, because they have been thoroughly studied. "The scientific evidence is that it's not a particularly dangerous drug," said Huffman.
The "JWH" class of compounds that Huffman invented to mimic marijuana's effects, meanwhile, have not been tested the same way. "The physiological compounds effects of [JWH] compounds have never been examined in humans," said Huffman. What we do know, he says, is that "it doesn't hit the brain in the same way as marijuana, and that's why it's dangerous."
While they are known to elevate blood pressure -- unlike marijuana -- and to cause increased heart rate and anxiety, to date most of the evidence of their effects is anecdotal, and comes from things like visits to emergency rooms. "There have been a number of people who've committed suicide after using them," said Huffman.
Huffman began working on the cannabinoids in the early 1990s using a grant from the National Institute for Drug Abuse. He published academic papers that gave information on the chemical steps to make the compounds, including JWH-018, one of the easiest of the class to make and the one most often found in Spice products.
"JWH-018 can be made by a halfway decent undergraduate chemistry major," said Huffman, "in three steps using commercially available materials."
In 2008, says Huffman, someone sent him an article from the German magazine Der Spiegel about a young man using the JWH chemicals to get high. He subsequently learned that the "imitation marijuana" drugs based on his chemicals had popped up in Europe in 2006, not long after he'd published a paper describing how to make the compounds. The compounds were also being used commercially in South Korea as a plant growth product, and Huffman speculates that they migrated from there to China, where they are now being manufactured for use in Spice.
"I figured that somewhere along the line, some enterprising individual would try to smoke it," said Huffman. He didn't figure that it would become a global industry.
Anyone who ingests it recreationally, Huffman stressed, is "foolish" and playing "Russian Roulette," and the head shop owners who are selling it know what they are doing. "They can read the newspapers, they can watch TV," said Huffman. "They know what's in it. And I think they're exploiting the young people who buy them." A representative of a head shop trade group told ABC News that the products should be regulated but not outlawed.
Huffman, who opposes prohibition in general, doubts that a ban on the substances will keep kids away from it. "We declared marijuana illegal in 1937. The federal government passed the law. Now, that really did a lot of good to keep people from smoking marijuana, didn't it?"
Huffman said that making all the JWH compounds illegal would probably have similar results, but emphasizes that any decision to legalize JWH compounds should hinge on a thorough study of how they affect humans. The DEA currently bans five cannabinoids, including JWH-018 and one other JWH chemical, but Congress is weighing a more sweeping ban.
Huffman does believes marijuana should be legalized, since its effects are known. "It should be sold only to people 21 and older. It should be heavily, heavily taxed."
One of the benefits of decriminalizing marijuana, he said, would be diminishing the allure of its more dangerous substitutes.
"I talked to a marijuana provider from California, a doctor, a physician," explained Huffman, "and he said that in California, that these things are not near the problem they are in the rest of the country simply because they can get marijuana. And marijuana, even for recreational use is quite easy to get in California, and it's essentially decriminalized. And marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as these compounds."
Compare this reporting (tone, narrative presented) to a similar peice on this subject from New Zeland...when asked if they should be outlawed, and he says "Probably not, look what prohibition of cannabis has done"... the reporter goes and finds a scientist who is willing to say it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10734721
If the effects of Prohibition are the spread of toxic versions of cannabinoids (which may lead to underage deaths, due to a different dose-to-bodyweight ratio for the LD50 level and unknown effects in humans), then Prohibition is the wrong approach.
Here's that direct replacement arguement I was talking about earlier with RWHN's pesticide metaphor. Spice, K2 etc. are all things which would be directly replaced by marijuana if it were legal.
That assumes a rational drug user making rational decisions. And I'll pose the above question again, if one of the arguments about marijuana prohibition is that it creates an allure and attraction to youth because it is illegal, then why are youth turning to a legal version?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:24:23 PM
That assumes a rational drug user making rational decisions.
:lulz:
Point to RWHN.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:24:23 PM
That assumes a rational drug user making rational decisions. And I'll pose the above question again, if one of the arguments about marijuana prohibition is that it creates an allure and attraction to youth because it is illegal, then why are youth turning to a legal version?
because it gives them the idea that they are getting away with something.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:24:23 PM
That assumes a rational drug user making rational decisions. And I'll pose the above question again, if one of the arguments about marijuana prohibition is that it creates an allure and attraction to youth because it is illegal, then why are youth turning to a legal version?
A lot of people using that stuff are using it because it (ostensibly) doesn't show up on (most) drug tests.
The Emeritus Prof offers some anecdotal evidence towards that, RWHN. He says "I talked to a marijuana provider from California, a doctor, a physician," explained Huffman, "and he said that in California, that these things are not near the problem they are in the rest of the country simply because they can get marijuana. And marijuana, even for recreational use is quite easy to get in California, and it's essentially decriminalized. And marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as these compounds."
Yes, these synthetics don't show up on current pee tests (different end metabolites). I certainly haven't offered 'allure of illegality' as a reason that youth are drawn to cannabis experimentation.
People are getting stoned on bath salts?
This fucking country is going to the dogs.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 09:30:37 PM
People are getting stoned on bath salts?
This fucking country is going to the dogs.
I read that article and besides the automatic WTF reaction, I want to know how on earth anyone could get high off bath salts and WHY?!?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 26, 2011, 10:34:05 PM
I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism. It's another hallow and lazy argument. I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices. If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.
When you repeatedly do things like:
• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
Well, this is not completely true. I have time and time again said that there is definitely room for improvements in law enforcement when it comes to marijuana. Such as those who have personal amounts of the substances should not be going to jail and instead should be diverted to education, treatment, or community service, depending on the results of a substance abuse assessment.
That said, I have argued against where I see stats misused, conflated, or exaggerated. Such as focusing on arrests and not looking at how many of those arrested for simple possession actually end up in a jail or prison cell for more than an overnight. Or looking at how many people are in prison for marijuana offenses and ignoring the fact that many had another con-current offense, a violent offense, or were dealers. If you were to present me with a clear cut set of data that shows a majority of people in prison were in there ONLY for simple possession charges, then we'd have something to talk about.
If you believe that the main measure of damage done by marijuana prohibition is prison sentences for marijuana then you haven't been paying attention. The point stands. You're ignoring quite a bit more of the story, in a manner that appears willful. I don't think you have a sincere interest in understanding the views you oppose, which would explain why you're continually destroying straw men.
How about the people that cannot get federal funds to go to school because of a pot conviction? How about the kids that moved on to nastier substances because they found out that well-meaning lies about pot were lies and assumed the nastier stuff was being lied about too? How about the youth that went into the justice system for pot and came out hardened criminals? How about the families that are affected by the thousands of people rotting in privatized prisons for simple possession? How about the emotional damage to children from cops violently bursting into their parents' home, shooting their dog, and arresting their father all over a small amount of marijuana? How about the people who lost their job because of one of those arrest-and-releases that you so casually dismiss (after all, they didn't do any hard time)? How about the money spent on criminalizing people for marijuana that could have been spent on worthy pursuits?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children
BECAUSE THAT'S MY JOB! It's also the central reason I oppose marijuana legalization or decriminalization. Yeah, in a happy sunny Rainbow world, adults would be able to do whatever the hell they want and a magic force field would go up keeping their bad decisions from affecting youth. That world doesn't exist. Like it or not, children are a part of our society. Like it or not, our society needs thriving youth to produce thriving communities. Yeah, unfortunately, that means adults need to give up compete and unquestioned freedom.
Again with these absurd straw men. NO ONE'S ARGUING FOR IDIOTIC "COMPLETE" FREEDOM OR A YOUTHLESS SOCIETY. It's crap like this that makes people think it's not worth discussing anything with you and to reject your comments without wasting much energy on it.
If you don't take these issues seriously and represent these arguments in good faith, why should anyone spend the time to expound on the evidence for their argument? It's just been falling on deaf ears.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"
Are you arguing that there aren't people in the legalization movement who's primary motivation is to be able to freely enjoy marijuana without facing criminal penalties? I mean, your bullet above kind of heads in the direction of "adults should be able to enjoy adult activities, the children be damned." Doesn't it? Otherwise, why object to bringing up the damaging effects on youth? So of course an element of that exists. Is it everyone in the movement? Obviously not. But you can't seriously expect me to believe it isn't part of the motivation.
Guess what? I already can get high. I'm not concerned about my ability to get high, it's already INCREDIBLY FUCKING EASY TO GET AWAY WITH. People whose primary motivation is to make it easy to smoke pot has nothing to do with the arguments being presented to you. If you'd like, I'll stop responding to your specific statements and instead respond to the worst motivations I've observed coming from the pro drug war side, and attribute them to you. Oh wait, that would be disingenuous and stupid.
Where did I say children be damned? Oh, that was you, mischaracterizing my argument again. Oh, what do you know, you even twisted my criticism about narrowly focusing on harm to youth to try to make me look bad. Why do I object to narrowly focusing on youth for this issue? Well, if you take anything out of context and look only at its potential harm to youth, we'd have to ban cars, guns, prescription drugs and just about everything that's fine for adults but not kids.
It's the wider context that makes such bans utterly ridiculous—you have to use a narrow frame of reference for that to even BEGIN to sound reasonable.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient
You're going to have to prove that accusation.
Telarus posted this link:
http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/
which you did not address.
You claimed that there is not enough evidence to make a judgement about the safety of marijuana. There is, and it spans many countries as you can see above. You ignored that link and pretty much all of the rest of Telarus' post.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture
I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well. You conveniently leave those out. But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information. If you don't or can't, that's not on me. If you think it's bogus, prove it. Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.
But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.
Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana
No, I remember quite clearly providing evidence that this claim was overstated. Feel free to go back and review to refresh your memory.
I went back and you provided no evidence. You almost chickened out of the thread at that point.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
Such as? [citation needed]
Such as,
"[...] I think the other thing [cartels] certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.''OMG, TEH SUPERWEEDS!
:lulz:
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")
Such as? [citation needed]
You said,
"MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences. Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming. They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California. So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest."Totally unsubstantiated. Their claim is NOT about being the only clinical research done on marijuana—it's specific to the FDA.
So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock in your reading comprehension.
The NIDA and DEA are quite verifiably obstructionist when it comes to science around marijuana.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"
It is immaterial. It doesn't matter that other drugs are more harmful. Harm is harm and marijuana causes significant harm to the development of an adolescent in and of itself. I don't believe that the disposition of substances should be dependent on whether or not something is better or worse. It should be decided on its own merits.
It doesn't matter if other substances are better or worse? So it doesn't matter if we treat a drug that is safer than aspirin as though it is crystal meth? Could you explain that a little more thoroughly for me?
Partially charred food is carcinogenic and harmful. Eating it is much more harmful than smoking pot, which no credible study has linked to causing cancer.
Comparisons highlight the absurd inconsistency of your position, which is no doubt why you want to avoid them at all costs.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
I agree with that in theory. The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents. I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind. Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions. It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.
So what are your feelings on refined sugar?
Should I not be allowed to sprinkle some on my shredded mini wheats because there are entire metric fucktons of scientific evidence that refined sugar is HORRIBLE for kids?
And yes, it IS the same thing. Except that refined sugar is physiologically MUCH worse for you than marijuana.
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: Cuddleshift on June 27, 2011, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2011, 04:19:31 PM
I think this is a very simple topic, personally. I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body. I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.
Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.
Won't help. This bad boy is going 100 pages+.
If this reaches 100 pages, I'll eat my hat.
Are you kidding? Washington State is voting in 2012 on whether or not to legalize marijuana for recreational use and sell it in state stores and as of right now the polls show it being likely to pass. That's over a year of following that story, plus the retardo-legislation that Mssrs. Paul & Frank are introducing to the House that would end federal prohibition and devolve marijuana law completely to the states.
And we just added 15+ pages in the last few days.
I hope your forehead sweat tastes good.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PMeven in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct? I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.
If it were legal and sold out of state-run stores I bet the answer would be "zero".
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 07:01:19 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:56:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 05:43:56 PM
The latter. But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence.
or distribution, which as I pointed out doesn't necesarially mean he's actually selling weed.
How often does this occur? What percentage of those charged with distribution are not distributing?
No hard data to back this up but my extensively irrelevant experiential and anecdotal evidence suggests the answer is higher than you think. Probably somewhere between 10% and 20%. I know a whole shitload of people who've got a record because they got a good deal on a QP and figured it would last them a few months.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 07:57:51 PM
I think you would first have to do some kind of study to separate the "I'm doing this because it's legal and marijuana is not" from the "hey look at this new drug, I'm going to try it and see what happens"
The latter of which you see exemplified in the "bath salt" fad that has popped up in recent months:
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/bath-salts-abuse-hits-michigan-cdc-reports
Actually bath salts fall into the first category too, you just have to replace "marijuana" with "crystal meth".
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal? If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth?
Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:29:54 PM
I hope your forehead sweat tastes good.
I'm on a special diet.
You can't fool me. I know that's punker code for cheap beer and whatever condiment packages you can steal from Arby's.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 27, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
As far as arrests and jail time most of us disagree with you over whether or not a dealer should be doing jail time. If there isn't something wrong with adults possessing and using the drug there's also nothing wrong with distributing the drug to adults, or "manufacturing" (growing) the drug for personal use or for distribution to adults. Also, if more than a certain amount is found on a person they are not charged with possession, they are charged with distribution. Same with if they are the one who serves as the connection to a larger dealer for a buy among friends. (to make that clear, if Joe, John, Diana, and Annie all want some weed, and they get together to buy a quarter pound, because it is cheaper buying in bulk, and Joe is the one who goes and buys it and then splits it up among his friends and gets caught somewhere in the process he's dealing, not possessing, even though he makes no profit on the deal) Even if Joe buys a quarter pound purely for personal use, and gets busted for it, he'll still be charged with dealing, simply because of the quantity he's been found with.
funny that's nearly the same over here. you can get in serious trouble if you're caught with over 30g (1.06 ounce) of cannabis.
(between 5g (0.18oz) and 30g you can get a hefty fine, but I doubt they'd do that without any other reason)
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:34:08 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PMeven in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct? I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.
If it were legal and sold out of state-run stores I bet the answer would be "zero".
You can't be serious. Adults are regularly arrested and put in jail for furnishing alcohol to minors you really think that somehow legal marijuana is going to avoid that? C'mon.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal? If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth?
Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?
No, because it's a shiny new drug for kids to try out. And then it spreads through social networks.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
If you believe that the main measure of damage done by marijuana prohibition is prison sentences for marijuana then you haven't been paying attention. The point stands. You're ignoring quite a bit more of the story, in a manner that appears willful. I don't think you have a sincere interest in understanding the views you oppose, which would explain why you're continually destroying straw men.
Well, it seems to be one of the points you guys really like to harp on. The overcrowded prisons and all of the money we are wasting keeping them in prison. If you've actually been following along with all of the posts you know this has come up several times from several posters. But please enlighten me as to the other social woes that I have "willfully" missed.
QuoteHow about the people that cannot get federal funds to go to school because of a pot conviction?
Who held the gun to their head and forced them to do whatever it was that lead them to the pot conviction? Look, there are laws that I think are silly as well but at some point we do have responsibility for our actions. If college is really important to a kid, they need to then decide just how important it is to them to engage in recreational drug use, knowing the laws are what they are.
QuoteHow about the kids that moved on to nastier substances because they found out that well-meaning lies about pot were lies and assumed the nastier stuff was being lied about too?
What about the kids who were lied to on the internet about how awesome marijuana is for them and how much more awesome the harder stuff is?
QuoteHow about the youth that went into the justice system for pot and came out hardened criminals?
We've been over this before. I agree that a kid should not be in prison for non-violent, non-dealer charges.
QuoteHow about the families that are affected by the thousands of people rotting in privatized prisons for simple possession?
Read above.
QuoteHow about the emotional damage to children from cops violently bursting into their parents' home, shooting their dog, and arresting their father all over a small amount of marijuana?
How about the cop who had his leg busted by a bunch of stoned/drunk college students, breaking up a party where the partiers were physically preventing an ambulance from taking another ill college student to the hospital.
QuoteHow about the people who lost their job because of one of those arrest-and-releases that you so casually dismiss (after all, they didn't do any hard time)?
Did they not know that marijuana was illegal?
QuoteHow about the money spent on criminalizing people for marijuana that could have been spent on worthy pursuits?
Yeah, and the health care costs that come from kids and adults going into treatment for marijuana addiction.
I'll tackle the other ones at another time. Though it's a busy work week so I make no promises.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well. You conveniently leave those out. But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information. If you don't or can't, that's not on me. If you think it's bogus, prove it. Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.
But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.
Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?
Well I do want to address this one because it's a little interesting. So when Telarus, or anyone else in this thread you agree with posts a bunch of links to articles, and large blocks of information it is okay but when I do it, it is "mostly irrelevant". Look, you don't agree with me, I get it, but c'mon, if you are going to use arbitrarily different rules for different posters then what is the point of me even addressing you on this subject?
BTW...please specifically explain to me how the information and sources I post are "mostly irrelevant". I mean, besides the fact that you don't agree with them. I mean, that's a very simple, general, and un-nuanced statement. Surely you must have some specific reasoning for categorically rejecting every source I post. Oh, I'm sorry, "mostly" everything I post. :lulz:
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:49:47 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well. You conveniently leave those out. But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information. If you don't or can't, that's not on me. If you think it's bogus, prove it. Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.
But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.
Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?
Well I do want to address this one because it's a little interesting. So when Telarus, or anyone else in this thread you agree with posts a bunch of links to articles, and large blocks of information it is okay but when I do it, it is "mostly irrelevant". Look, you don't agree with me, I get it, but c'mon, if you are going to use arbitrarily different rules for different posters then what is the point of me even addressing you on this subject?
BTW...please specifically explain to me how the information and sources I post are "mostly irrelevant". I mean, besides the fact that you don't agree with them. I mean, that's a very simple, general, and un-nuanced statement. Surely you must have some specific reasoning for categorically rejecting every source I post. Oh, I'm sorry, "mostly" everything I post. :lulz:
Telarus posts a lot of links once to show what he's talking about.
You repost the same information repeatedly.
I do not "categorically" reject every source you post, Mr. Nuance. Point out one example of me rejecting a single source you've posted.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
If you believe that the main measure of damage done by marijuana prohibition is prison sentences for marijuana then you haven't been paying attention. The point stands. You're ignoring quite a bit more of the story, in a manner that appears willful. I don't think you have a sincere interest in understanding the views you oppose, which would explain why you're continually destroying straw men.
Well, it seems to be one of the points you guys really like to harp on. The overcrowded prisons and all of the money we are wasting keeping them in prison. If you've actually been following along with all of the posts you know this has come up several times from several posters. But please enlighten me as to the other social woes that I have "willfully" missed.
It's a valid point, but it's one of many.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PMHow about the people that cannot get federal funds to go to school because of a pot conviction?
Who held the gun to their head and forced them to do whatever it was that lead them to the pot conviction? Look, there are laws that I think are silly as well but at some point we do have responsibility for our actions. If college is really important to a kid, they need to then decide just how important it is to them to engage in recreational drug use, knowing the laws are what they are.
I see, we should punish kids for being uneducated about our draconian marijuana laws.
HOW DARE THEY NOT KNOW?!
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PMHow about the kids that moved on to nastier substances because they found out that well-meaning lies about pot were lies and assumed the nastier stuff was being lied about too?
What about the kids who were lied to on the internet about how awesome marijuana is for them and how much more awesome the harder stuff is?
The propaganda campaign that you embody is much more entrenched and "taught" under the guise of education. Lying on the internet is nowhere near equivalent to the corruption of institutions that should be presenting factual information.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PMHow about the youth that went into the justice system for pot and came out hardened criminals?
We've been over this before. I agree that a kid should not be in prison for non-violent, non-dealer charges.
However, you support federal drug scheduling that makes that possible.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PMHow about the emotional damage to children from cops violently bursting into their parents' home, shooting their dog, and arresting their father all over a small amount of marijuana?
How about the cop who had his leg busted by a bunch of stoned/drunk college students, breaking up a party where the partiers were physically preventing an ambulance from taking another ill college student to the hospital.
That's part of the fucking job description. Did the cops not know that they are putting their lives on the line when they applied?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PMHow about the people who lost their job because of one of those arrest-and-releases that you so casually dismiss (after all, they didn't do any hard time)?
Did they not know that marijuana was illegal?
Did you not know that marijuana has medical value? Are you going to stop taking medicine that makes your life livable if the government suddenly outlaws it for no good reason?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:46:03 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PMHow about the money spent on criminalizing people for marijuana that could have been spent on worthy pursuits?
Yeah, and the health care costs that come from kids and adults going into treatment for marijuana addiction.
:cn:
Laws don't always make sense. Sometimes people break laws because they're doing something they consider natural, unharmful, maybe even an inaliable right. Laws are often made by idiots. If people are punished for breaking laws that we can agree are stupid (like not having the freedom to say FUCK THE POLICE) then we fight against the laws, lawmakers and social norms that allow such punishment. Whether using pot is such a right I can't really say, but I think most of us can agree to the above.
My point is: yeah you can and should expect consequnces for your action especially when they're spelled out. But that doesn't come anywhere near making such punishment right.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:29:48 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:34:08 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PMeven in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct? I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.
If it were legal and sold out of state-run stores I bet the answer would be "zero".
You can't be serious. Adults are regularly arrested and put in jail for furnishing alcohol to minors you really think that somehow legal marijuana is going to avoid that? C'mon.
Furnishing alcohol to a minor and trafficking illegal drugs are two VASTLY different charges with VASTLY different legal penalties. Someone going to the store to buy a bag of weed for a kid should be subject to the same level of punishment as someone who goes and gets the kid a 6-pack, not to being imprisoned and having their life ruined.
So yeah, the number of people in prison for DEALING pot to minors would probably be damn near zero.
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal? If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth?
Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?
No, because it's a shiny new drug for kids to try out. And then it spreads through social networks.
Kids can't legally enter smoke shops, so they're unlikely to even know about the stuff unless they already smoke weed. In Maine, Spice is (or was, I think it's been banned now?) only sold at head shops. You can't just go get it at CVS.
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 28, 2011, 02:08:02 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:49:47 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well. You conveniently leave those out. But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information. If you don't or can't, that's not on me. If you think it's bogus, prove it. Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.
But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.
Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?
Well I do want to address this one because it's a little interesting. So when Telarus, or anyone else in this thread you agree with posts a bunch of links to articles, and large blocks of information it is okay but when I do it, it is "mostly irrelevant". Look, you don't agree with me, I get it, but c'mon, if you are going to use arbitrarily different rules for different posters then what is the point of me even addressing you on this subject?
BTW...please specifically explain to me how the information and sources I post are "mostly irrelevant". I mean, besides the fact that you don't agree with them. I mean, that's a very simple, general, and un-nuanced statement. Surely you must have some specific reasoning for categorically rejecting every source I post. Oh, I'm sorry, "mostly" everything I post. :lulz:
Telarus posts a lot of links once to show what he's talking about.
You repost the same information repeatedly.
I do not "categorically" reject every source you post, Mr. Nuance. Point out one example of me rejecting a single source you've posted.
Yes you do, and it is clear there are different rules for those you agree with and those you disagree with, so I'm done discussing this with you. It's a waste of my time. Besides that you generalize, for example when you say that every source I post is "mostly irrelevant" I've posted many, many sources in the many, many threads. It is very unthinking to just out of hand categorize all of them as irrelevant. And now you are saying I post the same thing over and over again which is also a generalized and untrue summation of what I've been doing in this thread.
So when you are ready to debate this topic in good faith, we can resume, until then, I'm done with you.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:45:52 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:29:48 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:34:08 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 06:58:41 PMeven in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct? I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.
If it were legal and sold out of state-run stores I bet the answer would be "zero".
You can't be serious. Adults are regularly arrested and put in jail for furnishing alcohol to minors you really think that somehow legal marijuana is going to avoid that? C'mon.
Furnishing alcohol to a minor and trafficking illegal drugs are two VASTLY different charges with VASTLY different legal penalties. Someone going to the store to buy a bag of weed for a kid should be subject to the same level of punishment as someone who goes and gets the kid a 6-pack, not to being imprisoned and having their life ruined.
So yeah, the number of people in prison for DEALING pot to minors would probably be damn near zero.
Your optimism is noted.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:52:45 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal? If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth?
Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?
No, because it's a shiny new drug for kids to try out. And then it spreads through social networks.
Kids can't legally enter smoke shops, so they're unlikely to even know about the stuff unless they already smoke weed. In Maine, Spice is (or was, I think it's been banned now?) only sold at head shops. You can't just go get it at CVS.
Please, this stuff spreads through social networks as I said. Remember the stories about Jenkem, the tampon margarita, do you think all of the kids across the country that tried those all managed to figure it out on their own? No. It spread through social networks. Trust me, kids that are actively seeking and experimenting with drugs are very good at being up to date on these sorts of things.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
I thought the no-pot-even-for-adults law were supposed to protect the kids so that the abuse of drugs doesn't ruin their lives by, say, depriving them of a good education? Like I mean that was the point? I think?
Perhaps you have lost sight of your terminal values?
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
Such as? [citation needed]
Such as, "[...] I think the other thing [cartels] certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.''
OMG, TEH SUPERWEEDS!
:lulz:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-gm-marijuana-problem-colombia.html
QuoteOne greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana.
Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed "a bigger production and better quality at the same time".
A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name, "Creepy".
Another seed modified in The Netherlands is fetching a good price in the area, said a foreign researcher, who asked to remain anonymous. That version, well-known in Europe as "La Cominera", is named for the Colombian village where it grows.
"La Cominera's" higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant's principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent, said the researcher.
Despite the fact that marijuana production is illegal in Colombia, farmers say they continue to sell both traditional and modified marijuana because of economic advantages. One resident who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he can sell 11 kilograms of marijuana for 160,000 Colombian pesos ($87).
In the greenhouses outside of Cali, in a secret location accessible only by foot, it is easy to recognize the famous plant with star-shaped leaves, where it grows amid other legal crops.
"I don't like growing marijuana, but it ended up that way," one farmer said. "I received a loan to grow coffee, but I was drowning and I had to sell my harvest very cheap. My sister told me it would be better to plant marijuana."
Marijuana was first introduced to the country in the 1930s and residents of Cali said that for economic reasons, they have never stopped cultivating the plant since.
Yeah. It is completely far-fetched that marijuana would be altered to create a more potent product to compete with a legal, federally regulated product. Yep.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
What if at some point we decide we want to stop being involved in that world and better our lives but we can't because the fucking feds won't give us a fucking cent for college because of a fucking posession charge?
You think that you personally HOPING for some leniency is a valid response to the question?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
Such as? [citation needed]
Such as, "[...] I think the other thing [cartels] certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.''
OMG, TEH SUPERWEEDS!
:lulz:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-gm-marijuana-problem-colombia.html
QuoteOne greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana.
Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed "a bigger production and better quality at the same time".
A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name, "Creepy".
Another seed modified in The Netherlands is fetching a good price in the area, said a foreign researcher, who asked to remain anonymous. That version, well-known in Europe as "La Cominera", is named for the Colombian village where it grows.
"La Cominera's" higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant's principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent, said the researcher.
Despite the fact that marijuana production is illegal in Colombia, farmers say they continue to sell both traditional and modified marijuana because of economic advantages. One resident who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he can sell 11 kilograms of marijuana for 160,000 Colombian pesos ($87).
In the greenhouses outside of Cali, in a secret location accessible only by foot, it is easy to recognize the famous plant with star-shaped leaves, where it grows amid other legal crops.
"I don't like growing marijuana, but it ended up that way," one farmer said. "I received a loan to grow coffee, but I was drowning and I had to sell my harvest very cheap. My sister told me it would be better to plant marijuana."
Marijuana was first introduced to the country in the 1930s and residents of Cali said that for economic reasons, they have never stopped cultivating the plant since.
Yeah. It is completely far-fetched that marijuana would be altered to create a more potent product to compete with a legal, federally regulated product. Yep.
See, this is where your rejection of other peoples' vast experience does you a disservice.
What that article refers to as "genetically-modified pot" is just higher-potency strains created by good breeding. SO basically the article is saying that people can sell good pot for more than they can sell crappy pot. Wow, that's a shocking revelation.
And by the way, that super-potent 18% THC weed they're growing down there? It still wouldn't be able to compete with the good hydroponically-grown weed here in the PNW, the best strains of which top out at around 25%.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.
That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.
So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
What if at some point we decide we want to stop being involved in that world and better our lives but we can't because the fucking feds won't give us a fucking cent for college because of a fucking posession charge?
You think that you personally HOPING for some leniency is a valid response to the question?
Well considering I have approximately zero input and influence in that area, it is the best I can do. I don't work on federal policies, I work on state and local policies. But sure, if I had the opportunity to speak or give my two cents on some kind of panel or study, or whatever regarding this I certainly would advocate that kids get second chances to have access to that funding. Of course, I don't see that happening without some strings attached, such as some kind of reporting that verifies the kid is staying clean. Especially if it is a situation where there is a lot of competition for those funds.
However, at the same time, it would be important to educate kids, as we do, what ALL of the consequences of using and selling drugs are, including the impacts upon their future. And this is actually something we do. Reality is reality whether I agree with it 100% or not. As successful as I've been in local settings, I obviously can't move mountains and I don't have any kind of sway at that level. So, in the meantime, kids need to know the lay of the land and understand the consequences of the decisions they make today.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:23:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?
Maine's a pretty big state and ECH doesn't live where I work. So I think it is safe to say I have slightly more working knowledge of the local police departments here than he does. Call me crazy.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.
That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.
So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.
Yes and it is being used in the medical setting. The only point I'm making is that it is demonstrably possible to create a more potent product compared to other products. If the market was right, and if the costs weren't prohibitively high, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that a criminal operation could seek to create and cultivate a strain of the drug that would be more potent compared to a legal, federally regulated version. Please note the "ifs" in my statement. If the costs were too high to develop that product, it obviously won't happen.
And as the prescription drug market becomes more lucrative to them, perhaps they won't even consider it and just work on growing that part of their operations. But it definitely is a possibility if the environment is right.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.
That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.
So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.
Yes and it is being used in the medical setting. The only point I'm making is that it is demonstrably possible to create a more potent product compared to other products. If the market was right, and if the costs weren't prohibitively high, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that a criminal operation could seek to create and cultivate a strain of the drug that would be more potent compared to a legal, federally regulated version. Please note the "ifs" in my statement. If the costs were too high to develop that product, it obviously won't happen.
And as the prescription drug market becomes more lucrative to them, perhaps they won't even consider it and just work on growing that part of their operations. But it definitely is a possibility if the environment is right.
Why on Earth should the potency be regulated? IIRC, they can't even quantify it.
Maybe I'm wrong and they wouldn't regulate it. I just can't see it being legalized without some kind of regulation or oversight from the FDA which would very likely include some kind of rules as to its composition/potency.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:23:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?
Maine's a pretty big state and ECH doesn't live where I work. So I think it is safe to say I have slightly more working knowledge of the local police departments here than he does. Call me crazy.
Big compared to what? Rhode Island? Isn't Maine about the size of Multnomah County? :lulz: He mentioned compassion on the part of government... does your town have different sentencing laws from the rest of Maine?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.
That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.
So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.
Yes and it is being used in the medical setting. The only point I'm making is that it is demonstrably possible to create a more potent product compared to other products. If the market was right, and if the costs weren't prohibitively high, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that a criminal operation could seek to create and cultivate a strain of the drug that would be more potent compared to a legal, federally regulated version. Please note the "ifs" in my statement. If the costs were too high to develop that product, it obviously won't happen.
And as the prescription drug market becomes more lucrative to them, perhaps they won't even consider it and just work on growing that part of their operations. But it definitely is a possibility if the environment is right.
The funny thing is that the US government created the G-13 strain.
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:53:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:23:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?
Maine's a pretty big state and ECH doesn't live where I work. So I think it is safe to say I have slightly more working knowledge of the local police departments here than he does. Call me crazy.
Big compared to what? Rhode Island? Isn't Maine about the size of Multnomah County? :lulz: He mentioned compassion on the part of government... does your town have different sentencing laws from the rest of Maine?
Read a little slower. He said government and law enforcement communities. Since I said "They are in my community", it should be obvious I'm referring to law enforcement.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:02:58 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 28, 2011, 02:08:02 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:49:47 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well. You conveniently leave those out. But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information. If you don't or can't, that's not on me. If you think it's bogus, prove it. Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.
But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.
Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?
Well I do want to address this one because it's a little interesting. So when Telarus, or anyone else in this thread you agree with posts a bunch of links to articles, and large blocks of information it is okay but when I do it, it is "mostly irrelevant". Look, you don't agree with me, I get it, but c'mon, if you are going to use arbitrarily different rules for different posters then what is the point of me even addressing you on this subject?
BTW...please specifically explain to me how the information and sources I post are "mostly irrelevant". I mean, besides the fact that you don't agree with them. I mean, that's a very simple, general, and un-nuanced statement. Surely you must have some specific reasoning for categorically rejecting every source I post. Oh, I'm sorry, "mostly" everything I post. :lulz:
Telarus posts a lot of links once to show what he's talking about.
You repost the same information repeatedly.
I do not "categorically" reject every source you post, Mr. Nuance. Point out one example of me rejecting a single source you've posted.
Yes you do, and it is clear there are different rules for those you agree with and those you disagree with, so I'm done discussing this with you. It's a waste of my time. Besides that you generalize, for example when you say that every source I post is "mostly irrelevant" I've posted many, many sources in the many, many threads. It is very unthinking to just out of hand categorize all of them as irrelevant. And now you are saying I post the same thing over and over again which is also a generalized and untrue summation of what I've been doing in this thread.
So when you are ready to debate this topic in good faith, we can resume, until then, I'm done with you.
Okay, I concede my claim about you reposting irrelevant information. I checked back over the thread and have to agree that you're right, it was an inaccurate generalization.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
well by the time they can't get financial aid they are adults......
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 01:19:17 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on June 27, 2011, 02:39:59 AM• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
Such as? [citation needed]
Such as, "[...] I think the other thing [cartels] certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows. Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users. But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.''
OMG, TEH SUPERWEEDS!
:lulz:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-gm-marijuana-problem-colombia.html
QuoteOne greenhouse owner said she can sell the modified marijuana for 100,000 pesos ($54) per kilo (2.2 pounds), which is nearly 10 times more than the price she can get for ordinary marijuana.
Local authorities said the arrival of genetically modified seeds, which are imported from Europe and the United States have allowed "a bigger production and better quality at the same time".
A police commander in the Cauca region where Cali is located, Carlos Rodriguez, said one of the modified varieties goes by the name, "Creepy".
Another seed modified in The Netherlands is fetching a good price in the area, said a foreign researcher, who asked to remain anonymous. That version, well-known in Europe as "La Cominera", is named for the Colombian village where it grows.
"La Cominera's" higher value is due to its increased concentration of THC, the plant's principal active ingredient, and the modified plant verges on an 18 percent concentration level, compared to a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent, said the researcher.
Despite the fact that marijuana production is illegal in Colombia, farmers say they continue to sell both traditional and modified marijuana because of economic advantages. One resident who spoke on the condition of anonymity said he can sell 11 kilograms of marijuana for 160,000 Colombian pesos ($87).
In the greenhouses outside of Cali, in a secret location accessible only by foot, it is easy to recognize the famous plant with star-shaped leaves, where it grows amid other legal crops.
"I don't like growing marijuana, but it ended up that way," one farmer said. "I received a loan to grow coffee, but I was drowning and I had to sell my harvest very cheap. My sister told me it would be better to plant marijuana."
Marijuana was first introduced to the country in the 1930s and residents of Cali said that for economic reasons, they have never stopped cultivating the plant since.
Yeah. It is completely far-fetched that marijuana would be altered to create a more potent product to compete with a legal, federally regulated product. Yep.
Easy comparison to alcohol here. During prohibition hard alcohol became far more popular than beer or wine, partly because it is much easier to transport and conceal. After prohibition was repealed beer and wine started to predominate again. hard alcohol is still available, in regulated stores.
There's no reason the same couldn't be done with weed, and no reason at all that people would prefer black market weed of unknown potency over the stuff of known and measured potency available at the local store.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:32:32 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.
That aside, I am finding it extremely suspect that other than that widely-reprinted single article on GM marijuana in Columbia and a few posts on drug forums, there seems to be no evidence that it exists outside of Monsanto's terminator cannabis. I also thought it was interesting that the article cited THC content "up to 18%", when 18% is pretty common in strains grown for medical use and it's been documented since the 1970's that certain hybrid Indica strains can produce up to 28% (look up "G-13 strain). Yes, hybridization is a form of genetic modification, but that's not typically what is meant by "GM". How the plants are grown has the most impact on THC content, so the fact that there were in greenhouses and not in a clearing in the forest is probably more responsible for the higher THC content than anything else.
So, as far as I can tell, that article is yet another case of media sensationalism.
Yes and it is being used in the medical setting. The only point I'm making is that it is demonstrably possible to create a more potent product compared to other products. If the market was right, and if the costs weren't prohibitively high, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that a criminal operation could seek to create and cultivate a strain of the drug that would be more potent compared to a legal, federally regulated version. Please note the "ifs" in my statement. If the costs were too high to develop that product, it obviously won't happen.
And as the prescription drug market becomes more lucrative to them, perhaps they won't even consider it and just work on growing that part of their operations. But it definitely is a possibility if the environment is right.
Why on Earth should the potency be regulated? IIRC, they can't even quantify it.
They can and do test the THC levels in weed.
Of course it fluctuates even within a given crop, but not by much for plants of the same strain grown in the same conditions. (by same conditions I mean the same hyrdoponics system, not the same blend of nutrients in two different greenhouses)
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:52:45 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 27, 2011, 11:41:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 27, 2011, 08:21:40 PM
So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal? If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth?
Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?
No, because it's a shiny new drug for kids to try out. And then it spreads through social networks.
Kids can't legally enter smoke shops, so they're unlikely to even know about the stuff unless they already smoke weed. In Maine, Spice is (or was, I think it's been banned now?) only sold at head shops. You can't just go get it at CVS.
Please, this stuff spreads through social networks as I said. Remember the stories about Jenkem, the tampon margarita, do you think all of the kids across the country that tried those all managed to figure it out on their own? No. It spread through social networks. Trust me, kids that are actively seeking and experimenting with drugs are very good at being up to date on these sorts of things.
What steps has your community taken to curb the jenkem epidemic?
Padlocks on port-a-pottys.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 05:09:07 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:53:37 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: THE LORD AND LADY OMNIBUS FUCK on June 28, 2011, 04:23:31 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
Didn't ECH just move here from Maine last year?
Maine's a pretty big state and ECH doesn't live where I work. So I think it is safe to say I have slightly more working knowledge of the local police departments here than he does. Call me crazy.
Big compared to what? Rhode Island? Isn't Maine about the size of Multnomah County? :lulz: He mentioned compassion on the part of government... does your town have different sentencing laws from the rest of Maine?
Read a little slower. He said government and law enforcement communities. Since I said "They are in my community", it should be obvious I'm referring to law enforcement.
Yes, but then you are completely disregarding the other half of the statement.
So? Plenty parts of my statements are getting ignored or unaddressed by those who disagree with me, including you. Why am I being held to a different standard?
KNOW YOUR DOPE FIEND...YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF YOUR PARTNERS MAY DEPEND UPON IT.
The dope fiend can be recognized by her inability to read an entire post, her glassy eyes, and the enormous spiked strap-on that she wears at all times. When not out mugging helpless old ladies and effeminate artists, she can usually be found down on skid row, giving a hobo a haircut...or butt-raping a policeman, just like you.
The only safe way to handle a dope fiend is to shoot first, as our brave boys in Tucson did. Failing that, hide her cigarettes and send in 20 men when she goes into nicotene withdrawl convulsions.
Write your congressman to provide harsher penalties for dope fiends. Suggest the bastinado.
Remember, the life you save may be your own.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 08:59:57 PM
KNOW YOUR DOPE FIEND...YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF YOUR PARTNERS MAY DEPEND UPON IT.
The dope fiend can be recognized by her inability to read an entire post, her glassy eyes, and the enormous spiked strap-on that she wears at all times. When not out mugging helpless old ladies and effeminate artists, she can usually be found down on skid row, giving a hobo a haircut...or butt-raping a policeman, just like you.
The only safe way to handle a dope fiend is to shoot first, as our brave boys in Tucson did. Failing that, hide her cigarettes and send in 20 men when she goes into nicotene withdrawl convulsions.
Write your congressman to provide harsher penalties for dope fiends. Suggest the bastinado.
Remember, the life you save may be your own.
:lulz:
RWHN, I usually skip points that I have already seen adequately refuted.
I keep trying to bite my tongue but I'm giving it the fuck up.
Every time I see someone trot out the "they knew it was illegal" defense of the absolutely idiotic, inhuman, incompassionate drug enforcement laws, I want to ask them if they know that the #1 predictor of drug abuse is child abuse, and that essentially what they're doing is the very worst form of blaming the victim. It's fucking sick.
"They knew it was illegal" is in the same category, for me, as "She was asking for it". Which is related, BTW, because the #1 predictor in victims of rape is ALSO CHILD ABUSE.
Some people need compassion and help, and dismissing it with "they knew it was illegal" is inhuman and worthy of nothing better than total contempt. It's a system that punishes the broken for their past miseries, and nothing more.
If you want to make a difference, work to end child abuse. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 10:59:50 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:56:17 AM
I'd also like to go back to the part where you raise the (admittedly valid) point that many peoples' arguments ITT are based upon a presumption of rational action on the part of marijuana users and/or parents.
Funny, then, that most of your arguments as to why prohibition is a fair, just, and effective policy in the context of marijuana law depend upon a presumption of not only rational but compassionate action on the parts of the government and law enforcement communities.
Because, you know, they're known and noted for that sort of thing.
They are in my community.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you lived in Maine.
I do. And we have two police departments here that are very involved in the community and do quite a bit to help out the youth in the community. Of course, you know, I'm on the ground here with the experience of being a member of this community, something you don't have, but I'm sure the information you get second hand from people you know who live in this area is just as good. ;)
The flaw in your argument here is that not every single person who is subject to federal laws lives in Maine.
Oh, and the part where any policy that relies upon selective interpretation to approach even a hint of being fair or just is a bad policy.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
What if at some point we decide we want to stop being involved in that world and better our lives but we can't because the fucking feds won't give us a fucking cent for college because of a fucking posession charge?
You think that you personally HOPING for some leniency is a valid response to the question?
Well considering I have approximately zero input and influence in that area, it is the best I can do. I don't work on federal policies, I work on state and local policies. But sure, if I had the opportunity to speak or give my two cents on some kind of panel or study, or whatever regarding this I certainly would advocate that kids get second chances to have access to that funding. Of course, I don't see that happening without some strings attached, such as some kind of reporting that verifies the kid is staying clean. Especially if it is a situation where there is a lot of competition for those funds.
However, at the same time, it would be important to educate kids, as we do, what ALL of the consequences of using and selling drugs are, including the impacts upon their future. And this is actually something we do. Reality is reality whether I agree with it 100% or not. As successful as I've been in local settings, I obviously can't move mountains and I don't have any kind of sway at that level. So, in the meantime, kids need to know the lay of the land and understand the consequences of the decisions they make today.
That didn't answer my question.
As it sits right now, do you think it is either fair or just that someone with a small-time marijuana charge on their record is barred for life from receiving any federal financial aid for higher education?
If you DO think it's just, can you offer any reason why such a policy makes any sense at all?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:16:03 PM
And by the way, that super-potent 18% THC weed they're growing down there? It still wouldn't be able to compete with the good hydroponically-grown weed here in the PNW, the best strains of which top out at around 25%.
I was gonna say that ...
Their quote about "a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent" is ridiculous, that would be incredibly shitty weed.
I'd say 18% is not "super-potent", rather call it "decent quality".
... btw you don't really get much hashish over there do you?
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
It seems like super-potent weed would be really useful in the medical trade, enabling two to three times the therapeutic dose to be grown in the same space.
You know what's funny? The government-provided "medicinal weed" here is actually really shitty.
(At least, so I've heard. I've never really tried any.)
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 09:58:05 PM
I keep trying to bite my tongue but I'm giving it the fuck up.
Every time I see someone trot out the "they knew it was illegal" defense of the absolutely idiotic, inhuman, incompassionate drug enforcement laws, I want to ask them if they know that the #1 predictor of drug abuse is child abuse, and that essentially what they're doing is the very worst form of blaming the victim. It's fucking sick.
"They knew it was illegal" is in the same category, for me, as "She was asking for it". Which is related, BTW, because the #1 predictor in victims of rape is ALSO CHILD ABUSE.
Some people need compassion and help, and dismissing it with "they knew it was illegal" is inhuman and worthy of nothing better than total contempt. It's a system that punishes the broken for their past miseries, and nothing more.
If you want to make a difference, work to end child abuse. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
Again with your selective reading. I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances. However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior. Otherwise they don't learn. If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change. Does that mean you let them go completely and twist in the wind? Of course not, otherwise substance abuse treatment wouldn't exist. Courts wouldn't recommend substance abuse treatment instead of jail time. Of course we give them second chances, and third chances.
My point is that the youth still needs to bear some level of responsibility for the choices they make. That is part of growing up and becoming an adult. Please, pay better attention to what I actually post before you go off on your hyperbolic nonsense.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 28, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:16:03 PM
And by the way, that super-potent 18% THC weed they're growing down there? It still wouldn't be able to compete with the good hydroponically-grown weed here in the PNW, the best strains of which top out at around 25%.
I was gonna say that ...
Their quote about "a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent" is ridiculous, that would be incredibly shitty weed.
I'd say 18% is not "super-potent", rather call it "decent quality".
... btw you don't really get much hashish over there do you?
Most of the hashish in the US is domestically produced using the ice method (bubble hash) and is typically more easily available to people who have direct access to growers and/or people who deal in large amounts as they're the ones who typically have enough waste product to make the hash-making process worth the trouble (and it is a HUGE pain in the balls). This generally yields a slightly lower quality product than the solvent method that is typically used to make the middle eastern hash that ends up in the European market.
Here in the US, it's generally bought as an occasional special treat rather than as a replacement for bud.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:34:50 PM
Again with your selective reading. I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances. However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior. Otherwise they don't learn. If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change.
So what we're doing here is conditioning them to behave in a way that the rest of society feels is acceptable?
Am I tracking so far?
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 09:26:16 PM
RWHN, I usually skip points that I have already seen adequately refuted.
Uh huh. The point remains you are holding me to a different standard than other posters in this thread and I think it is plainly because you don't only disagree with me, you disagree with my on a level that for some reason is personal. I mean, it's completely obvious you are trying to catch me in a "gotcha". Which is why you are selectively reading.
Law of Fives in full effect.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
What if at some point we decide we want to stop being involved in that world and better our lives but we can't because the fucking feds won't give us a fucking cent for college because of a fucking posession charge?
You think that you personally HOPING for some leniency is a valid response to the question?
Well considering I have approximately zero input and influence in that area, it is the best I can do. I don't work on federal policies, I work on state and local policies. But sure, if I had the opportunity to speak or give my two cents on some kind of panel or study, or whatever regarding this I certainly would advocate that kids get second chances to have access to that funding. Of course, I don't see that happening without some strings attached, such as some kind of reporting that verifies the kid is staying clean. Especially if it is a situation where there is a lot of competition for those funds.
However, at the same time, it would be important to educate kids, as we do, what ALL of the consequences of using and selling drugs are, including the impacts upon their future. And this is actually something we do. Reality is reality whether I agree with it 100% or not. As successful as I've been in local settings, I obviously can't move mountains and I don't have any kind of sway at that level. So, in the meantime, kids need to know the lay of the land and understand the consequences of the decisions they make today.
That didn't answer my question.
As it sits right now, do you think it is either fair or just that someone with a small-time marijuana charge on their record is barred for life from receiving any federal financial aid for higher education?
If you DO think it's just, can you offer any reason why such a policy makes any sense at all?
Is it just? Of course not, but it is reality. So until we can get changes through the system, kids need to understand the playing field and then decide how they want to act.
I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:
From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:38:55 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 04:26:01 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:05:29 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 02:49:23 AM
Waittagoddamn minute....
RWHN, are you REALLY saying that you think it's fair or right that a kid with a pot conviction can never get any federal aid for higher education for the rest of their life?
How the fuck is that being pro-children?
No, I didn't say that. I would hope that there could be some leniency, especially if it is just one incident that didn't involve violence or trafficking. But at some point we have to take some responsibility for our actions.
What if at some point we decide we want to stop being involved in that world and better our lives but we can't because the fucking feds won't give us a fucking cent for college because of a fucking posession charge?
You think that you personally HOPING for some leniency is a valid response to the question?
Well considering I have approximately zero input and influence in that area, it is the best I can do. I don't work on federal policies, I work on state and local policies. But sure, if I had the opportunity to speak or give my two cents on some kind of panel or study, or whatever regarding this I certainly would advocate that kids get second chances to have access to that funding. Of course, I don't see that happening without some strings attached, such as some kind of reporting that verifies the kid is staying clean. Especially if it is a situation where there is a lot of competition for those funds.
However, at the same time, it would be important to educate kids, as we do, what ALL of the consequences of using and selling drugs are, including the impacts upon their future. And this is actually something we do. Reality is reality whether I agree with it 100% or not. As successful as I've been in local settings, I obviously can't move mountains and I don't have any kind of sway at that level. So, in the meantime, kids need to know the lay of the land and understand the consequences of the decisions they make today.
That didn't answer my question.
As it sits right now, do you think it is either fair or just that someone with a small-time marijuana charge on their record is barred for life from receiving any federal financial aid for higher education?
If you DO think it's just, can you offer any reason why such a policy makes any sense at all?
Is it just? Of course not, but it is reality. So until we can get changes through the system, kids need to understand the playing field and then decide how they want to act.
I understand that. The way you phrased it earlier made it sound as though you agreed with the policy, and that actually bent my good nature back a bit.
Guess why ECH can't go to college? And in spite of my "colorful" past, the only drug charge on my record is for simple possession of marijuana. Not trafficking, not manufacturing...simple possession of 2 grams of pot. For which I was fined $2000 and given a (suspended) sentence of 6 months in jail.
But hey, I'm a dangerous guy, right? And imagine the kind of damage I could do to the community if I had an education!
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:35:54 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 28, 2011, 11:30:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 04:16:03 PM
And by the way, that super-potent 18% THC weed they're growing down there? It still wouldn't be able to compete with the good hydroponically-grown weed here in the PNW, the best strains of which top out at around 25%.
I was gonna say that ...
Their quote about "a normal marijuana plant's two to seven percent" is ridiculous, that would be incredibly shitty weed.
I'd say 18% is not "super-potent", rather call it "decent quality".
... btw you don't really get much hashish over there do you?
Most of the hashish in the US is domestically produced using the ice method (bubble hash) and is typically more easily available to people who have direct access to growers and/or people who deal in large amounts as they're the ones who typically have enough waste product to make the hash-making process worth the trouble (and it is a HUGE pain in the balls). This generally yields a slightly lower quality product than the solvent method that is typically used to make the middle eastern hash that ends up in the European market.
Here in the US, it's generally bought as an occasional special treat rather than as a replacement for bud.
I prefer the flavour to weed. According to the Dutch wikipedia, ice/bubble hash is actually supposed to be pretty high quality. I'm not sure how the maroc hash--the kind I usually get--is made, something with sieves and tumblers and shit.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:37:05 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 09:26:16 PM
RWHN, I usually skip points that I have already seen adequately refuted.
Uh huh. The point remains you are holding me to a different standard than other posters in this thread and I think it is plainly because you don't only disagree with me, you disagree with my on a level that for some reason is personal. I mean, it's completely obvious you are trying to catch me in a "gotcha". Which is why you are selectively reading.
Law of Fives in full effect.
Nope. The reason is that there are a ton of other people in this thread refuting your points fairly exhaustively and only one person defending them, and I don't see the need to keep covering points others already have.
But that was a good stab at mind-reading I guess.
Honestly, outside of this one topic, and the punning, I like you. But you're like an eel on this one topic, and when you can't defend a point, you either invent a strawman to tear apart or simply evade it and it gets old.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 11:36:17 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:34:50 PM
Again with your selective reading. I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances. However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior. Otherwise they don't learn. If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change.
So what we're doing here is conditioning them to behave in a way that the rest of society feels is acceptable?
Am I tracking so far?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:34:50 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 09:58:05 PM
I keep trying to bite my tongue but I'm giving it the fuck up.
Every time I see someone trot out the "they knew it was illegal" defense of the absolutely idiotic, inhuman, incompassionate drug enforcement laws, I want to ask them if they know that the #1 predictor of drug abuse is child abuse, and that essentially what they're doing is the very worst form of blaming the victim. It's fucking sick.
"They knew it was illegal" is in the same category, for me, as "She was asking for it". Which is related, BTW, because the #1 predictor in victims of rape is ALSO CHILD ABUSE.
Some people need compassion and help, and dismissing it with "they knew it was illegal" is inhuman and worthy of nothing better than total contempt. It's a system that punishes the broken for their past miseries, and nothing more.
If you want to make a difference, work to end child abuse. Otherwise you're pissing in the wind.
Again with your selective reading. I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances. However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior. Otherwise they don't learn. If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change. Does that mean you let them go completely and twist in the wind? Of course not, otherwise substance abuse treatment wouldn't exist. Courts wouldn't recommend substance abuse treatment instead of jail time. Of course we give them second chances, and third chances.
My point is that the youth still needs to bear some level of responsibility for the choices they make. That is part of growing up and becoming an adult. Please, pay better attention to what I actually post before you go off on your hyperbolic nonsense.
Since that wasn't a direct response to a particular post but a general rant, I have no idea where you pulled the "selective reading" argument except out of your ass.
And I stand by my opinion, too. Punishing people for drug addiction is ass-backward caveman behavior, AT BEST. As far as I'm concerned it's in the same category as stoning rape victims, and people who advocate it are the face of evil.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 11:36:17 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:34:50 PM
Again with your selective reading. I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances. However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior. Otherwise they don't learn. If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change.
So what we're doing here is conditioning them to behave in a way that the rest of society feels is acceptable?
Am I tracking so far?
No. What I'm saying that until things are different kids need to be educated on what is. Education is important, and like it or not, there are certain rules that are in place for financial aid. Are they too draconian? Sure. But they aren't going to change overnight. They just aren't. So kids need to decide what is more important and make decisions accordingly. If using pot or other drugs is THAT important, than they need to understand they are taking on certain risks for their future, health being a primary and educational opportunities being another.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:39:40 PM
I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:
From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?
Well technically it isn't but I do agree it is unneccessarily adding another layer of punishment.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:49:18 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 11:36:17 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:34:50 PM
Again with your selective reading. I think I made it quite clear in a couple of posts that I believe that kids who get in trouble should get second chances. However, the other thing I know quite clearly is that our young people also need to experience logical consequences of their behavior. Otherwise they don't learn. If there are no consequences for behavior, behavior doesn't change.
So what we're doing here is conditioning them to behave in a way that the rest of society feels is acceptable?
Am I tracking so far?
No. What I'm saying that until things are different kids need to be educated on what is. Education is important, and like it or not, there are certain rules that are in place for financial aid. Are they too draconian? Sure. But they aren't going to change overnight. They just aren't. So kids need to decide what is more important and make decisions accordingly. If using pot or other drugs is THAT important, than they need to understand they are taking on certain risks for their future, health being a primary and educational opportunities being another.
Children are known for making good decisions? And given that the first offense is - in many areas - a life wrecker, I fail to see any advantages to prohibition, given the relatively harmless effects of pot compared to having your life ruined FOREVER because you made a dumb decision at age 16 (any SANE society makes allowances for stupidity at that age).
Having tracked the thread for the last dozen pages or so, I am now more than ever convinced that prohibition does far more harm than good. I have yet to see a single argument from any source to support it that isn't based on the slippery slope fallacy, or appeal to authority.
I get a little personally testy about the financial aid thing, for reasons already explained, but in general I just find this thread fascinating both as an example of how a group of extremely diverse and EXTREMELY strong-willed people actually CAN have a heated debate that still stays rational and respectful.
I mean, my caring about most pot laws is limited to my general sense of justice. It's not like any of it affects me personally. I don't give a shit if something is legal or not if I want to do it. I don't see why pot should be any different from speeding, in that respect.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:39:40 PM
I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:
From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?
They can't TRY you twice. They can lump on as many punishments as they want in sentencing.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 11:47:04 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 28, 2011, 11:37:05 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 28, 2011, 09:26:16 PM
RWHN, I usually skip points that I have already seen adequately refuted.
Uh huh. The point remains you are holding me to a different standard than other posters in this thread and I think it is plainly because you don't only disagree with me, you disagree with my on a level that for some reason is personal. I mean, it's completely obvious you are trying to catch me in a "gotcha". Which is why you are selectively reading.
Law of Fives in full effect.
Nope. The reason is that there are a ton of other people in this thread refuting your points fairly exhaustively and only one person defending them, and I don't see the need to keep covering points others already have.
But that was a good stab at mind-reading I guess.
Honestly, outside of this one topic, and the punning, I like you. But you're like an eel on this one topic, and when you can't defend a point, you either invent a strawman to tear apart or simply evade it and it gets old.
As I said, Law of Fives in full effect. YOu are seeing what you want to see which is fairly evident by your selective reading and your generalizations. I appreciate that Net conceded on that point but see that you are going to go ahead and dig in. If that's what floats your boat.
And, really, I don't honestly care if you like me or not. Oh, and thank you for getting the pun dig in as well. I'm glad to know (what was plainly obvious) that the puns annoy you. You should do yourself and me a favor and just avoid conversing with me alltogether.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 11:54:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:39:40 PM
I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:
From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?
They can't TRY you twice. They can lump on as many punishments as they want in sentencing.
Funny, I was never sentenced to "6 months in jail, to be suspended pending payment of a $2000 fine AND loss of all federal financial aid for life". In fact, I'm pretty sure they tacked that on after the fact which IIRC means it DOES violate double jeopardy (for people who still believe in that sort of thing).
Heh, just looking at the "Who's Online" and it looks like a bunch of people are reading this thread. If nothing else at least it's entertaining people. But, I'm out, need to get the kiddos clean for tomorrow. It's been real.
What's sad is that there's a pretty good chance that this thread is the single most intelligent discussion ever had on this particular subject.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:58:23 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2011, 11:54:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 28, 2011, 11:39:40 PM
I'd like to add another point about the "no financial aid" policy:
From a legal standpoint isn't that policy unconstitutional? Seems to me as though it violates double jeopardy. I mean, we've already decided as a society that we punish drug law violations with fines and/or jail time. IF someone is fined and/or jailed as a result of their drug conviction (this counts even if their sentence is suspended, since it's still imposed) and pays the fine/serves the time how is it justifiable to continue to punish them for the rest of their life?
They can't TRY you twice. They can lump on as many punishments as they want in sentencing.
Funny, I was never sentenced to "6 months in jail, to be suspended pending payment of a $200 fine AND loss of all federal financial aid for life". In fact, I'm pretty sure they tacked that on after the fact which IIRC means it DOES violate double jeopardy (for people who still believe in that sort of thing).
Naw, they added it as a condition for student aid, which is a different matter, altogether.
For example, if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in this state, you serve your time.
You also can't own guns, even though that wasn't in the sentence (and the crime wasn't a felony), because gun ownership laws in this state require that:
1. You are a citizen.
2. You have no felonies.
3. You have no domestic violence convictions.
One is a sentence (the time you do), the other is a qualifier. I have a problem with this on 2nd amendment grounds, but not on double jeopardy, as the person accused is not tried twice, which is what double jeopardy implies.
I understand the technical distinction, I'm just making the point that it is strictly technical.
Also, that was added as a condition of student aid AFTER my conviction. So I didn't even have the option of knowing that particular potential consequence of my actions.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 12:04:48 AM
I understand the technical distinction, I'm just making the point that it is strictly technical.
Also, that was added as a condition of student aid AFTER my conviction. So I didn't even have the option of knowing that particular potential consequence of my actions.
1. The law is nothing but strict technicalities. As I've heard judges say all too often, "Fair is a four letter word".
2. Yep. Check this out: Being
indicted for a felony means you can't own a gun here. No conviction required.
It pays to bear in mind that Drug Laws were introduced, primarily to protect people from exposure to the pernicious and debilitating dangers of drugs.
So why are we all passively supporting "War on Drugs" Laws that are only ever implemented against the very people they were set up to protect in the first place?
They have consistently failed to deliver any protection at all. Monumentally. And rather than change a such a costly and drastically counter productive policy mistake, they'd much rather just continue punishing the victims. It's loads easier than having to admit they fucked up.
Anyway, the most important thing is that people see the process of punishment happening. It has to happen to bad guys, or it's pointless. So those people are bad. By default of being punished.
A policy worthy of any despot, from Caligula,to Pol Pot. Ivan 1st, to Robert Mugabe.
You know, if you would just start posting FIRST in a bunch of threads you'd save the rest of us ALOT of time and energy. :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 12:21:15 AM
You know, if you would just start posting FIRST in a bunch of threads you'd save the rest of us ALOT of time and energy. :lulz:
Yeah, BB makes a lot of sense when he isn't being all British.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 29, 2011, 12:19:07 AM
It pays to bear in mind that Drug Laws were introduced, primarily to protect people from exposure to the pernicious and debilitating dangers of drugs.
So why are we all passively supporting "War on Drugs" Laws that are only ever implemented against the very people they were set up to protect in the first place?
They have consistently failed to deliver any protection at all. Monumentally. And rather than change a such a costly and drastically counter productive policy mistake, they'd much rather just continue punishing the victims. It's loads easier than having to admit they fucked up.
Anyway, the most important thing is that people see the process of punishment happening. It has to happen to bad guys, or it's pointless. So those people are bad. By default of being punished.
A policy worthy of any despot, from Caligula,to Pol Pot. Ivan 1st, to Robert Mugabe.
Yes. This. Very very this!
Quote from: BadBeast on June 29, 2011, 12:19:07 AM
It pays to bear in mind that Drug Laws were introduced, primarily to protect people from exposure to the pernicious and debilitating dangers of drugs.
So why are we all passively supporting "War on Drugs" Laws that are only ever implemented against the very people they were set up to protect in the first place?
They have consistently failed to deliver any protection at all. Monumentally. And rather than change a such a costly and drastically counter productive policy mistake, they'd much rather just continue punishing the victims. It's loads easier than having to admit they fucked up.
Anyway, the most important thing is that people see the process of punishment happening. It has to happen to bad guys, or it's pointless. So those people are bad. By default of being punished.
A policy worthy of any despot, from Caligula,to Pol Pot. Ivan 1st, to Robert Mugabe.
Okay, putting Godwin Lite aside,
I agree that there are plenty of areas of reform when it comes to the penalities and sentences associated with drug use. I've long advocated for changes in the sentencing guidelines that put a huge disparity between those who are caught with similar amounts of cocain and crack. The disparity used to be something like 18 to 1. The Obama administration has taken a step in the right direction though I think it is a step that is far too small. They should be equal, period. Closer to equal isn't good enough.
As I've said before, more courts in more states need to be more progressive and adopt diversion programs to keep non-violent offenders out of the jails and priosns. That's how we do it in Maine, the rest of the country needs to adopt these drug courts and other diversion program. And the legislators in Maine need to stop fucking around with the funding that helps pay for these courts.
Where I obviously part ways is on the disucssion of legalization of drugs for reasons that we've all discussed ad nauseum. But I do agree that there are reforms that can be made to make sure that a life isn't completely ruined and derailed because of a decision to do drugs. Everyone deserves a second chance and our society and our judicial system should work towards that goal.
I think the fundamental difference here is that you're the only one that thinks that drug use is something that needs to be dealt with by our legal system in any fashion.
I mean, when someone goes out and robs a liquor store because they couldn't pay rent that month, we don't charge them with robbery AND being too poor to pay rent. So all of the behaviors that can possibly arise as a result of being a drug addict are already criminalized. Hell, even with alcohol it's not illegal to BE drunk, it's just illegal to DRIVE drunk. Deciding that some substances are worthy of being criminalized in and of themselves is fucking stupid, makes no sense, wastes a whole metric fuckton of time, energy, and money that could be better spent elsewhere, and paints us as a nation of hypocrites. The reality is that even the most addictive of common recreational drugs (heroin) isn't anywhere NEAR as addictive as nicotine, which we sell in the stores and which serves NO legitimate medical or social purpose. So there's no argument that anyone can make in favor of criminalizing drug use which isn't either nonsensical, hypocritical, factually erroneous, or all of the above.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 04:41:14 PM
I think the fundamental difference here is that you're the only one that thinks that drug use is something that needs to be dealt with by our legal system in any fashion.
What I think is that, whether you accept it or not, lifting the legal barriers to substances will increase use overall. It just will. There will be increased social access for minors and social access is a huge contributing factor to the overall usage rate amongst youth. Now with adults, I don't give a fuck. When it comes to youth, I do give a fuck, obviously. So I think it's a bad, bad idea to legalize marijuana and other drugs. Now, I would also add that the issue of substance abuse shouldn't only be addressed by the legal system. It should, and is, also dealt with by people like me who work in prevention. But prevention alone can't cover everything. You still need intervention, treatment, and aftercare. You need the whole spectrum to appropriately deal with the issue. Law enforcement and the judicial system are a part of intervention. Could things be done differently and more equitably? Absolutely.
QuoteI mean, when someone goes out and robs a liquor store because they couldn't pay rent that month, we don't charge them with robbery AND being too poor to pay rent. So all of the behaviors that can possibly arise as a result of being a drug addict are already criminalized.
Yes but the laws aren't just for the end user they are also for the dealer, and important to me, the dealers that supply drugs to children.
QuoteHell, even with alcohol it's not illegal to BE drunk, it's just illegal to DRIVE drunk.
At home, yes, it is illegal, at least in Maine, to be drunk in public. Though, I think the police usually only enforce that particular law if you are actually being a public nuisance and actually bothering other people in public.
QuoteDeciding that some substances are worthy of being criminalized in and of themselves is fucking stupid, makes no sense, wastes a whole metric fuckton of time, energy, and money that could be better spent elsewhere, and paints us as a nation of hypocrites. The reality is that even the most addictive of common recreational drugs (heroin) isn't anywhere NEAR as addictive as nicotine, which we sell in the stores and which serves NO legitimate medical or social purpose. So there's no argument that anyone can make in favor of criminalizing drug use which isn't either nonsensical, hypocritical, factually erroneous, or all of the above.
In your opinion. In my opinion not wanting to increase youth access to drugs is a very sensical, straightforward, and factually supported argument. I humbly submit this document published in the journal of Pediatrics to the court of opinion: http://www.preventionworksinseattle.org/uploads/Pediatrics%20-%20potential%20impact%20on%20youth.pdf
I would also recommend perusing some of the work of Hawkins and Catalano who have done a lot of research on the risk and protective factors that influence substance abuse and other anti-social behaviors. They also lay down, IMO, considerable evidence as to why decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana would be more harmful to our youth than most may consider.
[/quote]
Listen, I'm not saying you're right or wrong about whether or not a few more kids would try pot if it were legal. We'll probably get to find that out in 2013 in WA anyway and hopefully lend some finality to that argument. I'm saying that the single most basic premise in the concept of "America" is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that right is ultimate. It trumps all other rights. This is why we criminalize behavior that directly infringes on another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So very simply, to criminalize something because of its potential requires VAST and incontrovertible evidence that the behavior is a primary and immediate threat to other peoples' ability to enjoy that right. Driving under the influence would be a good example of that. And the effect of the current legal framework surrounding recreational drugs is so hysterically disproportionate to the actual effect of the drugs themselves on society that I don't see how anybody who approaches the subject with an open and rational mind could possibly come to any other conclusion but that the drug laws and the law enforcement policies built around enforcing those laws are completely contrary to the basic idea of what "America" means.
And before you go on about the children some more, allow me to point out that, y'know, everyone's rights are supposed to weigh equally. This means that children aren't more important than you or me. I don't even HAVE kids, so how the fuck are you (or anybody else) gonna tell me that I should be FORCED to subvert my own inalienable rights based on the potential that my exercising of those rights could in some way negatively impact some hypothetical child's life? If you support making it illegal to use recreational drugs in the presence of minors, sure thing. Keep it out of school zones? OK. But seriously, fuck the fuck out of you or anyone else who tells me what I can or can't do in my own space on my own time.
I honestly applaud you for limiting your kids' exposure to TV as much as you do. My parents did the same for me and I feel they did me a great service by doing so. But hey, they might sneak into your room when you're not looking and watch a couple episodes of Gossip Girl so we're gonna have to go ahead and make it illegal for you to have a TV at all and if we catch you watching episodes of 30 Rock on your iPhone when nobody else is around we're going to brand you a criminal for life and make it virtually impossible for you to advance your education unless you're already wealthy.
I understand where you are coming from but it is something that can never and will never exist how you want it to exist. That's just simply the way it is. Despite what is in the Constitution, we don't have the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. We have freedom...within limits. There are plenty of behaviors that are verboten or restricted in the interest of the safety and security of our country and the communities within our country. You will never have unfettered freedom to engage in any behavior you see fit, including behaviors that in theory one can do without harming another person, but in practicality have caused health and security risks to other Americans.
So, given that reality, the question I would throw out then is why is recreational drug use so important? Why is this fight so important to you? I mean, I hear people say it is about freedom but there are lots of freedoms that are curbed or restricted in America. I mean, I suppose if you say you want complete and unfettered freedom from Government, Anarchy, then I guess I can't really argue with that, but I can say that it will never happen. So if it isn't complete and unfettered freedom you want, why do you pick this fight? I'm not saying or suggesting you shouldn't, I just want to understand why this one is so important to you. I'm curious.
I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.
If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.
:tgrr:
Read back a page or two. It's only important to me in an academic sense, as I personally am gonna do what I want regardless of the law. It's just so rare that I find an interesting and engaging argument to be had with someone who actually disagrees with me on the most fundamental level of the argument AND is willing to actually put as much thought and effort into the argument as I am.
I ain't mad atcha and nothing ITT affects my opinion of you as a person one way or the other. I just appreciate the opportunity to keep my skills sharp.
Now, back to countering your argument:
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 29, 2011, 07:13:36 PM
I understand where you are coming from but it is something that can never and will never exist how you want it to exist. That's just simply the way it is. Despite what is in the Constitution, we don't have the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want. We have freedom...within limits. There are plenty of behaviors that are verboten or restricted in the interest of the safety and security of our country and the communities within our country. You will never have unfettered freedom to engage in any behavior you see fit, including behaviors that in theory one can do without harming another person, but in practicality have caused health and security risks to other Americans.
Au contraire. I am free to drive my hydrocarbon-burning car around all day every day provided I can afford the gas that's refined from the oil that causes more health and security risks to other Americans than anything else I can think of. That argument holds no water because in reality, while I understand your line of thinking (though I don't agree), drug law is the ONLY aspect of our society where such thinking provides the baseline for policy. This tells me that though your intentions and those of the other people in your field and at your level in related fields are most likely honorable, the basic reasons for the pinpoint application of this sort of policy by those in power is fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.
If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.
:tgrr:
:mittens:
Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 29, 2011, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.
If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.
:tgrr:
:mittens:
Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.
No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:26:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 29, 2011, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.
If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.
:tgrr:
:mittens:
Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.
No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.
Ah...PILLZ HERE.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 07:23:45 PM
Au contraire. I am free to drive my hydrocarbon-burning car around all day every day provided I can afford the gas that's refined from the oil that causes more health and security risks to other Americans than anything else I can think of.
Ah...but you can't drive it as fast as you want. You can't drive it in Maine without having it registered and inspected. If you are driving with your headlights on you must have your wipers on. You can't have studded tires on your car after the start of Spring.
QuoteThat argument holds no water because in reality, while I understand your line of thinking (though I don't agree), drug law is the ONLY aspect of our society where such thinking provides the baseline for policy.
Not true. Gun laws do. Regulations for driving motor vehicles do, as I just illustrated above. It simply isn't true that drug laws are the only laws that limit behavior for public safety and public health.
QuoteThis tells me that though your intentions and those of the other people in your field and at your level in related fields are most likely honorable, the basic reasons for the pinpoint application of this sort of policy by those in power is fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest.
You premise being flawed aside, can you explain and provide evidence of how the application of the drug laws are "fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest"? And I mean evidence that shows it to be pervasive.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:26:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 29, 2011, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.
If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.
:tgrr:
:mittens:
Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.
No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.
Well, if it helps, this topic is also currently a hot topic over at Political Panic. But I'm kind of staying out of it over there this time around seeing how someone else seems to be making my arguments for me.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 29, 2011, 07:43:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:26:42 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on June 29, 2011, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 29, 2011, 07:17:11 PM
I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.
If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.
:tgrr:
:mittens:
Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.
No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.
Well, if it helps, this topic is also currently a hot topic over at Political Panic. But I'm kind of staying out of it over there this time around seeing how someone else seems to be making my arguments for me.
I still stand by what I said.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 29, 2011, 07:41:19 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 07:23:45 PM
Au contraire. I am free to drive my hydrocarbon-burning car around all day every day provided I can afford the gas that's refined from the oil that causes more health and security risks to other Americans than anything else I can think of.
Ah...but you can't drive it as fast as you want. You can't drive it in Maine without having it registered and inspected. If you are driving with your headlights on you must have your wipers on. You can't have studded tires on your car after the start of Spring.
QuoteThat argument holds no water because in reality, while I understand your line of thinking (though I don't agree), drug law is the ONLY aspect of our society where such thinking provides the baseline for policy.
Not true. Gun laws do. Regulations for driving motor vehicles do, as I just illustrated above. It simply isn't true that drug laws are the only laws that limit behavior for public safety and public health.
QuoteThis tells me that though your intentions and those of the other people in your field and at your level in related fields are most likely honorable, the basic reasons for the pinpoint application of this sort of policy by those in power is fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest.
You premise being flawed aside, can you explain and provide evidence of how the application of the drug laws are "fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest"? And I mean evidence that shows it to be pervasive.
Are you trying to say that the limitations placed on how and where you drive your car are analogous to COMPLETE federal prohibition of marijuana?
Because I'm trying to say the limits placed on things like owning guns and driving cars SHOULD be analogous to how we treat marijuana.
I think one of the most objectionable unspoken memes in this thread is that all 'use' is 'abuse' &/or 'dependence'.
While not specific to the US, I found the following take on how the Western nations approach Cannabis prohibition very interesting, as it exposes some of the hypocrisy mentioned up-thread. Granted, it's being presented by an MMJ activist website, but the quoted selections from the email correspondence provide a valid point can be viewed without the bias of the article's narrative.
http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/201106291495/green/eco-news/lithium-cannabis-treatment-violates-first-law-of-medicine-grinspoon.html
----------
Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR-UK) has expressed concerns over the safety of a proposed treatment used on those who claim, or are told, they are suffering cannabis withdrawal. A treatment which one of the worlds foremost psychiatrists claims, breaks the first law of medicine - primum non nocere, which roughly translated means Do No Harm.
l though cannabis is generally recognized as being not physically addictive, the treatment in question uses Lithium to quash the cravings which can accompany sudden withdrawal in a tiny fraction of those who use cannabis.
To clarify these are not physical cold-turkey withdrawals, although for the cannabis user who has underlying mental health issues it can certainly seem so.
CLEAR-UK's Jason Reed was so concerned he wrote to a man who he figured, should have the answers he was seeking.
Dr Lester Grinspoon (Grinspoon on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Grinspoon) )
Dr. Lester Grinspoon is Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Suffice to say his qualifications mean Dr Grinspoon gets listened to in the United States, when talking about psychiatry and mental health issues.
Dr Grinspoon is also on record as the first american physician to prescribe Lithium Carbonate for polar disorder so its fair to say he knows what he is talking about.
so Jason Reed voiced his concerns thus;
QuoteWhenever the message of cannabis reform hits the headlines, it is invariably met with some degree of opposition.
On the 23rd June 2011, the Australian publication, Echo News, put out a story that appealed for applicants to partake in a cannabis withdrawal study. The University of Sydney are appealing for participants to take part in a trial using lithium to treat the symptoms of cannabis withdrawal.
....
Ron Paul, U.S Republican Congressman, has introduced a bill to legislate, and draft a federal law on marijuana; emphasis being to decriminalise all persons in the U.S. Once more, this meets the consensus that prohibition has failed. This move coincides with ex-president Jimmy Carter's public view that reform is indeed necessary.
So the thought of offering people a toxic substance like Lithium to treat a 'drug' which is being considered for outright legalisation in other countries, sounds a little ..dramatic and more than a little dangerous, even in the short-term.
Dr Grinspoon agree's and he replied to Jason Reed shortly afterwards, saying;
QuoteThank you for sending me news of this absurd study.
First of all, there is considerable question as to whether cannabis can lead to an addiction.
Most authorities believe that marijuana does not cause an addiction and those who claim that it does can only point to nebulous "withdrawal symptoms".
An interesting point.
There are also those who claim cannabis addiction as part of a judicial defense, on instruction from legal council looking to minimise sentencing with promises to treat the defendants drug 'addiction' in return for a non-custodial sentence.
Are we going to start pumping citizens full of Lithium at the behest of a judge, a solicitor or the Home Secretary? And if so surely we are reaching into the realms of human rights abuses?
Dr Grinspoon continues;
QuoteTo consider "treating" people who have this putative addiction with lithium is, in my opinion, the height of folly.
It would not only be a worthless and wasteful enterprise, but it is also a treatment which is very uncomfortable and generally causes patients to increase weight.
Even more importantly it violates the first law of medicine -
Primum non Nocere (do no harm).
Lithium is toxic and it can damage some organs of the body. Indeed its toxicity is such that it's blood level has to be frequently monitored.
However, I am reassured by the fact that the study will never succeed, as it will be impossible to prove that one has successfully treated a phantom disorder.
Dr Lester Grinspoon - Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry - Harvard Medical School
----------
Lester wrote a chapter in
Substance Abuse, a Comprehensive Textbook (2004), published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. It can be found on the web here:
http://www.rxmarijuana.com/lowinson.htm
It's pretty chunky, cites tons of scientific and historical research, and I don't want to quote the whole thing. Here's an interesting bit tho:
QuoteIn the LaGuardia study in New York City, an examination of chronic users who had averaged about seven marihuana cigarettes a day (a comparatively high dosage) over a long period (the mean was eight years) showed that they had suffered no demonstrable mental or physical decline as a result of their use of the drug (33). The 1972 report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (34), although it did much to demythologize cannabis, cautioned that, of people in the United States who used marihuana, 2% became heavy users and that these abusers were at risk, but it did not make clear exactly what risk was involved. Furthermore, since the publication of this report, several controlled studies of chronic heavy use have been completed that have failed to establish any pharmacologically induced harmfulness, including personality deterioration or the development of the so-called amotivational syndrome (21-26, 35-37). The most recent government sponsored review of cannabis, Marijuana and Medicine, conducted by the Institute of Medicine, while cautious in its summary statement, found little documentation for most of the alleged harmfulness of this substance (28).
.....
Most recent research on the health hazards of marihuana concerns its long-term effects on the body. The main physiological effects of cannabis are increased appetite, a faster heartbeat, and slight reddening of the conjunctiva. Although the increased heart rate could be a problem for people with cardiovascular disease, dangerous physical reactions to marihuana are almost unknown. No human being is known to have died of an overdose. By extrapolation from animal experiments, the ratio of lethal to effective (intoxicating) dose is estimated to be on the order of thousands to one.
Studies have examined the brain, the immune system, the reproductive system, and the lungs. Suggestions of long-term damage come almost exclusively from animal experiments and other laboratory work. Observations of marihuana users and the Caribbean, Greek, and other studies reveal little disease or organic pathology associated with the drug (21, 22, 27, 53).
For example, there are several reports of damaged brain cells and changes in brain-wave readings in monkeys smoking marihuana, but neurological and neuropsychological tests in Greece, Jamaica, and Costa Rica found no evidence of functional brain damage. A recent study of enrolled patients in the Compassionate Use Investigational New Drug Program in the USA also demonstrated no significant EEG or P300 changes (54). Damage to white blood cells has also been observed in the laboratory, but again, its practical importance is unclear. Whatever temporary changes marihuana may produce in the immune system, they have not been found to increase the danger of infectious disease or cancer. If there were significant damage, we might expect to find a higher rate of these diseases among young people beginning in the 1960s, when marihuana first became popular. There is no evidence of that. Recent studies in HIV (55) and in the Missoula Chronic Use Study (54) also failed to demonstrate deleterious effects on white blood cell or CD4 counts.
The effects of marihuana on the reproductive system are a more complicated issue. In men, a single dose of THC lowers sperm count and the level of testosterone and other hormones. Tolerance to this effect apparently develops; in the Costa Rican study, marihuana smokers and controls had the same testosterone levels. Although the smokers in that study began using marihuana at an average age of 15, it had not affected their masculine development. There is no evidence that the changes in sperm count and testosterone produced by marihuana affect sexual performance or fertility.
In animal experiments THC has also been reported to lower levels of female hormones and disturb the menstrual cycle. When monkeys, rats, and mice are exposed during pregnancy to amounts of THC equivalent to a heavy human smoker's dose, stillbirths and decreased birth weight are sometimes reported in their offspring. There are also reports of low birth weight, prematurity, and even a condition resembling the fetal alcohol syndrome in some children of women who smoke marihuana heavily during pregnancy. The significance of these reports is unclear because controls are lacking and other circumstances make it hard to attribute causes. No endocrine changes were observed in the Missoula Chronic Use Study (54). To be safe, pregnant and nursing women should follow the standard conservative recommendation to avoid all drugs, including cannabis, that are not absolutely necessary. Nonetheless, evidence from a well controlled study of cannabis-only smokers in Jamaica are supportive of low risk to their children (56).
A well-confirmed danger of long-term, heavy marihuana use is its effect on the lungs. Smoking narrows and inflames air passages and reduces breathing capacity; damage to bronchial cells has been observed in hashish smokers. The possible side effects include bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. Interestingly, one study failed to demonstrate emphysematous degeneration in cannabis smokers over time (57). Marihuana smoke contains the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, usually in somewhat higher concentrations, at least in cannabis supplied by NIDA. THC may actually interfere with a key biochemical step in carcinogenesis (58). Marihuana is also inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs longer, which increases the danger (59, 60). On the other hand, almost no one smokes 20 marihuana cigarettes a day. Marihuana of higher potency may reduce the danger of respiratory damage, because less smoking is required for the desired effect. There is now some experimental evidence demonstrating that high-potency THC cigarettes are smoked less vigorously than those of low potency; the user takes smaller and shorter puffs, inhaling less with each puff (61). Vaporization technology may also reduce risks (62).
It is hard to generalize about abuse or define specific treatments, because the problems associated with marihuana are so vague, and cause and effect so hard to determine. Marihuana smokers may be using the drug as a facet of adolescent exploration, to demonstrate rebelliousness, cope with anxiety, medicate themselves for early symptoms of mental illness, or most commonly, simply for pleasure.
The complexity of the problem is illustrated by a most important long-term study by two Berkeley psychologists (63). Shedler and Block followed the progress of 101 San Francisco children of both sexes from ages 5 to 18, and gave them personality tests at 7, 11, and 18 years of age. By the end of the study, 68% had used marihuana and 39% had used it once a week or more; large minorities had also used cocaine, hallucinogens, and prescription stimulants and sedatives. Three main groups could be distinguished: 29 "abstainers" who had used no illicit drugs; 36 "experimenters" who had used marihuana no more than once a month and had tried at most one other drug; and 20 "frequent users" who had smoked marihuana at least once a week and had used at least one other drug. The other 16 fit into none of these categories and were not included in the study.
Striking personality differences among the three groups appeared in childhood, long before any drug use. The frequent users, as early as age 7, got along poorly with other children and had few friends. They found it difficult to think ahead and lacked confidence in themselves. They were untrustworthy and seemingly indifferent to moral questions. At age 11 they were described as inattentive, uncooperative, and vulnerable to stress. At 18, they were insecure, alienated, impulsive, undependable, self-indulgent, inconsiderate, and unpredictable in their moods and behavior; they overreacted to frustration; they felt personally inadequate and also victimized and cheated. They had lower high school grades than adolescents in the other two groups.
Abstainers, at age 7, were described as inhibited, conventional, obedient, and lacking in creativity. At age 11 they were shy, neat and orderly, eager to please, but lacking in humor, liveliness, and expressiveness. The terms that best described them at 18 were tense, overcontrolled, moralistic, anxious, and lacking in social ease or personal charm. Their high school grades were average.
The happy mean, statistically, was found in the "experimenters." They were more likely to be warm, responsive, curious, open, active, and cheerful from the age of 7 on. In the three broad categories of personal happiness, relations with others, and rational self-control, frequent users were doing worst and experimental users best. The authors pointed out that studies comparing moderate drinkers with alcoholics and abstainers have found similar personality differences.
To find some sources of these differences, the authors examined experiments conducted when the children were only 5 years old. Their parents' behavior was observed as they worked with the child on a laboratory task involving blocks and mazes. Mothers of both frequent users and abstainers tended to be cold and unresponsive. They gave their children little encouragement but insisted that they perform well; and the experience seemed unpleasant for both mother and child. Fathers of frequent users did not differ from fathers of experimenters, but abstainers' fathers were impatient, hypercritical, and domineering.
According to the authors, frequent drug users believe that they have nothing to look forward to and are therefore drawn to the immediate gratification provided by drugs. Their alienation and impulsiveness might have roots in their relationship with their mothers. The problems of abstainers are also serious, but they attract less attention, because they are less troublesome for society. Abstainers suppress their impulses to avoid feeling vulnerable, perhaps because they have internalized the attitudes of harsh, authoritarian fathers. Experimental users are the largest and most typical group. At least in the San Francisco area in the 1980s, reasonably inquisitive, open, and independent adolescents experimented with marihuana as part of growing up.
The inverted U-shaped relationship between the degree of drug use and psychological health suggests that the need for therapy would also describe such a curve. The fact that among the abstainers are to be found many individuals who could profit from psychotherapy is not relevant to this discussion of marihuana. The important question concerns the indications for therapy for those who comprise the other two arms of the curve. Given the current prevalence of drug use in our society, the developmentally appropriate propensity of adolescents to explore and experiment, and the relatively benign sequelae of such experimentation with cannabis, it is obvious that therapy is not properly indicated for young people who fit the description of the "experimenter."
It is appropriate to consider psychotherapy for the frequent adolescent users of marihuana. The picture that emerges is "one of a troubled adolescent who is interpersonally alienated, emotionally withdrawn, and manifestly unhappy, and who expresses his or her maladjustment through undercontrolled, overtly antisocial behavior" (63). They are described as being "overreactive to minor frustrations, likely to think and associate to ideas in unusual ways, having brittle ego-defense systems, self-defeating, concerned about the adequacy of their bodily functioning, concerned about their adequacy as persons, prone to project their feelings and motives onto others, feeling cheated and victimized by life, and having fluctuating moods."
Obviously, psychotherapy is not inappropriate for individuals who exemplify this description. But it should be emphasized that this is not psychotherapy for marihuana abuse; it is therapy for the underlying psychopathology, one of whose symptoms is the abuse of cannabis. It is no more appropriate to see marihuana as the cause of the problem here than it is to see repetitive hand-washing as the cause of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The individual may be brought to psychiatric attention because of the hand-washing, but the therapy will address the underlying disorder. Becoming attached to cannabis is not so much a function of any inherent psychopharmacological property of the drug as it is emotionally driven by the underlying psychopathology. Success in curtailing cannabis use requires dealing with that pathology.
RWHN, I'm going to go back through the thread to look at the references you posted, but do you have anything on-hand which shows any more 'Harm' than what Dr Grinspoon is talking about, or any new information on the specifics effects of adolescent use?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Are you trying to say that the limitations placed on how and where you drive your car are analogous to COMPLETE federal prohibition of marijuana?
Because I'm trying to say the limits placed on things like owning guns and driving cars SHOULD be analogous to how we treat marijuana.
No, I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out that in our society we do place limits, through laws, on our behavior. Even those behaviors that certain individuals can engage in and not harm or impact another person. But if we want to use another example, say driving a car, I think it's safe to say there are individuals who are capable of driving a car at a very high speed and do it safely without harming others. Yet, we do impose speed limits.
Guns. Though it is no longer in force, for a time we banned assault weapons even though there were certainly individuals in America that could responsibly own such firearms. I do have to say it's very bizarre to me that this hasn't been reauthorized, especially given that the last time it was offered as a bill it was co-sponsored by 4 Republicans, but that's for another thread.
So it seems to me there really isn't a question as to whether or not there can be limits imposed upon us regarding what we are able to do. It really isn't a question that we can have complete and unbinding freedom. So the question then becomes where do those lines get drawn. In the case of drugs, the line has moved a bit, the obvious example being alcohol. And of course my opinion is that the line is best where it is at this time because in my professional experience and opinion, the costs to our communities would outweigh the benefits. BUT, some of the benefits being sought can be achieved by amending state sentencing laws and by introducing progressive, diversion programs in states so that non-violent, non-trafficking offenders don't wind up in jail or prison.
Quote from: Telarus on June 30, 2011, 08:25:02 AM
I think one of the most objectionable unspoken memes in this thread is that all 'use' is 'abuse' &/or 'dependence'.
Unspoken by me, no doubt, given that I'm the only one on this side of the discussion. But that is something you are conjuring up yourself. I've not made any claim that all use = abuse/dependence. I'm very well aware of the 4 stages of drug use. For those who may not they are as follows:
Experimentation
Social Use
Seeking
Habitual Use
Of course how a person progresses through these stages can be different. Some may stay at experimentation, some may stay at social use, occasionally dipping down into experimentation. Still, others can move through all 4 in a matter of months. The bottom line is that prevention is still the best prescription for substance abuse.
And with all due respect, your article, in my experience, is a bit of a straw-man. I know many, many, many treatment providers. Outside of perhaps some extreme co-occurring disorders, Lithium is not prescribed to marijuana addicts. And if it is prescribed to those with co-occurring it really isn't targeting the substance abuse, it is targeting the underlying mental health issue. It certainly isn't the norm and I hope people don't read this and accept that it somehow is the norm in marijuana abuse treatment in the U.S.
QuoteRWHN, I'm going to go back through the thread to look at the references you posted, but do you have anything on-hand which shows any more 'Harm' than what Dr Grinspoon is talking about, or any new information on the specifics effects of adolescent use?
I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread that show an increased risk of psychosis and other serious mental disorders for teens who are heavy marijuana users.
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/research/marijuana-linked-to-early-3
I also think you should review the article I posted earlier that was in the journal Pediatrics which lays out a pretty strong case, based on research, why legalizing marijuana will be a net harm to our youth. So far no one has commented on it. Maybe no one has read it yet but I'd like to get some responses from some of you and if you disagree with any of it hopefully some evidence as to how the research is wrong.
http://www.preventionworksinseattle.org/uploads/Pediatrics%20-%20potential%20impact%20on%20youth.pdf
I would finally, again, encourage folks to do some Googling of Hawkins and Catalano who have done some pretty ground breaking stuff on risk and protective factors. One of those risk factors being drug use norms established in a community which includes the laws and regulations restricting drug use. I think, perhaps, it is a side of the story some of you may be missing.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on June 30, 2011, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 29, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Are you trying to say that the limitations placed on how and where you drive your car are analogous to COMPLETE federal prohibition of marijuana?
Because I'm trying to say the limits placed on things like owning guns and driving cars SHOULD be analogous to how we treat marijuana.
No, I'm not making an analogy, I'm pointing out that in our society we do place limits, through laws, on our behavior. Even those behaviors that certain individuals can engage in and not harm or impact another person. But if we want to use another example, say driving a car, I think it's safe to say there are individuals who are capable of driving a car at a very high speed and do it safely without harming others. Yet, we do impose speed limits.
Guns. Though it is no longer in force, for a time we banned assault weapons even though there were certainly individuals in America that could responsibly own such firearms. I do have to say it's very bizarre to me that this hasn't been reauthorized, especially given that the last time it was offered as a bill it was co-sponsored by 4 Republicans, but that's for another thread.
So it seems to me there really isn't a question as to whether or not there can be limits imposed upon us regarding what we are able to do. It really isn't a question that we can have complete and unbinding freedom. So the question then becomes where do those lines get drawn. In the case of drugs, the line has moved a bit, the obvious example being alcohol. And of course my opinion is that the line is best where it is at this time because in my professional experience and opinion, the costs to our communities would outweigh the benefits. BUT, some of the benefits being sought can be achieved by amending state sentencing laws and by introducing progressive, diversion programs in states so that non-violent, non-trafficking offenders don't wind up in jail or prison.
So you're saying that marijuana is more harmful to the overall health of communities than cars (and whole hydrocarbon-based economy), guns, or refined sugar?
Because those things vary from "somewhat restricted but legal" to "fully legal with no restrictions at all".
Now, making a distinction between pragmatism and idealism and leaving aside the "it's how it is now so we should leave it like that" line of thought, how do you personally come to the conclusion that a substance that is less harmful than refined sugar should be made illegal at the federal level when many things that are WAY more harmful to both adults AND children are freely available? I mean, if we accept the premise that it's OK to limit our freedoms because of something that might happen to children, where should the line be drawn?
But I don't agree with your assessment as to the harm posed by marijuana. Certainly alcohol and tobacco are very damaging to youth. But they are legal now and my personal view on that IS one of pragmatism. They are legal and that's that. So my work focuses on how to deal with that reality and do the best I can help prevent youth substance abuse even though the legal status of the product creates many challenges and barriers to that work.
But marijuana IS illegal now. And so I draw the pragmatic, and yes, arbitrary line that it should remain illegal. As I said before in this thread, when it comes to alcohol and tobacco, the toothpaste is out of the tube. I am of the opinion that it is best for our communities to keep the marijuana toothpaste in the tube. Because the mess we have is big enough as it is. We don't need to create an even bigger mess.
BTW, did you read the PEDIATRICS article I linked to?
I think the punishment should fit the crime. As it is right now, punishment for drug possession is disproportionately high relative to its actual threat to society. I got a year of probation (monthly visits) and a total cost of about $3000 for less than a quarter ounce of weed. Someone who was driving 10 mph over the speed limit would have gotten a ticket for maybe $200.
The reason for this is: more people drive cars than smoke pot (or use other drugs). Breaking traffic laws is simply more popular than the use of illegal drugs, so despite the greater risk, (20% of all child deaths in the US are from automobile accidents) punishments are much lighter.
I propose that we scale up our traffic law penalties to match our drug laws (for the children).
The new penalties should be:
Speeding:
5mph over: 1 year
10 mph over: 3 years
20 mph over: 5 years
30mph or more over: 10 years
Running a red light: 10 years
Passing in a no passing zone: 15 years
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
:mittens:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
This thread is still going?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?
Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 01, 2011, 02:19:10 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?
Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT
THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined. 400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined. Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
Even if I accept that 400,000 additional children would immediately start smoking pot if it were legalized, how is that going to ruin ALL of their lives? Especially if they don't have to worry about getting a criminal record and being denied financial aid for college?
but even if all 400,000 kids are ruined forever, that's still substantially less than the amount of people currently in prison on marijuana-related charges (and ONLY marijuana-related charges). And still substantially less than the 300,000,000+ Americans that would benefit greatly from the federal government NOT spending all that money on failed policies and corrupt enforcement officials.
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 02:29:29 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 01, 2011, 02:19:10 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?
Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT
THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined. 400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined. Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.
Yes, because if they legalize marijuana they are going to also make it legal for kids to use just like they did for alcohol and tobacco....oh, wait, no, those were still illegal for minors to use.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 01, 2011, 02:38:46 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
Even if I accept that 400,000 additional children would immediately start smoking pot if it were legalized, how is that going to ruin ALL of their lives? Especially if they don't have to worry about getting a criminal record and being denied financial aid for college?
but even if all 400,000 kids are ruined forever, that's still substantially less than the amount of people currently in prison on marijuana-related charges (and ONLY marijuana-related charges). And still substantially less than the 300,000,000+ Americans that would benefit greatly from the federal government NOT spending all that money on failed policies and corrupt enforcement officials.
Could you provide a link that verifies the number of people in prison for marijuana-only charges that exceeds 400,000?
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 02:29:29 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 01, 2011, 02:19:10 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?
Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT
THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined. 400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined. Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.
Yes, because if they legalize marijuana they are going to also make it legal for kids to use just like they did for alcohol and tobacco....oh, wait, no, those were still illegal for minors to use.
Forgive me if I blank out, but aren't the penalties for minors using alcohol and tobacco much less than for using marijuana currently?
Yes, but the argument that is being put forth is about how marijuana penalties/convictions ruin kids lives forever. So whether or not you legalize it, it will still be illegal for minors which means they can still have marijuana charges against them, which means nothing will change in that department.
I will say, for the record, I'm suspect as to the actual extent of kids lives being ruined forever after a non-violent pot conviction. If a kid is dealing it, or knocked someone off in a deal, or something like that, yeah, that definitely will make things rough for the kid. But I am suspect that a kid being arrested for simple possession or similar small-time charge actually ruins their life forever. If someone can provide data that demonstrates the extent to which this happens, I may be persuaded.
I mean, I can use anecdotes and tell you about kids I've known that went through my former agency's residential program (many of whom, if not all, got in trouble with the law) and many of them found a way to go to college. Sure, maybe it was community college vs. some big fancy ivy league school, but fuck, there are straight and sober kids who have to settle for that.
For anyone who is interested, Columbia University just released a report outlining the extent of the current adolescent substance abuse issues in our country. It really is one of our top public health concerns today. The report is pretty big, 419 pages, but they also have a slide show of about 20 slides that highlights some of the key data points. You can access it here: http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/NewsRoom.aspx?articleid=631&zoneid=51&utm_medium=email&utm_source=peer360&utm_campaign=COMHSreportdissemination&utm_content=HDCASANews
Just putting it out there for your information.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 02:29:29 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 01, 2011, 02:19:10 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?
Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT
THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined. 400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined. Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.
Yes, because if they legalize marijuana they are going to also make it legal for kids to use just like they did for alcohol and tobacco....oh, wait, no, those were still illegal for minors to use.
When minors get caught drinking they generally don't go to jail, get stuck with a criminal record, and get barred for life from receiving financial aid.
You keep making these completely useless (and frankly, terrible) analogies. It makes it hard to believe you're really thinking about this from a standpoint of rational open-mindedness.
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 01:34:13 PM
Yes, but the argument that is being put forth is about how marijuana penalties/convictions ruin kids lives forever. So whether or not you legalize it, it will still be illegal for minors which means they can still have marijuana charges against them, which means nothing will change in that department.
I will say, for the record, I'm suspect as to the actual extent of kids lives being ruined forever after a non-violent pot conviction. If a kid is dealing it, or knocked someone off in a deal, or something like that, yeah, that definitely will make things rough for the kid. But I am suspect that a kid being arrested for simple possession or similar small-time charge actually ruins their life forever. If someone can provide data that demonstrates the extent to which this happens, I may be persuaded.
I mean, I can use anecdotes and tell you about kids I've known that went through my former agency's residential program (many of whom, if not all, got in trouble with the law) and many of them found a way to go to college. Sure, maybe it was community college vs. some big fancy ivy league school, but fuck, there are straight and sober kids who have to settle for that.
HI. I HAVE A SIMPLE POSSESSION CHARGE ON MY RECORD AND CAN NEVER GET FINANCIAL AID OR A GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLEARANCE (WHICH MEANS THAT IN THEORY AT SOME POINT I COULD BE UNABLE TO DO MY CURRENT JOB) OR EVEN A REGULAR WHITE-COLLAR JOB.
Now, my life is far from ruined but goddamn, I'd sure like to be able to go back to school and not have to still be busting my balls over a hot stove when I'm 50.
I hope you can accept my anecdotal evidence without a published study to back it up concerning the effects on my life of the aroementioned pot charge.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 01, 2011, 04:22:13 PM
When minors get caught drinking they generally don't go to jail, get stuck with a criminal record, and get barred for life from receiving financial aid.
You keep making these completely useless (and frankly, terrible) analogies. It makes it hard to believe you're really thinking about this from a standpoint of rational open-mindedness.
I wasn't making an analogy. I was simply reminding trix, in a obviously sarcastic manner, that legalizing marijuana would only be for adults. Therefore, there still would be charges a minor could face associated with possessing and distributing marijuana to others. Undoubtedly charges that would go on a criminal record. Basically, I'm just pointing out that of all the points that can be made to justify marijuana legalization, the one that trix gave doesn't hold up.
I would further add that any kind of legislation that ever legalizes, or decriminalizes, marijuana is going to come with some other adjustments in law enforcement. Because any legislation that passes to legalize marijuana is going to have to be a compromise between the two sides. I would fully expect, and hope, that this compromise would include some very hefty charges for dealing or distributing to minors, as well as some very hefty charges for anyone who knowingly or willingly hosts a party where minors are present and where marijuana is being distributed. I mean, there's no way that doesn't happen. Those laws will invariably ensnare some young adults and very likely make their futures a bit more difficult.
Granted, this is a hypothetical but I really don't see how marijuana is legalized without these kind of adjustments. While public sentiment may be moving towards decriminalization and legalization, it hasn't moved
that much.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 01, 2011, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 01:34:13 PM
Yes, but the argument that is being put forth is about how marijuana penalties/convictions ruin kids lives forever. So whether or not you legalize it, it will still be illegal for minors which means they can still have marijuana charges against them, which means nothing will change in that department.
I will say, for the record, I'm suspect as to the actual extent of kids lives being ruined forever after a non-violent pot conviction. If a kid is dealing it, or knocked someone off in a deal, or something like that, yeah, that definitely will make things rough for the kid. But I am suspect that a kid being arrested for simple possession or similar small-time charge actually ruins their life forever. If someone can provide data that demonstrates the extent to which this happens, I may be persuaded.
I mean, I can use anecdotes and tell you about kids I've known that went through my former agency's residential program (many of whom, if not all, got in trouble with the law) and many of them found a way to go to college. Sure, maybe it was community college vs. some big fancy ivy league school, but fuck, there are straight and sober kids who have to settle for that.
HI. I HAVE A SIMPLE POSSESSION CHARGE ON MY RECORD AND CAN NEVER GET FINANCIAL AID OR A GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLEARANCE (WHICH MEANS THAT IN THEORY AT SOME POINT I COULD BE UNABLE TO DO MY CURRENT JOB) OR EVEN A REGULAR WHITE-COLLAR JOB.
Now, my life is far from ruined but goddamn, I'd sure like to be able to go back to school and not have to still be busting my balls over a hot stove when I'm 50.
I hope you can accept my anecdotal evidence without a published study to back it up concerning the effects on my life of the aroementioned pot charge.
I'm not arguing it doesn't happen, I'm asking about the extent to which it happens. And I don't justify it at all. If it is indeed that pervasive that non-violent, low level offenders are unable to go to college after paying their debts to society then that is obviously an area of policy that needs to be addressed. If there isn't some kind of appeals process or "parole" process, if you will, there should be one.
This thread is full of poor communication and backfire effect. Any evidence provided here will only make each person's original beliefs stronger. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ Which incidentally, is why every single one of these threads goes this direction.
Actually, one of these threads was pretty formative in my opinions on drug law. People who have their mind made up probably won't be swayed. But RWHN's arguments definitely helped me better understand the current laws and helped me realize how reckless the "legalize everything" point of view is.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 01, 2011, 05:53:07 PM
Actually, one of these threads was pretty formative in my opinions on drug law. People who have their mind made up probably won't be swayed. But RWHN's arguments definitely helped me better understand the current laws and helped me realize how reckless the "legalize everything" point of view is.
If you didn't have a strong opinion in the first place, then yeah, backfire effect doesn't apply. However, this forum is filled with strong opinions.
I have strong opinions of the matter, and although i can't say i have fundamentally changed them, they have certainly been tempered by RWHN's arguments and info links...
I think the denizens of this forum have a better than average tendency to examine their own entrenched beliefs.
i know it's been a good influence on me.
Roger has certainly had me stare down some sacred cows, and i've changed my mind on some topics there, to my benefit.
My opinions are bold, not strong.
Opinions
See?
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 06:26:17 PM
My opinions are bold, not strong.
Opinions
See?
Heh. You certainly do have opinions built in experience. But I wonder, how much of your map (or anyone in this thread) actually matches the territory? You see things that others don't, being in your position, but how much of what you read from the ivory tower of academia (being in academia currently, I can say this) is colored by cognitive bias?
Because when I read these discussions, I become confused. I become confused, because I'm having trouble fitting map to territory, distinguishing reality from fiction. Here we have educated people on all sides attacking this problem of Cannabis from different directions, with different reasons for being interested in the problem, and those interests are going to color whatever evidence they choose to exhibit. Your interest is in the well being of young adults and children, and therefore, whatever evidence you present will be aimed at that element. Lots of little pictures from lots of different people.
And of course, there are big answers and solutions. Humans are not that disparate in psychology and physiology that there would not be. So, either what everyone here is saying is true, or some of it is false, or all of it is false (doubtful). And the solution may be one of these, or a partial synthesis of these, or none of these, but THIS is clear. Somebody's conclusion is wrong, somebody's answers and solutions are wrong. If there are right solutions, that means there are wrong solutions as well. If there are good answers, then there are bad answers.
Which ones are good or bad? I certainly can't tell fuck all from this thread. And I doubt anyone else without a bold opinion can tell either.
And I certainly don't fault you for defending yourself and your work, RWHN. I just think this thread is otherwise useless.
Well, I wouldn't really say I'm in this thread to defend myself or my work. I'm honestly just here to discuss/debate the issue with people who are on the other side. Also (at the risk of sounding pretentious) I'm here to present a side I don't think would otherwise be presented. I mean, let's face it, if I weren't in this thread, it would be pretty one sided, right? And, this being a Discordian board and all, it seems important to recognize that there are different reality grids when it comes to this particular topic.
And so in that respect I wouldn't say that these threads are useless.
Are they going to solve the issue or resolve the disagreements? Of course not. If a message board ever does that I'm going to become very worried and paranoid.
As I've said, I have no delusions that I'm going to change anyone's mind. And I expect ECH and Rat (even though he's not here for this round) also have no delusions that they are going to sway my mind. I think it is good for each of us to be exposed to different trains of thought and different sources on this topic. I feel pretty safe in assuming not a lot of people on the other side of the debate have had a lot of exposure to the risk and protective research. I think it's a good thing for them to check out and to consider.
But, in the end, yes, we are just going to come basically to the same positions of agreeing to disagree.
But of course I'm right. ;)
I think it's important to have these debates, not necessarily to change anyone's mind, but for greater awareness of issues you might not have thought about without engaging with those who disagree. Participating in heated discussions like this also can provide insight into your own beliefs and values in ways that are not immediately apparent to observers.
I know a lot of people feel threads like this are useless or pointless, and maybe they are for you. But I'm curious what your criteria is for a "useful" debate thread.
edit: Also, debating involves skills that atrophy without use. It's not often that you run into such an intelligent and tenacious opponent such as RWHN, so I see this as a rare opportunity.
Thanks for being awesome, RWHN.
The one thing I will say is that though I've always been aware of how some consequences of the laws can be excessively punitive, this thread at least has made me thing about what I can do in my work to help address some of those issues. It is actually something I'm beginning to work on at a school level where I'm trying to get the school districts to reassess their substance abuse policies and think about where the punishments may be counterproductive.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
That's you equating use and abuse. even regular use isn't the same as abuse.
Also, even if they become complete pothead wasters, being a pothead waster is better than being in prison, and it's also better than having drug cartels running your neighborhood.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:24:21 PM
The one thing I will say is that though I've always been aware of how some consequences of the laws can be excessively punitive, this thread at least has made me thing about what I can do in my work to help address some of those issues. It is actually something I'm beginning to work on at a school level where I'm trying to get the school districts to reassess their substance abuse policies and think about where the punishments may be counterproductive.
I'm glad to hear this.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 01, 2011, 06:45:13 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 06:26:17 PM
My opinions are bold, not strong.
Opinions
See?
Heh. You certainly do have opinions built in experience. But I wonder, how much of your map (or anyone in this thread) actually matches the territory? You see things that others don't, being in your position, but how much of what you read from the ivory tower of academia (being in academia currently, I can say this) is colored by cognitive bias?
Because when I read these discussions, I become confused. I become confused, because I'm having trouble fitting map to territory, distinguishing reality from fiction. Here we have educated people on all sides attacking this problem of Cannabis from different directions, with different reasons for being interested in the problem, and those interests are going to color whatever evidence they choose to exhibit. Your interest is in the well being of young adults and children, and therefore, whatever evidence you present will be aimed at that element. Lots of little pictures from lots of different people.
And of course, there are big answers and solutions. Humans are not that disparate in psychology and physiology that there would not be. So, either what everyone here is saying is true, or some of it is false, or all of it is false (doubtful). And the solution may be one of these, or a partial synthesis of these, or none of these, but THIS is clear. Somebody's conclusion is wrong, somebody's answers and solutions are wrong. If there are right solutions, that means there are wrong solutions as well. If there are good answers, then there are bad answers.
Which ones are good or bad? I certainly can't tell fuck all from this thread. And I doubt anyone else without a bold opinion can tell either.
And I certainly don't fault you for defending yourself and your work, RWHN. I just think this thread is otherwise useless.
I think the thread is useful, even for those that are entrenched in our positions. It gives RWHN a better view of the legalization crowd, and perspectives that he might otherwise not be exposed to that he ca use both in persuading kids not to use drugs and in arguing with others who may be less entrenched. It does the same for those of us arguing for legalization. We may not convince one another, but we are helping one another convince others by showing each other the sorts of assumptions the other side is operating under.
I managed to convince an elderly Christian lady that we should legalize, and I credit the discussions in this thread for that success.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
That's you equating use and abuse. even regular use isn't the same as abuse.
Also, even if they become complete pothead wasters, being a pothead waster is better than being in prison, and it's also better than having drug cartels running your neighborhood.
What would be even better is NOT having that increase at all and those 400,000 kids doing good in school and finding natural (non-chemical) and creative ways to feel better about themselves and to express themselves. Avoid the false slack and go clear-headed into the world and grab and hold on to some genuine Slack.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 04:45:26 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 01, 2011, 04:22:13 PM
When minors get caught drinking they generally don't go to jail, get stuck with a criminal record, and get barred for life from receiving financial aid.
You keep making these completely useless (and frankly, terrible) analogies. It makes it hard to believe you're really thinking about this from a standpoint of rational open-mindedness.
I wasn't making an analogy. I was simply reminding trix, in a obviously sarcastic manner, that legalizing marijuana would only be for adults. Therefore, there still would be charges a minor could face associated with possessing and distributing marijuana to others. Undoubtedly charges that would go on a criminal record. Basically, I'm just pointing out that of all the points that can be made to justify marijuana legalization, the one that trix gave doesn't hold up.
I would further add that any kind of legislation that ever legalizes, or decriminalizes, marijuana is going to come with some other adjustments in law enforcement. Because any legislation that passes to legalize marijuana is going to have to be a compromise between the two sides. I would fully expect, and hope, that this compromise would include some very hefty charges for dealing or distributing to minors, as well as some very hefty charges for anyone who knowingly or willingly hosts a party where minors are present and where marijuana is being distributed. I mean, there's no way that doesn't happen. Those laws will invariably ensnare some young adults and very likely make their futures a bit more difficult.
Granted, this is a hypothetical but I really don't see how marijuana is legalized without these kind of adjustments. While public sentiment may be moving towards decriminalization and legalization, it hasn't moved that much.
I am aware that marijuana would still be illegal for children to consume, at least I certainly hope so. However, my point was that if marijuana was no longer considered a banned substance, I doubt it would be considered criminal for a child to possess it. A fine, certainly, much as possession of tobacco or alcohol underage results in a fine, but not the kind of permanent record no financial aid total fuckery that happens today. I figured you'd see what I meant rather than arguing the semantics, but I guess not.
Also, possessing more an an ounce of marijuana is automatically considered dealing. Therein lies another problem, as marijuana prices drop VERY quickly with higher quantities. So, I have way too often seen someone buy a little more than usual, say a QP (four ounces), to last awhile because doing so saves them a couple HUNDRED dollars compared to just buying the usual oz. That's not even a big step up in quantity, but a GIANT money saving step.
If you could buy a carton of cigarettes for $20 or one pack at a time for $5-6 each, most people would buy by the carton. On cigs the price doesn't scale like that, but on marijuana it DOES. However, I've seen too many people get popped with that QP or whatever is left from it, and get totally fucked for "dealing" though they've never sold before in their life.
The last time I seen that it was a family man, wife and daughter, responsible, hard working, contributing member of society. Liked to smoke a bowl with his wife after putting the kid to bed, to unwind from a long day. He'd save money and constant trips to pick up marijuana by buying a QP at a time. He figured saving a couple hundred as well as having far fewer car trips with weed was a smart idea. Turns out, he was very wrong. He got "lucky" and only landed a year in jail and four years of probation, but that's a year his wife and daughter had to fend for themselves, that's a good job he lost, a felony on his record, and a guarantee he wont be able to go to college and try to overcome his felony handicap in the job market. This is fair?
edited for readability
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
That's you equating use and abuse. even regular use isn't the same as abuse.
Also, even if they become complete pothead wasters, being a pothead waster is better than being in prison, and it's also better than having drug cartels running your neighborhood.
What would be even better is NOT having that increase at all and those 400,000 kids doing good in school and finding natural (non-chemical) and creative ways to feel better about themselves and to express themselves. Avoid the false slack and go clear-headed into the world and grab and hold on to some genuine Slack.
I dunno, these are kids that become regular users of marijuana, just because it is legal. They already don't exactly strike me as independent thinkers.
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 07:52:06 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:46:46 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
That's you equating use and abuse. even regular use isn't the same as abuse.
Also, even if they become complete pothead wasters, being a pothead waster is better than being in prison, and it's also better than having drug cartels running your neighborhood.
What would be even better is NOT having that increase at all and those 400,000 kids doing good in school and finding natural (non-chemical) and creative ways to feel better about themselves and to express themselves. Avoid the false slack and go clear-headed into the world and grab and hold on to some genuine Slack.
I dunno, these are kids that become regular users of marijuana, just because it is legal. They already don't exactly strike me as independent thinkers.
Well, kids are kids. They aren't fully equipped to make adult decisions. That's why of course we have laws such as the age of consent. And my argument for the increase in use would be more linked to the increased social access, not so much as a direct result of the legal status. In other words, they have more people in their social circle and familial circle with access to the drug so they have more exposure to it.
So the family man who IS responsible and doesn't keep loads of the stuff at home now can because it is legal. That's where many of the 400,000 (or whatever the number would be) would be coming from. Kids are risk takers and they are curious but at young ages they aren't going to be terribly elaborate in their schemes to explore those risks. That's why you see inhalant abuse and prescription drug abuse so high in young ages. Because they are substances that are right there in the home. Easy to get a hold of.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
...
So the family man who IS responsible and doesn't keep loads of the stuff at home now can because it is legal. That's where many of the 400,000 (or whatever the number would be) would be coming from. Kids are risk takers and they are curious but at young ages they aren't going to be terribly elaborate in their schemes to explore those risks. That's why you see inhalant abuse and prescription drug abuse so high in young ages. Because they are substances that are right there in the home. Easy to get a hold of.
and yet, we don't feel the need to ban those substances.
it is the responsibility of the parent to keep the kids from getting into them, no?
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
I can only make assumptions, but knowing him, I'd imagine a big part of it was the assumption that he wouldn't get caught. I mean, the guy had smoked for years, knew the people he dealt with well, and figured the worst that would happen is he got a ticket. Most of the time he'd be right, had he been caught with less than an oz it would've only been a (pretty expensive) ticket, and they'd let him go. I don't think he realized that by going for the QP he was risking being considered a dealer. He probably figured he had to actually
deal marijuana to be considered a marijuana dealer.
This was a guy who thought he was making the responsible decision, by choosing to unwind via marijuana, rather than alcohol like his dad did. Instead of getting drunk and mean and slapping his family around, like his dad, he got hungry and relaxed and laughed a little more. Could he have been even more responsible? sure. But hindsight is 20/20.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2011, 08:05:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
...
So the family man who IS responsible and doesn't keep loads of the stuff at home now can because it is legal. That's where many of the 400,000 (or whatever the number would be) would be coming from. Kids are risk takers and they are curious but at young ages they aren't going to be terribly elaborate in their schemes to explore those risks. That's why you see inhalant abuse and prescription drug abuse so high in young ages. Because they are substances that are right there in the home. Easy to get a hold of.
and yet, we don't feel the need to ban those substances.
it is the responsibility of the parent to keep the kids from getting into them, no?
Well they aren't banned because they aren't intended to be recreational drugs. They have utility as something other than a drug.
And let's just side-step the obvious next part of the discussion and recognize that there are medical marijuana laws on the books in several states across the country including my own. While I'm not exactly doing back flips over the idea it is certainly far better than legalizing the substance completely.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2011, 08:05:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
...
So the family man who IS responsible and doesn't keep loads of the stuff at home now can because it is legal. That's where many of the 400,000 (or whatever the number would be) would be coming from. Kids are risk takers and they are curious but at young ages they aren't going to be terribly elaborate in their schemes to explore those risks. That's why you see inhalant abuse and prescription drug abuse so high in young ages. Because they are substances that are right there in the home. Easy to get a hold of.
and yet, we don't feel the need to ban those substances.
it is the responsibility of the parent to keep the kids from getting into them, no?
Well they aren't banned because they aren't intended to be recreational drugs. They have utility as something other than a drug.
true point.
hmm. silly side question, but what category does viagra fall under? :)
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 01, 2011, 04:22:13 PM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 11:47:04 AM
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 02:29:29 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 01, 2011, 02:19:10 AM
Quote from: R.W.H.N. on July 01, 2011, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on June 30, 2011, 11:26:04 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on June 30, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
I believe that we will find out that the benefits to society (and especially to children) of legalizing marijuana will far outweigh the alleged benefits of criminalizing it.
Go, Washington State, go!
Yup. I understand RWHN's position but I just haven't seen any evidence that legalization will lead to a large enough increase in use to outweigh the hundreds of thousands of lives that WONT be ruined and the billions of dollars that WONT be wasted on corrupt and ineffective law enforcement.
Consider this. The adolescent population in the United States is 40 Million. Let's say there is just a 1% increase in adolescents who become regular users of marijuana after it is legalized. That would be 400,000 kids. You were saying about hundreds of thousands of lives being ruined?
As opposed to the nearly twice that number of people who are imprisoned on marijuana charges each year?
Hm. Gotta think about that. OH WAIT
THIS, and, regular user of marijuana does not equal life is ruined. 400,000 kids, of which I wouldn't believe 50,000 would have their life ruined. Especially since it's no longer illegal, and they wont be arrested and go to jail or lose out on Financial Aid.
Yes, because if they legalize marijuana they are going to also make it legal for kids to use just like they did for alcohol and tobacco....oh, wait, no, those were still illegal for minors to use.
When minors get caught drinking they generally don't go to jail, get stuck with a criminal record, and get barred for life from receiving financial aid.
You keep making these completely useless (and frankly, terrible) analogies. It makes it hard to believe you're really thinking about this from a standpoint of rational open-mindedness.
As someone who has gotten caught underage drinking I will tell you all the police did was go "MEH! LET YOUR SCHOOL DEAL WITH IT!" And i got 4 sessions of alcohol counseling, the end. that is nothing like having a record and financial aid gone forever
Several other people in my highschool got caught. they got sent to the school for counseling instead of arrested. they got "DONT DO IT AGAIN...WE PROMISE WE WILL PUNISH YOU NEXT TIME...AND YOU ARENT ALLOWED AT THE NEXT SCHOOL DANCE YOU BAD BAD CHILD!" also nothing like a criminal record.
so yeah...underage punishments totally preferable over illegal drug charges
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.
Name calling? I don't think that assuming the laws on distribution make SOME sort of sense makes him an idiot. He was not distributing. He was not dealing drugs. Had I not been told by someone else, I don't think it would have ever occurred to me you could be successfully charged with something you
clearly did not do. But of course, he didn't spend tons of time looking up and deciphering every applicable law on everything he did, and went by the experience and knowledge he and everyone around him had in that area, and that makes him stupid.
Or was that an attempt at trolling?
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
This guy may or may not have been aware of the law, but again, when you take the "they know it's illegal" standpoint, you are ignoring the fact that anti-drug laws disproportionately effect the impoverished, disenfranchised, abused, and hopeless, and are thereby blaming the victim.
Unjust laws are unjust. And in some cases, outright barbaric.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2011, 08:13:29 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2011, 08:05:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
...
So the family man who IS responsible and doesn't keep loads of the stuff at home now can because it is legal. That's where many of the 400,000 (or whatever the number would be) would be coming from. Kids are risk takers and they are curious but at young ages they aren't going to be terribly elaborate in their schemes to explore those risks. That's why you see inhalant abuse and prescription drug abuse so high in young ages. Because they are substances that are right there in the home. Easy to get a hold of.
and yet, we don't feel the need to ban those substances.
it is the responsibility of the parent to keep the kids from getting into them, no?
Well they aren't banned because they aren't intended to be recreational drugs. They have utility as something other than a drug.
true point.
hmm. silly side question, but what category does viagra fall under? :)
Somebody brought it up! A major amount of drug abuse by kids is stealing their parents perfectly legal prescription drugs. Should those be banned as well?
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.
Name calling? I don't think that assuming the laws on distribution make SOME sort of sense makes him an idiot. He was not distributing. He was not dealing drugs. Had I not been told by someone else, I don't think it would have ever occurred to me you could be successfully charged with something you clearly did not do. But of course, he didn't spend tons of time looking up and deciphering every applicable law on everything he did, and went by the experience and knowledge he and everyone around him had in that area, and that makes him stupid.
Or was that an attempt at trolling?
It's not exactly news that marijuana is illegal. And again, speaking as a father, I think when you are a father you kind of have to think a little more about what you do and how it will impact your child. As I said, breaking a law to feed or clothe your child is one thing. Breaking a law to engage in a recreational activity is quite another.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.
Name calling? I don't think that assuming the laws on distribution make SOME sort of sense makes him an idiot. He was not distributing. He was not dealing drugs. Had I not been told by someone else, I don't think it would have ever occurred to me you could be successfully charged with something you clearly did not do. But of course, he didn't spend tons of time looking up and deciphering every applicable law on everything he did, and went by the experience and knowledge he and everyone around him had in that area, and that makes him stupid.
Or was that an attempt at trolling?
It's not exactly news that marijuana is illegal. And again, speaking as a father, I think when you are a father you kind of have to think a little more about what you do and how it will impact your child. As I said, breaking a law to feed or clothe your child is one thing. Breaking a law to engage in a recreational activity is quite another.
If I used pot I could possibly eliminate 2 very dangerous prescription drugs. Since medical pot is not approved here in Kansas, I only use it when shit becomes unbearable. Yet, if I were busted for that then I am treated no different than any recreational user. Are you against approved medical use as well?
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 01, 2011, 09:27:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2011, 08:13:29 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 01, 2011, 08:05:14 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:01:16 PM
...
So the family man who IS responsible and doesn't keep loads of the stuff at home now can because it is legal. That's where many of the 400,000 (or whatever the number would be) would be coming from. Kids are risk takers and they are curious but at young ages they aren't going to be terribly elaborate in their schemes to explore those risks. That's why you see inhalant abuse and prescription drug abuse so high in young ages. Because they are substances that are right there in the home. Easy to get a hold of.
and yet, we don't feel the need to ban those substances.
it is the responsibility of the parent to keep the kids from getting into them, no?
Well they aren't banned because they aren't intended to be recreational drugs. They have utility as something other than a drug.
true point.
hmm. silly side question, but what category does viagra fall under? :)
Somebody brought it up! A major amount of drug abuse by kids is stealing their parents perfectly legal prescription drugs. Should those be banned as well?
I addressed that on the previous page, last post.
Sorry, missed that post.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 02, 2011, 12:06:39 AM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.
Name calling? I don't think that assuming the laws on distribution make SOME sort of sense makes him an idiot. He was not distributing. He was not dealing drugs. Had I not been told by someone else, I don't think it would have ever occurred to me you could be successfully charged with something you clearly did not do. But of course, he didn't spend tons of time looking up and deciphering every applicable law on everything he did, and went by the experience and knowledge he and everyone around him had in that area, and that makes him stupid.
Or was that an attempt at trolling?
It's not exactly news that marijuana is illegal. And again, speaking as a father, I think when you are a father you kind of have to think a little more about what you do and how it will impact your child. As I said, breaking a law to feed or clothe your child is one thing. Breaking a law to engage in a recreational activity is quite another.
If I used pot I could possibly eliminate 2 very dangerous prescription drugs. Since medical pot is not approved here in Kansas, I only use it when shit becomes unbearable. Yet, if I were busted for that then I am treated no different than any recreational user. Are you against approved medical use as well?
I'm very skeptical about the need for medical marijuana in the smoked form. I posted some research a while ago in this thread that shows that there is still some question about how useful and effective the smoked form of marijuana is for medical purposes. I also think there is going to be an unfortunate side effect in that kids are going to look at this, the fact that it is being prescribed by doctors, and think this means it is okay and legitimate for them to use pot.
But, I take the pragmatic approach that it is what it is. It will never be rolled back whether it should be or shouldn't be. So my job now is to try to fight the message it sends to kids. Meanwhile, law enforcement and the DEA have to deal with the medical marijuana that is being diverted.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 12:13:32 AM
I'm very skeptical about the need for medical marijuana in the smoked form. I posted some research a while ago in this thread that shows that there is still some question about how useful and effective the smoked form of marijuana is for medical purposes. I also think there is going to be an unfortunate side effect in that kids are going to look at this, the fact that it is being prescribed by doctors, and think this means it is okay and legitimate for them to use pot.
But, I take the pragmatic approach that it is what it is. It will never be rolled back whether it should be or shouldn't be. So my job now is to try to fight the message it sends to kids. Meanwhile, law enforcement and the DEA have to deal with the medical marijuana that is being diverted.
I don't know what the research shows, but I can tell you that it really helps with pain and it could easily replace my Ambien. Look Ambien up and compare the side effects with that of pot, I think you will be surprised.
Those are my research notes.
Imma going to jump in here again real quick. (note -I may have missed some posts in the previous pages- so please ignore any repetitiveness)
I really do not think the issue with legalizing pot has anything to do with kids. Why? Well-Kids are kids and will do whatever it is that kids do, whether it is legal or not. (also as an aside-pot is really not that bad for you. Really it isn't. Just saying.) SO The legalization or non legalization of pot, really in my eyes, Unless of course I am missing something (which I do often) should really be only a discussion about adults and the effect of the adults.
That said-medical pot really does have its place in helping people, especially people with terminal illnesses. It does helps them in a few ways.
1. RELAXATION -And I think this one is the MOST important one. Peeps who are facing medical difficulties are stressed out enough. Give them something to relieve the tension ffs.
2. APPETITE- When someone has just gone through intense treatments and all they taste is METAL in their mouths-a little something to make em wanna eat helps out a lot.
3. Sleeplessness- Pot is a downer and makes for an easier time to nod off.
4. NAUSEA- Pot DOES help with the ease of the feeling of wanting to puke every freaking few hours/half hours.
I could add more But the main factors here are RELAXATION and APPETITE.
And some may say that there already meds out there that help with these sort of things. But frankly, those meds are harder with more side effects, than simple pot.
If pot is illegal the peeps who need it or hell simply wanna use it for whatever reason, face criminal charges that, in my opinion are not necessary.
I dont buy into the 'protect the kids' factor. I see this as an excuse for a fight against something that has been around for ages and used for many different reasons.
The kids argument almost seems to suggest that the responsibility of teaching, raising, and advising our children should be in the hands others versus the parents.
And I am a little confused as to what 'message' the legalization of pot would be sending to kids.
btw-I have two kids of my own and honestly-I do not see how this would affect them. As I am still their parents and will always advise and tech them well. =)
Not trying to come down on you RWHN. Just trying to understand how this would affect kids and how pot is not a need for medical purposes.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 01, 2011, 05:47:11 PM
This thread is full of poor communication and backfire effect. Any evidence provided here will only make each person's original beliefs stronger. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ Which incidentally, is why every single one of these threads goes this direction.
That's a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.
See? This thread wasn't useless after all.
Legalisation of "Medical" Pot is just another way for the State to control it. (The same way that they try to control it through banning it completely)
It's like, "You can smoke Pot, but. . . . . ."
By far the biggest social problem offered by Pot, stems from the fact it's illegal. Remove the legislation against it, and you've reduced 95% of the social harm it does. It really is that easy. As for those pesky kids, don't they have parents?
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.
So, you were saying?
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: trix on July 01, 2011, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 08:06:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 01, 2011, 08:01:52 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 01, 2011, 07:54:53 PM
I'm sorry, whether you agree with the law or not, I think exposing your family to that kind of risk is highly irresponsible. I just can't fathom how it is THAT important. I have to assume this guy was fully aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions if he was caught, yes? I understand someone disagreeing with the law, I understanding having a certain level of passion for wanting marijuana legalized, but I don't know, personally speaking, my first responsibility before any other responsibility is to my family. If it was a law that was keeping me from feeding my family or providing the basic necessities of life, I can see it. But to take that risk for drugs? I just can't understand how it is THAT important.
Considering that he was not dealing and had no intention of dealing it's quite likely he had no idea that he'd be hit with distribution charges.
Okay so he's not irresponsible, he's just an idiot.
Name calling? I don't think that assuming the laws on distribution make SOME sort of sense makes him an idiot. He was not distributing. He was not dealing drugs. Had I not been told by someone else, I don't think it would have ever occurred to me you could be successfully charged with something you clearly did not do. But of course, he didn't spend tons of time looking up and deciphering every applicable law on everything he did, and went by the experience and knowledge he and everyone around him had in that area, and that makes him stupid.
Or was that an attempt at trolling?
It's not exactly news that marijuana is illegal. And again, speaking as a father, I think when you are a father you kind of have to think a little more about what you do and how it will impact your child. As I said, breaking a law to feed or clothe your child is one thing. Breaking a law to engage in a recreational activity is quite another.
Are you skimming my posts?
I didn't say he was unaware that it was illegal.
It's like driving down the highway going five over the speed limit, you know you're breaking the law, but it's not a big deal because the worst that can happen is a ticket. Suddenly, you get pulled over and arrested for felony Endangering the life of a minor and spend a year in prison. You find out that apparently, if you're going five over in a heavier vehicle, like the minivan you happen to be driving, it's considered endangering the life of everyone on the road. You let down your wife and child, are irresponsible, and fucking stupid for not knowing every nuance of every driving code before going above the speed limit.
Except, unlike the analogy, getting arrested for dealing drugs when the person was clearly not dealing drugs, is a bigger leap than endangering the life of a minor.
Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality. In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously. They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.
And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you. I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do. Certainly not for a recreational activity.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.
So, you were saying?
Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread. Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions. Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic. It's a waste of my time. The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith.
Have a nice day!
Is it possible, RWHN, that because of your position that all you see is the downside, and none of the benefits?
As a kid I was a pothead, and far from being a gateway drug, those other drugs scared the hell out of me. I tried acid about 4 times, then got the hell away from that as well. Never went anywhere near speed, coke or heroin.
Possibly unlikely, if pot were legalized, perhaps some of the money used to fight it, and some of the money used to keep offenders in prison, could be diverted to operations like yours. As well as a part of the tax revenue generated.
I can see your position against meth, and other addictives clearly, add in alcohol and illegal use of prescription drugs and I could see where you could actually stand to make progress, instead of backed up against the wall by its legalization.
I know you are intelligent enough to know that kids are going to drink and smoke pot, and I know you are intelligent to know the percentage of those who require services like yours is small in comparison. Some people are far more prone to addiction than others.
I don't know enough about what you do to know if your beam is narrowed down to those who really need the help, or if your focus is so broad as to include casual users as well, or if you even differentiate between them.
No I don't think you understand at all what I do. I work in schools, with the entire school population. I can assure you my perspective on this as it relates to kids is very broad. We focus on ALL four stages of drug use from experimentation up to dependency. I'm sure there are kids who perceive benefits to using pot, but they are just that, perceived.
I still haven't seen any of you address the link I posted to the article in Pediatrics which lays out why legalizing marijuana will be bad for youth. If y'all disagree that the impact will be bad, please read that article and tell me what is wrong with it. Please counter it with counter evidence. Can we stop focusing on my vision, whether I'm seeing the whole picture, yadda, yadda, yadda, and actually address the substantive evidence which supports my position?
Maybe?
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 06:13:15 PM
No I don't think you understand at all what I do. I work in schools, with the entire school population. I can assure you my perspective on this as it relates to kids is very broad. We focus on ALL four stages of drug use from experimentation up to dependency. I'm sure there are kids who perceive benefits to using pot, but they are just that, perceived.
I still haven't seen any of you address the link I posted to the article in Pediatrics which lays out why legalizing marijuana will be bad for youth. If y'all disagree that the impact will be bad, please read that article and tell me what is wrong with it. Please counter it with counter evidence. Can we stop focusing on my vision, whether I'm seeing the whole picture, yadda, yadda, yadda, and actually address the substantive evidence which supports my position?
Maybe?
Okay, I read the report, even though it is from 2004 and is likely outdated. What I found was a lot of 'maybe', 'possibly' and so forth. It openly admitted that 3 reports out of 50 something indicated what you propose could happen.
The report, to me, was openly indecisive about the effects of legalization, while doing its best to come down on the side against legalization.
In the 7 years that has passed since the article was written many things have changed, such as we now should have plenty of data available, not only from the U.S., but internationally as well that could include impact studies on the states that have legalized it as opposed to the states that haven't, an openly admitted flaw in the report you provided.
Your report also seemed to put a lot of focus on advertisements if it were legalized, an issue that is without merit as those could be outright banned or regulated. It tried to compare tobacco and alcohol advertising focusing on youth to what would happen with pot.
Your report also claimed that pot is addictive, without any supporting evidence, unless I missed the supporting evidence. Even if it did supply supporting evidence I could counter with many reports to the contrary.
In short, what I got out of the report was, "We don't know, but this is what we think."
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
It did. Gangs no longer run Chicago.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality. In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously. They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.
And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you. I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do. Certainly not for a recreational activity.
So in other words drug laws are more absurd than traffic laws on another level.
Someone with 4 oz of pot is absolutely not "clearly distributing" weed, and yet they still get charged with distribution. The metaphor that trix made was accurate.
This father was willing to risk a hefty fine and not being able to get financial aid (he probably doesn't need it anyways" for a posession charge. His assumption that he would be hit with a posession charge seems pretty reasonable, since he was not distributing, and aside from the quantity posessed there was no reason to think that he was.
He wasn't aware that he was facing prison time (and presumably things like the confiscation of his vehicle and perhaps even his home) so he wasn't choosing to risk that.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality. In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously. They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.
Ok change 5 over to 10 over. Cops often let a casual smoker go with a warning, the analogy is not that off.
Also, "they are going to pick..." Uh yeah if both are evident at the same time. But, at least where I'm from, cops often sit on the side of the road semi-hidden behind a bridge or something with radar gun pointed at traffic. First person to cross the gun going over the limit gets the cop after them.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you. I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do. Certainly not for a recreational activity.
I did not ignore the main thrust of your point, in fact I addressed it rather directly. Both with the speeding analogy and the pot vs alcohol part.
As BH said above me, the only risk this father thought he was exposing his family to, was a ticket for possession. Whoopdie fuckin doo. Much like the traffic speeder, who thought he could only get a speeding ticket, at the worst.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.
So, you were saying?
Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread. Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions. Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic. It's a waste of my time. The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith.
Have a nice day!
This is exactly the tactic you use to evade every point you can't refute. I can't tell whether you're actually malicious, but you don't seem to be stupid so it boils down to either malice or cowardice. As a mother, it frightens me that you have any influence on the future of anyone's children.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality. In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously. They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.
And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you. I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do. Certainly not for a recreational activity.
Are you sincerely unaware that you just reinforced his point?
Jesus.
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
It did. Gangs no longer run Chicago.
RWHN is apparently unaware of history.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 10:07:33 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.
So, you were saying?
Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread. Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions. Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic. It's a waste of my time. The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith.
Have a nice day!
This is exactly the tactic you use to evade every point you can't refute. I can't tell whether you're actually malicious, but you don't seem to be stupid so it boils down to either malice or cowardice. As a mother, it frightens me that you have any influence on the future of anyone's children.
You don't make any points to refute. You only toss out hyperbole and lazy generalizations. It's what you do best.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
It did. Gangs no longer run Chicago.
RWHN is apparently unaware of history.
YOu are apparently unaware of the present.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 11:29:20 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 10:07:33 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 03:21:40 AM
Alcohol is significantly more dangerous and on that basis it was probably justifiable to criminalize it. However, all you have to do is look at what happened during its prohibition to see the parallels. Prohibition was not only ineffective, it also created a thriving black market and a great deal of associated violence.
So, you were saying?
Uh, maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier in this thread but due to your inability to debate in substance and instead relying upon selective reading and overly generalized summations of my postings, you and I have nothing to discuss in this thread. Now, if you can, like Net, maybe own up to that and try a different tact, we can resume discussions. Until then, I have nothing to say to you on this topic. It's a waste of my time. The others, as much as I disagree with them, are at least debating in good faith.
Have a nice day!
This is exactly the tactic you use to evade every point you can't refute. I can't tell whether you're actually malicious, but you don't seem to be stupid so it boils down to either malice or cowardice. As a mother, it frightens me that you have any influence on the future of anyone's children.
You don't make any points to refute. You only toss out hyperbole and lazy generalizations. It's what you do best.
You ignore points that don't fit in with your anti-drug religion, then deny that any such points were presented. It is intellectually lazy and I find it impossible to respect you for this reason.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 11:30:38 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
It did. Gangs no longer run Chicago.
RWHN is apparently unaware of history.
YOu are apparently unaware of the present.
You mean the present in which, thanks to drug prohibition, black market conditions mirror the influence and violence of the alcohol cartels in the 1920's?
FFS I realize you're from some redneck backwater, but pull your head out of your ass for a minute and look around you at the sheer staggering consequence of marijuana prohibition. You keep parroting the circular argument that people should know better because it's illegal in response to the argument that it shouldn't be illegal, and it makes you come off like a zealous moron. I cannot on any level relate to the people who keep saying that they respect your arguments because your arguments so far have been largely recursive, ill-founded, or diversionary, and resorting to personal attacks as soon as you're called on them.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 11:30:38 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
It did. Gangs no longer run Chicago.
RWHN is apparently unaware of history.
YOu are apparently unaware of the present.
You mean the present in which, thanks to drug prohibition, black market conditions mirror the influence and violence of the alcohol cartels in the 1920's?
FFS I realize you're from some redneck backwater, but pull your head out of your ass for a minute and look around you at the sheer staggering consequence of marijuana prohibition. You keep parroting the circular argument that people should know better because it's illegal in response to the argument that it shouldn't be illegal, and it makes you come off like a zealous moron. I cannot on any level relate to the people who keep saying that they respect your arguments because your arguments so far have been largely recursive, ill-founded, or diversionary, and resorting to personal attacks as soon as you're called on them.
If I remember correctly from some pages ago, RWHN actually agrees (agreed?) with you about law enforcement being too strict and expensive, and suggested that more money should go to prevention instead.
Just because he disagrees with you regarding full legalization doesn't mean he's stupid or evil.
See, Nigel can't actually deal in substance so she has to deal in drama and lazy generalizations. Instead of actually making any attempt to counter the substantive points I make, she has to resort to character assasination. Because she has nothing to offer besides generalities. She isn't really trying to discuss the topic.
Well that and she doesn't like me much as she made pretty clear when she unneccessarily dragged in my puns into the conversation. I mean, I would take her criticisms to heart if I felt she actually had a leg to stand on or any kind of decent knowledge base on this topic.
Quote from: Lord Cataplanga on July 03, 2011, 01:09:45 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 11:30:38 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 02, 2011, 10:08:59 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:38:13 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
It did. Gangs no longer run Chicago.
RWHN is apparently unaware of history.
YOu are apparently unaware of the present.
You mean the present in which, thanks to drug prohibition, black market conditions mirror the influence and violence of the alcohol cartels in the 1920's?
FFS I realize you're from some redneck backwater, but pull your head out of your ass for a minute and look around you at the sheer staggering consequence of marijuana prohibition. You keep parroting the circular argument that people should know better because it's illegal in response to the argument that it shouldn't be illegal, and it makes you come off like a zealous moron. I cannot on any level relate to the people who keep saying that they respect your arguments because your arguments so far have been largely recursive, ill-founded, or diversionary, and resorting to personal attacks as soon as you're called on them.
If I remember correctly from some pages ago, RWHN actually agrees (agreed?) with you about law enforcement being too strict and expensive, and suggested that more money should go to prevention instead.
Just because he disagrees with you regarding full legalization doesn't mean he's stupid or evil.
I told him I was relieved to hear it.
He then proceeded to attack me personally for stating my general opinion on people who blame the victims of a fucked-up system, and has continued in the same vein since then. At that point I realized that he must endorse victim-blaming, as he responded so vociferously to my post, and as he doesn't seem stupid I can only conclude that he is malicious.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 01:20:45 AM
See, Nigel can't actually deal in substance so she has to deal in drama and lazy generalizations. Instead of actually making any attempt to counter the substantive points I make, she has to resort to character assasination. Because she has nothing to offer besides generalities. She isn't really trying to discuss the topic.
Well that and she doesn't like me much as she made pretty clear when she unneccessarily dragged in my puns into the conversation. I mean, I would take her criticisms to heart if I felt she actually had a leg to stand on or any kind of decent knowledge base on this topic.
You're so full of shit it's oozing out of your mouth. I've made numerous valid points which you have insisted on conflating with other people's posts or ignoring altogether. I no longer see much valid reason to try to argue using logic or intelligence with you, as you universally ignore logic and intelligence and resort to bawwwww and insults. This seems to be the level you're most comfortable with, so I came down here to meet you.
Happy?
The incentive behind any kind of prohibition, should always be harm reduction. And by far and away, the most traumatic and detrimental consequence of smoking cannabis, is getting busted.
And to approach any social concerns with the idea that Legislation is about protecting people, is naive and blinkered.
Cannabis is illegal, all across the Western World because of Politics. Because of lobbying from the drug companies, because people in positions of power are profiting from it's untouchable status as a Tax free commodity that keeps it's price nice and steady, whether it's a boom, or a recession.
The very fact of it's illegality encourages people to smoke it, not so much for it's soothing, relaxant or euphoric qualities, (Though you should't have to look any further than this to justify having a puff) but as a Political statement. As an act of defiance. This purely oppositional stance of Political polarity is only possible because of the Political nature of the Legislation against it.
And the fact that the Legislation is enforced using disproportionate levels of severity, is simply criminalising a significant (and impressionable) section of people with no other reason behind it than money.
Despite the conspiracy theories, that IS the incentive behind having marijuana illegal. Harm reduction. And as I've outlined over and over again, there is documented and researched evidence to back this up. Laws and policies, and the enforcement of those laws and policies, set a standard in a community. A community norm. This is a very important protective factor that, along with other protective factors, will help to keep kids away from marijuana and other drugs. If you remove that protective factor, you make it MORE likely that kids will engage in substance abuse because they will perceive that the community condones it. That is classic Hawkins and Catalano.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:43:04 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality. In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously. They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.
And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you. I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do. Certainly not for a recreational activity.
So in other words drug laws are more absurd than traffic laws on another level.
Someone with 4 oz of pot is absolutely not "clearly distributing" weed, and yet they still get charged with distribution. The metaphor that trix made was accurate.
This father was willing to risk a hefty fine and not being able to get financial aid (he probably doesn't need it anyways" for a posession charge. His assumption that he would be hit with a posession charge seems pretty reasonable, since he was not distributing, and aside from the quantity posessed there was no reason to think that he was.
He wasn't aware that he was facing prison time (and presumably things like the confiscation of his vehicle and perhaps even his home) so he wasn't choosing to risk that.
It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance. I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do. Period. WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up. But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child.
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 02, 2011, 06:50:20 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 06:13:15 PM
No I don't think you understand at all what I do. I work in schools, with the entire school population. I can assure you my perspective on this as it relates to kids is very broad. We focus on ALL four stages of drug use from experimentation up to dependency. I'm sure there are kids who perceive benefits to using pot, but they are just that, perceived.
I still haven't seen any of you address the link I posted to the article in Pediatrics which lays out why legalizing marijuana will be bad for youth. If y'all disagree that the impact will be bad, please read that article and tell me what is wrong with it. Please counter it with counter evidence. Can we stop focusing on my vision, whether I'm seeing the whole picture, yadda, yadda, yadda, and actually address the substantive evidence which supports my position?
Maybe?
Okay, I read the report, even though it is from 2004 and is likely outdated. What I found was a lot of 'maybe', 'possibly' and so forth. It openly admitted that 3 reports out of 50 something indicated what you propose could happen.
The report, to me, was openly indecisive about the effects of legalization, while doing its best to come down on the side against legalization.
In the 7 years that has passed since the article was written many things have changed, such as we now should have plenty of data available, not only from the U.S., but internationally as well that could include impact studies on the states that have legalized it as opposed to the states that haven't, an openly admitted flaw in the report you provided.
Your report also seemed to put a lot of focus on advertisements if it were legalized, an issue that is without merit as those could be outright banned or regulated. It tried to compare tobacco and alcohol advertising focusing on youth to what would happen with pot.
Your report also claimed that pot is addictive, without any supporting evidence, unless I missed the supporting evidence. Even if it did supply supporting evidence I could counter with many reports to the contrary.
In short, what I got out of the report was, "We don't know, but this is what we think."
Another thing that has happened since that report is that we've gained an even better and clearer understanding of how the brain develops in adolescence and have a clearer understanding of how substance abuse at an early age can be very detrimental the the brain development of a child. Which, in my mind, ups the stakes even more. Another thing to consider and perhaps research.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 11:02:35 AM
Despite the conspiracy theories, that IS the incentive behind having marijuana illegal. Harm reduction. And as I've outlined over and over again, there is documented and researched evidence to back this up. Laws and policies, and the enforcement of those laws and policies, set a standard in a community. A community norm. This is a very important protective factor that, along with other protective factors, will help to keep kids away from marijuana and other drugs. If you remove that protective factor, you make it MORE likely that kids will engage in substance abuse because they will perceive that the community condones it. That is classic Hawkins and Catalano.
But for the past 80 years, the level of harm actually achievable with cannabis has been hyped up to hysterical levels of disproportionate magnitude. In the 30's and 40's, it was too politically tied up with race to be objectively looked at. In the 60's and 70's it was too tied up with the peace movement to deal with as a politically separate issue. And in the 80's, all your Republican Government was concerned with was flexing it's "American family value" muscles to give a shit about locking up hippys. The research done in the late 90's and up until today, has been largely funded and carried out on research grants from Drug companies and sanctioned by Government. Which makes any conclusions about as credible as the Oil Companies looking into alternative energy sources. All this is borne out by the levels of legislation, and reflected in the severity of sentencing for what are in fact, harmless amounts of Dope.
History proves over and over that Legislation against people's recreational (or even their addictive) drugs is ineffectual when it comes to reducing consumption, or demand, and in fact, exacerbates the more socially destructive symptoms by disenfranchising the people who choose to defy the Law.
The supply is therefore in the hands of criminals, and criminals are not too concerned about breaking the law. That's what they do, and the more Legislation, there is, the more criminals there are.
Not one single crime has ever been stopped by Legislation.
Every single criminal act ever committed has broken at least one of these so called Laws. Laws create Criminals, and create the choice of criminality, without mitigating peoples behaviour. Every single act of Legislation makes more criminals out of honest men. And every man who falls foul of the Legal system, is eventually stripped of his ability to make an honest living afterwards.
So, people don't have any responsibilities at all for their actions?
Oh, and by the way, we actually HAVE been successful in reducing consumption until just recently. For the past decade rates of underage drinking, tobacco use, marijuana use, cocaine use, etc., have been down across the board. So it isn't technically correct to suggest that consumption hasn't decreased.
And I find a bit of a disconnect going back to the responsibility point. There is an argument being put forth by some that we shouldn't legislate to protect kids because that's the parents job. The parents need to be responsible and take care of their responsibilities. But, when then presented with scenarios where parents AREN'T taking care of their responsiblities as parents, they are now helpless victims.
So which is it? Are individuals responsible for their actions or not? It feels like folks are trying to have it both ways.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 12:40:19 PM
So, people don't have any responsibilities at all for their actions?
If all their actions are subject to Legislation, then the responsibility for any punitive or investigative consequences arising from such action is assumed by the State. So if you do something anti-social, and illegal, rather than someone who was offended by your actions, coming along and giving you a piece of their mind, and maybe a slap, the State takes it upon itself to punish you on behalf of everybody else. Which, in my opinion is a bit of a bloody liberty.
And mostly, a waste of time and resources. If people had to face the direct and proportionate wrath of their neighbours for any heinous behaviour, they'd be a little more respectful of other people. And that's a
real consequence, learned from
having to take responsibility.
People don't mostly obey the Law because they are morally better than the Lawbreaker, (No matter what they say) they generally do it out of a fear of being caught.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 12:54:16 PM
Oh, and by the way, we actually HAVE been successful in reducing consumption until just recently. For the past decade rates of underage drinking, tobacco use, marijuana use, cocaine use, etc., have been down across the board. So it isn't technically correct to suggest that consumption hasn't decreased.
And I find a bit of a disconnect going back to the responsibility point. There is an argument being put forth by some that we shouldn't legislate to protect kids because that's the parents job. The parents need to be responsible and take care of their responsibilities. But, when then presented with scenarios where parents AREN'T taking care of their responsiblities as parents, they are now helpless victims.
So which is it? Are individuals responsible for their actions or not? It feels like folks are trying to have it both ways.
Parental responsibility can't just be made compulsary with a Law, that's just wrong. We should all be looking out for all kids. State run systems of child protection rarely (here, at any rate) do anything more than churn out another generation of whores and junkies anyway.
And they are too quick to intervene where intervention is not conducive, and in cases where it may be appropriate, they very often don't bother. If people would man up, and take it upon themselves to look out for child abuse or neglect instead of deferring the job to a Government Department, then it really does become everybodys business. As it should be.
But if you are saying it is all up to us, the public, by definition you are involving the Government. Government exists to deal with the issues that are in the public sphere. So you just made an excellent argument for legislation and policy.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 11:07:55 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on July 02, 2011, 06:50:20 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 06:13:15 PM
No I don't think you understand at all what I do. I work in schools, with the entire school population. I can assure you my perspective on this as it relates to kids is very broad. We focus on ALL four stages of drug use from experimentation up to dependency. I'm sure there are kids who perceive benefits to using pot, but they are just that, perceived.
I still haven't seen any of you address the link I posted to the article in Pediatrics which lays out why legalizing marijuana will be bad for youth. If y'all disagree that the impact will be bad, please read that article and tell me what is wrong with it. Please counter it with counter evidence. Can we stop focusing on my vision, whether I'm seeing the whole picture, yadda, yadda, yadda, and actually address the substantive evidence which supports my position?
Maybe?
Okay, I read the report, even though it is from 2004 and is likely outdated. What I found was a lot of 'maybe', 'possibly' and so forth. It openly admitted that 3 reports out of 50 something indicated what you propose could happen.
The report, to me, was openly indecisive about the effects of legalization, while doing its best to come down on the side against legalization.
In the 7 years that has passed since the article was written many things have changed, such as we now should have plenty of data available, not only from the U.S., but internationally as well that could include impact studies on the states that have legalized it as opposed to the states that haven't, an openly admitted flaw in the report you provided.
Your report also seemed to put a lot of focus on advertisements if it were legalized, an issue that is without merit as those could be outright banned or regulated. It tried to compare tobacco and alcohol advertising focusing on youth to what would happen with pot.
Your report also claimed that pot is addictive, without any supporting evidence, unless I missed the supporting evidence. Even if it did supply supporting evidence I could counter with many reports to the contrary.
In short, what I got out of the report was, "We don't know, but this is what we think."
Another thing that has happened since that report is that we've gained an even better and clearer understanding of how the brain develops in adolescence and have a clearer understanding of how substance abuse at an early age can be very detrimental the the brain development of a child. Which, in my mind, ups the stakes even more. Another thing to consider and perhaps research.
I think I'm done here.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 11:05:18 AM
It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance. I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do. Period. WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up. But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child.
You reference my point without addressing the substance of it. Selective reading FTW.
How is it irresponsible for a father to unwind via puffing a bowl after his kid went to bed, if the worst that could (theoretically) happen is only a ticket? How (again) is that worse than speeding on the highway?
If you are going to call him an irresponsible parent you have to, you know, explain why you believe so.
I could go with the lesser evil point that tons of parents unwind with alcohol after a long day at work, and substituting a joint for a few beers is clearly a more responsible option, but even without looking at that, if the child is in bed, away from it, the substance is beyond the ability of the child to acquire, and the penalty if caught is equivalent to speeding, I fail to see why you find it so irresponsible. You are really starting to come off as biased.
And before you bring up the obvious "well it's not equiv to speeding is it!!?", you'll have to convince me that it's reasonable to assume he should've been aware that he can be arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime
he did not commit.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 11:05:18 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 02, 2011, 07:43:04 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 PM
Your speeding analogy isn't grounded in reality. In most cases if you are only going 5 mph over the limit you aren't going to get pulled over unless you ARE obviously driving dangerously. They are going to pick out the car weaving in an out of traffic before they pick out someone barely going over the limit.
And you seem to be ignoring the main thrust of my point which is when you are a father your actions no longer effect just you, they also effect the children in your family whom depend upon you. I just don't think exposing your family to that kind of risk is something a father should do. Certainly not for a recreational activity.
So in other words drug laws are more absurd than traffic laws on another level.
Someone with 4 oz of pot is absolutely not "clearly distributing" weed, and yet they still get charged with distribution. The metaphor that trix made was accurate.
This father was willing to risk a hefty fine and not being able to get financial aid (he probably doesn't need it anyways" for a posession charge. His assumption that he would be hit with a posession charge seems pretty reasonable, since he was not distributing, and aside from the quantity posessed there was no reason to think that he was.
He wasn't aware that he was facing prison time (and presumably things like the confiscation of his vehicle and perhaps even his home) so he wasn't choosing to risk that.
It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance. I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do. Period. WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up. But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child.
I agree with that. Doing illegal things of any sort, as a parent, is a bad idea, it not only risks resources that are really not just yours anymore, it also sets a bad example for your children.
That doesn't change the fact that he was punished disproportionately for his mistake, and that innocent children were hurt by the unfair laws. (or possibly just one innocent child, Trix didn't say how many kids the guy has)
Quote from: trix on July 03, 2011, 06:07:56 PM
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 03, 2011, 11:05:18 AM
It is still a known illegal act involving an illicit substance. I think it is an irresponsible thing for a father to do. Period. WHen you are single and childless, go ahead, smoke up. But when you have a child at home, in my opinion, one should reconsider these activities and the impacts they will have on their child.
You reference my point without addressing the substance of it. Selective reading FTW.
How is it irresponsible for a father to unwind via puffing a bowl after his kid went to bed, if the worst that could (theoretically) happen is only a ticket? How (again) is that worse than speeding on the highway?
If you are going to call him an irresponsible parent you have to, you know, explain why you believe so.
I could go with the lesser evil point that tons of parents unwind with alcohol after a long day at work, and substituting a joint for a few beers is clearly a more responsible option, but even without looking at that, if the child is in bed, away from it, the substance is beyond the ability of the child to acquire, and the penalty if caught is equivalent to speeding, I fail to see why you find it so irresponsible. You are really starting to come off as biased.
And before you bring up the obvious "well it's not equiv to speeding is it!!?", you'll have to convince me that it's reasonable to assume he should've been aware that he can be arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime he did not commit.
speeding is also irresponsible, especcially as a father. I'd say it's far more irresponsible than smoking a bowl since it puts your life and the life of others on the road at risk.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 03, 2011, 06:36:45 PM
I agree with that. Doing illegal things of any sort, as a parent, is a bad idea, it not only risks resources that are really not just yours anymore, it also sets a bad example for your children.
Except, his child was completely unaware of his activities. As far as examples being set, well, that depends on the parent and his/her beliefs on parenting.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 03, 2011, 06:36:45 PM
That doesn't change the fact that he was punished disproportionately for his mistake, and that innocent children were hurt by the unfair laws. (or possibly just one innocent child, Trix didn't say how many kids the guy has)
Not to mention the fact that his punishment is ENDLESS. He is now a felon drug dealer. Every job he tries to apply for, he has to tell him he's a felon drug dealer. He can't offset the impact of his felony through school, because they don't give Financial Aid to felon drug dealers. Even shit jobs are turning him down because they don't want to hire a felon drug dealer. He only gets visitation of his child when he kisses his ex-wife's ass because he's a felon drug dealer, and she automatically wins any court appearance. Funny, since she smoked pot WITH him back then. The endless punishment for being a felony drug dealer, when the fact remains that he still
never dealt any drugs.Ok, I've harped on this point enough. But it's the clearest example I can think of to show why draconian drug laws are harmful to upstanding citizens AND their families. The example of my friend isn't solitary, when trying to appeal his judgement in court, we all did a lot of researching into comparable cases, and we found a LOT. It's amazingly common how often this happens. It makes one wonder how many people sitting in jail or prison for dealing marijuana weren't just holding a bag bigger than an oz. Unfortunately, our research also led us to conclude that almost every time, getting caught with a QP is guaranteed distribution felony charges, and almost everyone (except a couple rich people we found) was found guilty of the full felony.
But fuck my friend. He sparked a bowl, WHILE HAVING A KID! That automatically makes him a Bad Guy and who the fuck cares what happens to him. Hell even without a kid the same thing would've happened to him, it's not like the judge gave him a harsher sentence because he was a father. So the family isn't even relevant, he sparked a bowl PERIOD so who cares whether he gets a ticket or locked up or whatever.
This is where I see bias, you seem to believe that he deserves what he got. That because he broke the law, period, the severity of his punishment isn't relevant. As soon as he crossed the line over into illegal, ticket, fine, jail time, same difference, he's a Criminal so who cares.
Quote from: trix on July 03, 2011, 06:50:39 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 03, 2011, 06:36:45 PM
I agree with that. Doing illegal things of any sort, as a parent, is a bad idea, it not only risks resources that are really not just yours anymore, it also sets a bad example for your children.
Except, his child was completely unaware of his activities. As far as examples being set, well, that depends on the parent and his/her beliefs on parenting.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 03, 2011, 06:36:45 PM
That doesn't change the fact that he was punished disproportionately for his mistake, and that innocent children were hurt by the unfair laws. (or possibly just one innocent child, Trix didn't say how many kids the guy has)
Not to mention the fact that his punishment is ENDLESS. He is now a felon drug dealer. Every job he tries to apply for, he has to tell him he's a felon drug dealer. He can't offset the impact of his felony through school, because they don't give Financial Aid to felon drug dealers. Even shit jobs are turning him down because they don't want to hire a felon drug dealer. He only gets visitation of his child when he kisses his ex-wife's ass because he's a felon drug dealer, and she automatically wins any court appearance. Funny, since she smoked pot WITH him back then. The endless punishment for being a felony drug dealer, when the fact remains that he still never dealt any drugs.
The fact that he is now having so much trouble finding employment also means punishment for the child. Whether he has custody or not. If he does he can't afford to care for the child at the same level. If he does not he isn't going to be paying the same amount of child support.
This is one case where the prohibition of marijuana, not marijuana itself, has negatively impacted the life of a child in a strong and measurable way, and it is not the only one.
The idea that the government should make anything illegal because, otherwise, it appears that the government is condoning it is asinine to the extreme, and everyone who buys or repeats that line of horseshit should just blow their brains out right now. :crankey:
No offense.
eta: :crankey:
To bring some fun back to this thread
http://exiledonline.com/two-things-to-say-about-ron-pauls-allegedly-awesome-position-on-drugs/
Some awesome quotes:
QuoteSince no one else in the pro-drug camp will say it, allow me: Ron Paul is a drug war asshole. He's a con artist playing a shell game with our liberties with his slippery proposal that the answer to this savage 40-year war on individual liberty is to transfer the power to destroy lives from one authority (federal) to another equally cruel authority (state). In doing so, Dr. Paul has shifted the moral debate about the drug war from one of barbarism and injustice to his crusty old Confederate gripe about states' rights versus federal authority.
QuoteDon't cede the moral ground on the drug issue to the libertarians, because they've sucked the morality out of it by turning it into a States' Rights issue.
QuoteOne more thing: This goes out to all of you Weed-Nazis out there. You better not be planning to do what I think you're going to do once you get your foot another inch or two inside the respectably-legal door: You better not turn around and slam that door on every other drug-user's face. Because I know that's what you filthy pot-heads are planning. As all drug users know, Weed-Nazis are the most duplicitous, moralizing blowhards of all drug users. They never shuttup about their idiotic moral categories, ranking marijuana as a "soft drug" as opposed to "bad" "hard" drugs like meth and opiates.
Marijuana is for dumbshits; it makes dumbshits feel creative. In a charitable moment, I'd be okay with giving dumbshits that chance to experience a false sense of purpose on this planet, but the thing is, those of us with more refined drug tastes, with more advanced cognitive powers, know that marijuana is one of GAIA's most terrifying booby-traps she ever set. THC equals pure terror and paranoia. Which is why I'm all for imposing a federal death penalty on anyone caught using marijuana or referring to it as a "soft drug" in public, or in the privacy of their own homes. That is, unless the Weed-Nazis are on board with an all-or-nothing drug decriminalization program.
:lulz:
I actually had a feeling that there were some in the anti drug-war community that weren't exactly enamored with Ron Paul.
Also the bit on Weed-Nazis was hilarious.
I just don't buy into the slippery-slope argument that if pot is legalized that ALL THESE KIDS are just going to start smoking just because it's legal and EVERYONE'S going to have it all of a sudden, for some reason. I mean, I'm not here handing out nips of tequila and cigarettes to every kid I see just because I'm of age to legally possess them. Parents that condone underage drinking and/or smoking (weed or tobacco) are going to regardless of the law. And as has been stated several times over, drug dealers aren't there checking IDs and (depending on the person's own values) will sell to children since hey, it's illegal anyway, so why not. Regulating it like alcohol and tobacco would at least give responsible adults to opportunity to indulge with similar penalties for buying for/selling to minors.
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that just because pot suddenly became legal, those who do not believe kids should smoke it would suddenly become ok with the idea. There are PLENTY of people who drink that aren't running to the store buying six-packs and bottles for kids, either due to personal morals or legal penalties or both. The people that are doing it are going to do it anyway and should be punished accordingly if caught rather than punishing everyone for something that may or may not happen. Parents who smoke should keep their weed locked/hidden away somewhere in the same manner they should have their alcohol/prescription pills/guns hidden away from their children. Not everyone is going to, which is unfortunate and that is why there should be educational resources and help for children. Unless of course, the government should just take EVERYONE's children and raise them until the age of 18 - that way, they'll be EXTRA SAFE until they reach adulthood.
Not that either option is good, but I would personally feel more comfortable with a kid sneaking away one their parents' joints rather than a bottle of vodka or a few oxycontin or Xanax, or "hey, what do those pills do? I don't know but let me pop a few and see what happens!" And going back to kids that may not be smoking pot because it's illegal - those that are seeking to get high are just going to find more easily accessible or "legal" alternatives. And so you have tampon margaritas, kids smoking bath salts, popping mom and dad's legal prescriptions. Kids that want to get fucked up are going to find a way to do so, usually one that ends up being more dangerous than smoking pot. So the safety of the children argument doesn't really hold up in the real world since kids are already finding much more fucked up ways of getting high than pot could ever be, because said methods are quasi-legal. Education and personal/parental responsibility are the key, not blanket prohibition.
The idea doesn't come from a thought that parents are all of a sudden going to be handing out pot to kids like candy. But it does come out from the fact that if kids have more social access to a drug, or even if there is a perception of better social access to a drug, the consumption rate of that drug WILL go up. This is a fundamental. There is a direct relationship in the data between access and use.
But you also have to consider that two more contributing factors to youth substance abuse are parental modeling and parental monitoring. It stands to reason that if marijuana is legalized, more adults will have better access to marijuana and so it stands to reason there will be more of it in the home. There will likely be more adults using it more openly at home, more chances for adults to model use to kids. But even if you put that one aside, there is the issue of monitoring. Even well meaning parents will not be completely tuned into their teens. I'm sure everyone here has known those successful couples with kids who are workaholics who are always on their blackberries, checking their stock portfolios, busy, busy, busy. It's very easy for kids to start falling off of their parents radars. Or at least, certain behaviors. Couple that with the increased social access and you have a recipe for increased rates of youth substance abuse.
And I also have to point out again what I pointed out before. It is fairly atypical for a drug user, much less a teen drug user, to make rational decisions. You can say you would much rather your child take a joint instead of a pill or Vodka, but your typical kid doesn't think that way. Indeed, more often than not these days, the kid is going to take all three. Poly-drug use is much more common these days and that trend doesn't show any signs of reversing. So that argument doesn't really hold up in my experience.
Yes, definitely we need the education, and that stuff IS happening. It's part of my job to organize and develop these kinds of educational programs and to work on strategies to get more parents to be more responsible and educate themselves as well as their children. But if you legalize marijuana, it WILL make the already existent problem that much worse. A problem for which we've actually made some headway and reduced usage rates over the past 10 years. If you legalize, I guarantee you all of that goes away. Not a doubt in my mind.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on July 05, 2011, 05:45:14 PM
I just don't buy into the slippery-slope argument that if pot is legalized that ALL THESE KIDS are just going to start smoking just because it's legal and EVERYONE'S going to have it all of a sudden, for some reason. I mean, I'm not here handing out nips of tequila and cigarettes to every kid I see just because I'm of age to legally possess them. Parents that condone underage drinking and/or smoking (weed or tobacco) are going to regardless of the law. And as has been stated several times over, drug dealers aren't there checking IDs and (depending on the person's own values) will sell to children since hey, it's illegal anyway, so why not. Regulating it like alcohol and tobacco would at least give responsible adults to opportunity to indulge with similar penalties for buying for/selling to minors.
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that just because pot suddenly became legal, those who do not believe kids should smoke it would suddenly become ok with the idea. There are PLENTY of people who drink that aren't running to the store buying six-packs and bottles for kids, either due to personal morals or legal penalties or both. The people that are doing it are going to do it anyway and should be punished accordingly if caught rather than punishing everyone for something that may or may not happen. Parents who smoke should keep their weed locked/hidden away somewhere in the same manner they should have their alcohol/prescription pills/guns hidden away from their children. Not everyone is going to, which is unfortunate and that is why there should be educational resources and help for children. Unless of course, the government should just take EVERYONE's children and raise them until the age of 18 - that way, they'll be EXTRA SAFE until they reach adulthood.
Not that either option is good, but I would personally feel more comfortable with a kid sneaking away one their parents' joints rather than a bottle of vodka or a few oxycontin or Xanax, or "hey, what do those pills do? I don't know but let me pop a few and see what happens!" And going back to kids that may not be smoking pot because it's illegal - those that are seeking to get high are just going to find more easily accessible or "legal" alternatives. And so you have tampon margaritas, kids smoking bath salts, popping mom and dad's legal prescriptions. Kids that want to get fucked up are going to find a way to do so, usually one that ends up being more dangerous than smoking pot. So the safety of the children argument doesn't really hold up in the real world since kids are already finding much more fucked up ways of getting high than pot could ever be, because said methods are quasi-legal. Education and personal/parental responsibility are the key, not blanket prohibition.
What your failing to understand is personal responsibility has been dead for a long time.
Also RWHN and anyone else with kids why I should I be involved in raising your kids in the first place?
Thats your job not mine.
Because a community with healthy and thriving youth is a community more likely to be healthy and thrive.
Maybe a community with more freedoms and choice would have a healthier respect for the consequences of those choices.
Plus you could easily make the same argument for violent movies, and in fact that "think of the children" argument has been made. So in places like Britain in the 80's, people had to suffer because some people needed the state to help raise their kids.
I dunno, because the law currently does offer consequences of choices, such as those we've already discussed like jeopardizing financial support for college. Both as a parent and as someone who has studies parenting (one of my many hats in this line of work) what I understand is that teens need to experience consequences before they adapt or change their behavior. A permissive community is just like a permissive parent.
Surely we've all known those kinds of parents. The parents that let their kids do whatever they want. There are no limits, no responsibilities. The kids never learn from the choices of their behavior because there are no consequences. It isn't much different when the community is permissive. It ends up encouraging more anti-social behavior instead of curbing it. That's why communities where the laws are enforced, and enforced fairly and equitably, tend to be communities that have lower amounts of youth substance abuse. Because it sets a standard and communicates a social norm, a social value of that community. That substance abuse isn't something that is overtly or tacitly condoned in that community.
For every anecdotal child who was a spoiled brat we can all recall one that probably smoked a lot in high school and turned out perfectly fine and with far fewer problems then one who was practically a virginal slasher hero in school. Your talking about taking away someone's choice on what they want to ingest because it's probably harmful to them and no one else, and you consider it anti-social. I don't consider it anti-social at all. In fact in some cases I consider it a socially bonding experience and sometimes even a right of passage. I'm not part of society now? Even though I don't smoke does that make me more dangerous cause I actually think people should experience it a few times at least. I'm basically now advocating breaking the law (Yes I know in Canada I'm technically not but let's pretend).
Also in terms of education. What ever happened to just doing what we should be doing in terms of sex education... you know just telling them the truth and letting them make up their own minds?
To be clear, I use the term "anti-social" in a categorical sense. And it is categorization of the behavior, not the individual. I understand that initially it can be a bonding experience for some. That is basically stage two, social use. The issue is that far too many kids move beyond stage two into stages 3 and 4. Then it messes with all kinds of things including social circles, family, education, their job if they work after school, etc. It is the leading substance when it comes to why kids are admitted into treatment, significantly higher than alcohol.
As far as education goes, that is essentially what we are doing now. We give them the facts as far as how marijuana could potentially effect them. Including the documented evidence of how it can derail future plans. Sure, for some this doesn't happen, but for many it does. So the question becomes is it really worth taking that chance?
The last few posts are chock-full-o annecdotal evidence, but if I was going to pick I'd err with Reverend What's-His-Name? because although Thurnez is correct, I tend to believe the society problem on the whole swings in the other direction and that far more people are too stupid to make up their own minds and that the ones that are capable, will circumvent the law peaceably anyway, and will be responsible enough to not get caught.
I don't like pot personally (I'm really bad with it, turns me into a drooling moron, more so even) but I know my step mother smokes every day and is a respectable business owner and productive member of society and doesn't at all even resemble a stereotypical pot head. It can be done, but for every responsible user I've encountered in my days, there were fifty that were filthy druggies and alcoholics that were fundamentally overgrown children incapable of operating at acceptable society productivity levels.
As such it seems to me it's more practical to have a more strict society in this regard because (at least in America) adult-sized people still need to be fucking babysat, and since you can't make a system for everyone, you have to accommodate the majority (or at least the loudest).
To be clear, I'm not against legalizing pot provided the change isn't swift and that the education system does a better job with explaining to young people it than they do with liquor. I am also, however, against putting kids away for 20 years because they had a sheet of acid on them, that's just stupid (unless you own the prisons, then you are making a shit ton of cash).
I do agree, however, that the current system is a pile of shit and needs a serious overhaul.
Yes but I'm willing to bet you don't tell them of any of the positives. For instance if you do a task which scatters your brain marijuana does help refocus the brain (though eating it does work better then smoking it in this regards).
It's like sex ed. If keep hammering home all the negatives (which I think you need to include for sure) like pregnancy, disease, female vaginas occasionally chopping your penis off, but you don't include any of the positives it's going to get disregarded but it is existentially not telling the whole story.
Sorry for the scatter brain response - the influenza I beat last weekend decided to have a sequel.
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
The last few posts are chock-full-o annecdotal evidence, but if I was going to pick I'd err with Reverend What's-His-Name? because although Thurnez is correct, I tend to believe the society problem on the whole swings in the other direction and that far more people are too stupid to make up their own minds and that the ones that are capable, will circumvent the law peaceably anyway, and will be responsible enough to not get caught.
I don't like pot personally (I'm really bad with it, turns me into a drooling moron, more so even) but I know my step mother smokes every day and is a respectable business owner and productive member of society and doesn't at all even resemble a stereotypical pot head. It can be done, but for every responsible user I've encountered in my days, there were fifty that were filthy druggies and alcoholics that were fundamentally overgrown children incapable of operating at acceptable society productivity levels.
As such it seems to me it's more practical to have a more strict society in this regard because (at least in America) adult-sized people still need to be fucking babysat, and since you can't make a system for everyone, you have to accommodate the majority (or at least the loudest).
To be clear, I'm not against legalizing pot provided the change isn't swift and that the education system does a better job with explaining to young people it than they do with liquor. I am also, however, against putting kids away for 20 years because they had a sheet of acid on them, that's just stupid (unless you own the prisons, then you are making a shit ton of cash).
I do agree, however, that the current system is a pile of shit and needs a serious overhaul.
Don't worry about it.
RWHN is a big boy, and he's been arguing this point for some time now on a board where he's basically on his own. Plus without getting into it it's his job to try to curb drug abuse in adolescence.
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
The last few posts are chock-full-o annecdotal evidence, but if I was going to pick I'd err with Reverend What's-His-Name? because although Thurnez is correct, I tend to believe the society problem on the whole swings in the other direction and that far more people are too stupid to make up their own minds and that the ones that are capable, will circumvent the law peaceably anyway, and will be responsible enough to not get caught.
I don't like pot personally (I'm really bad with it, turns me into a drooling moron, more so even) but I know my step mother smokes every day and is a respectable business owner and productive member of society and doesn't at all even resemble a stereotypical pot head. It can be done, but for every responsible user I've encountered in my days, there were fifty that were filthy druggies and alcoholics that were fundamentally overgrown children incapable of operating at acceptable society productivity levels.
As such it seems to me it's more practical to have a more strict society in this regard because (at least in America) adult-sized people still need to be fucking babysat, and since you can't make a system for everyone, you have to accommodate the majority (or at least the loudest).
To be clear, I'm not against legalizing pot provided the change isn't swift and that the education system does a better job with explaining to young people it than they do with liquor. I am also, however, against putting kids away for 20 years because they had a sheet of acid on them, that's just stupid (unless you own the prisons, then you are making a shit ton of cash).
I do agree, however, that the current system is a pile of shit and needs a serious overhaul.
Also I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what it comes down to most of the time, and that should be the common enemy for both sides of the debate.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 05, 2011, 08:16:32 PM
Don't worry about it.
RWHN is a big boy, and he's been arguing this point for some time now on a board that he's basically on his own. Plus without getting into it it's his job to try to curb drug abuse in adolescence.
I wasn't trying to back him up personally, just weigh in on the topic. If the avi's were switched I'd still have the same view. :)
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 05, 2011, 08:18:47 PM
Also I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what it comes down to most of the time, and that should be the common enemy for both sides of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhu4T_vwxIU
prisoners are generally slave labor imo :/
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 05, 2011, 08:14:30 PM
Yes but I'm willing to bet you don't tell them of any of the positives. For instance if you do a task which scatters your brain marijuana does help refocus the brain (though eating it does work better then smoking it in this regards).
It's like sex ed. If keep hammering home all the negatives (which I think you need to include for sure) like pregnancy, disease, female vaginas occasionally chopping your penis off, but you don't include any of the positives it's going to get disregarded but it is existentially not telling the whole story.
Sorry for the scatter brain response - the influenza I beat last weekend decided to have a sequel.
But marijuana also can eventually lead to issues that ultimately distract from education. So even if there was an initial benefit, eventually, it would be negated if the kid becomes a regular user and abuses the substance.
But just to turn it a bit, we certainly aren't going to stand up there and tell kids that if they tried marijuana once it would ruin their life and be really awful. We cannot deny the initial benefits of experimentation which are basically the high and also the perceived benefit of being part of a group. But we can lay out the data that shows what happens to a lot of kids who become addicted. All of the kids that have to go into treatment. All of the kids who drop out of school. All of the kids who end up not going to college.
Sure, there is a chance they could avoid all that, but it's just that, a chance. Ultimately, it is still their choice, but at least now, it is an informed choice. And something with that approach has worked. Rates have been on the decline for the past 10 years.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 05, 2011, 08:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
The last few posts are chock-full-o annecdotal evidence, but if I was going to pick I'd err with Reverend What's-His-Name? because although Thurnez is correct, I tend to believe the society problem on the whole swings in the other direction and that far more people are too stupid to make up their own minds and that the ones that are capable, will circumvent the law peaceably anyway, and will be responsible enough to not get caught.
I don't like pot personally (I'm really bad with it, turns me into a drooling moron, more so even) but I know my step mother smokes every day and is a respectable business owner and productive member of society and doesn't at all even resemble a stereotypical pot head. It can be done, but for every responsible user I've encountered in my days, there were fifty that were filthy druggies and alcoholics that were fundamentally overgrown children incapable of operating at acceptable society productivity levels.
As such it seems to me it's more practical to have a more strict society in this regard because (at least in America) adult-sized people still need to be fucking babysat, and since you can't make a system for everyone, you have to accommodate the majority (or at least the loudest).
To be clear, I'm not against legalizing pot provided the change isn't swift and that the education system does a better job with explaining to young people it than they do with liquor. I am also, however, against putting kids away for 20 years because they had a sheet of acid on them, that's just stupid (unless you own the prisons, then you are making a shit ton of cash).
I do agree, however, that the current system is a pile of shit and needs a serious overhaul.
Also I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what it comes down to most of the time, and that should be the common enemy for both sides of the debate.
Yes. As I've said throughout this thread and others, there is definitely some reforms that are needed in the area of law enforcement and sentencing. First time (non violent) offenders shouldn't be in prison. Kids and adults who are arrested for possession charges should not be in prisons. They should be put through some kind of diversion or drug court program. And if a state doesn't have either of those, they should. There are tons of things that could be done to mitigate the problems with the laws that put the wrong kind of people in prison.
I personally draw the line at trafficking and heavier offenses. But I think if we were able to improve the other areas I talked about, we wouldn't only save lives, we'd save a fuckton of money. (That should then be 100% re-routed into prevention.)
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 02, 2011, 03:08:16 AM
You mean like how legalizing alcohol reduced most of its social harm.
:lulz:
That's pretty rich.
waittaminute...
don't you keep telling us we can't compare pot and alcohol?
Well, no. Specifically what I've said is that whether or not marijuana is legal should be based upon its own merits. It's own pros and cons. Not whether or not other substances are better or worse.
But see, what some of you are doing is saying marijuana should be legal because look at all the awful stuff alcohol and tobacco does. You are arguing that it should be a contributing factor to the decision of whether or not it should be legal. I say, again, it should be judge on its own merits.
That post wasn't about comparing at all, really. It was more of a comical observation that someone actually believes that repealing prohibition is somehow going to do away with the social harm of any substance. It isn't part of my reasoning for keeping marijuana illegal.
Also, doesn't it suck that AKK has jumped in to defend your honor? I mean, many people here have enough of an established repoire with you that it won't cloud their judgment, but imagine what the noobs will think.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 05, 2011, 09:00:31 PM
Also, doesn't it suck that AKK has jumped in to defend your honor? I mean, many people here have enough of an established repoire with you that it won't cloud their judgment, but imagine what the noobs will think.
straw man, deflected as bullshit by me.
My favoring of an opinion doesn't make it invalid or cheapen it at core value.
That shit only matters politically, like if Osama came out supporting Obama in the last election.
In the case of something like core value, gold still conducts electricity well even if AKK with all his stigma says gold conducts electricity well.
Anyone that would argue that based on such a premise is a fucktard.
Well, it sounded more like he was, kinda sorta agreeing with me a little bit more than TI.
It really wasn't "defending my honor". But I'm not worried about it. I'll take that over people skimming my posts and making bullshit summations.
(not directed at you ECH, btw)
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 05, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 05, 2011, 08:18:47 PM
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
The last few posts are chock-full-o annecdotal evidence, but if I was going to pick I'd err with Reverend What's-His-Name? because although Thurnez is correct, I tend to believe the society problem on the whole swings in the other direction and that far more people are too stupid to make up their own minds and that the ones that are capable, will circumvent the law peaceably anyway, and will be responsible enough to not get caught.
I don't like pot personally (I'm really bad with it, turns me into a drooling moron, more so even) but I know my step mother smokes every day and is a respectable business owner and productive member of society and doesn't at all even resemble a stereotypical pot head. It can be done, but for every responsible user I've encountered in my days, there were fifty that were filthy druggies and alcoholics that were fundamentally overgrown children incapable of operating at acceptable society productivity levels.
As such it seems to me it's more practical to have a more strict society in this regard because (at least in America) adult-sized people still need to be fucking babysat, and since you can't make a system for everyone, you have to accommodate the majority (or at least the loudest).
To be clear, I'm not against legalizing pot provided the change isn't swift and that the education system does a better job with explaining to young people it than they do with liquor. I am also, however, against putting kids away for 20 years because they had a sheet of acid on them, that's just stupid (unless you own the prisons, then you are making a shit ton of cash).
I do agree, however, that the current system is a pile of shit and needs a serious overhaul.
Also I have a sneaking suspicion that this is what it comes down to most of the time, and that should be the common enemy for both sides of the debate.
Yes. As I've said throughout this thread and others, there is definitely some reforms that are needed in the area of law enforcement and sentencing. First time (non violent) offenders shouldn't be in prison. Kids and adults who are arrested for possession charges should not be in prisons. They should be put through some kind of diversion or drug court program. And if a state doesn't have either of those, they should. There are tons of things that could be done to mitigate the problems with the laws that put the wrong kind of people in prison.
I personally draw the line at trafficking and heavier offenses. But I think if we were able to improve the other areas I talked about, we wouldn't only save lives, we'd save a fuckton of money. (That should then be 100% re-routed into prevention.)
Yes I know you said that.
I can't really comment on it since your dealing specifically with your countries legal system and in that I think it's up to you guys.
I can say in Canada the whole thing is ridicules. We have this half ass it's legal, but it's not legal in some cases, and you can't traffic, but you can grow small amounts, but you can't grow this amount... the whole thing is almost sickening. Just make it illegal already would you. This is the whole gay marriage debate over again where it took them years to recognize that civil unions and marriage are the same fucking thing. It's also like the whole prostitution debate that occasionally pops up. Everyone knows in 10 to 20 years it's going to be completely legalized so why are Canadian's even wasting our time debating this?
I remember when I went to the local debates from the last election, missed most of it, and the marijuana question came up.
Im paraphrasing here but the conservative candidate, who was a general french-hating fucktard anyways (but that's another story) was basically pointing out how high dope usage is up here. The NDP had a good point in that if everyone is using it why the hell isn't it completely legal? If the American's want to fight a war on drugs let them. Why do we have to waste our money on it? That money can be used for much better purposes, like giving me a tax credit to be used on prostitutes (that's parts my idea) :-)
Anyways that's my influenza daytime nyquil influenced rambling on the subject.
WOW I just read my own ramblings.
Good thing I'm not doing RWHN's job.
American youth would be completely screwed
:lulz:
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 05, 2011, 09:00:31 PM
Also, doesn't it suck that AKK has jumped in to defend your honor? I mean, many people here have enough of an established repoire with you that it won't cloud their judgment, but imagine what the noobs will think.
straw man, deflected as bullshit by me.
My favoring of an opinion doesn't make it invalid or cheapen it at core value.
Actually, it does.
i thought dope was heroin
THORNIS DOES CANADA HAVE A HEROIN PROBLEM?
Quote from: The Fred ⊂(◉‿◉)つ on July 06, 2011, 12:25:00 AM
i thought dope was heroin
Depends. I usually associate it with heroin, but I'm sure I've heard some old-timers over here refer to weed as dope. I think it can vary from place to place and the time period you're talking about. Since Canada is thirty years behind the rest of the world anyway, it would make sense their slang is too.
I've heard it refereed to as both to be honest. At least in this city its usually slang for weed. It might just be a northern ontario thing, or even just a region thing, as thinking back I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as such outside of this end of the province. Of course this is the city that in the last few years built it's brand new tourist attraction : A bridge with a bunch of flags on it. So ya there's probably a heroine problem.
I've heard it used mostly interchangeably in Wisconsin too. It's all the same to the fuckin squares! 8)
i seeeee. CARRY ON.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 05, 2011, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 05, 2011, 09:00:31 PM
Also, doesn't it suck that AKK has jumped in to defend your honor? I mean, many people here have enough of an established repoire with you that it won't cloud their judgment, but imagine what the noobs will think.
straw man, deflected as bullshit by me.
My favoring of an opinion doesn't make it invalid or cheapen it at core value.
Actually, it does.
Somehow I suspect this wouldn't be the case if he favored one of Cain's opinions or one of Dok's opinions, etc., etc.,
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2011, 12:34:44 AM
I've heard it refereed to as both to be honest. At least in this city its usually slang for weed. It might just be a northern ontario thing, or even just a region thing, as thinking back I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as such outside of this end of the province. Of course this is the city that in the last few years built it's brand new tourist attraction : A bridge with a bunch of flags on it. So ya there's probably a heroine problem.
Same, though I think it is fairly outdated at this point, at least in these parts. Either way, it at least made for a subject of a great early 90s rock song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAxLs7nmiU
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 06, 2011, 01:30:48 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 05, 2011, 10:25:40 PM
Quote from: Ambassador KLOK KAOS on July 05, 2011, 09:10:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 05, 2011, 09:00:31 PM
Also, doesn't it suck that AKK has jumped in to defend your honor? I mean, many people here have enough of an established repoire with you that it won't cloud their judgment, but imagine what the noobs will think.
straw man, deflected as bullshit by me.
My favoring of an opinion doesn't make it invalid or cheapen it at core value.
Actually, it does.
Somehow I suspect this wouldn't be the case if he favored one of Cain's opinions or one of Dok's opinions, etc., etc.,
Actually, it would.
Quote from: Reverend What's-His-Name? on July 06, 2011, 01:36:42 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2011, 12:34:44 AM
I've heard it refereed to as both to be honest. At least in this city its usually slang for weed. It might just be a northern ontario thing, or even just a region thing, as thinking back I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as such outside of this end of the province. Of course this is the city that in the last few years built it's brand new tourist attraction : A bridge with a bunch of flags on it. So ya there's probably a heroine problem.
Same, though I think it is fairly outdated at this point, at least in these parts. Either way, it at least made for a subject of a great early 90s rock song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAxLs7nmiU
Even better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIHTiblafps
Yeah, so this shit finally spilled out onto the rest of the board. I'd like to thank everyone responsible for the premature death of a totally unrelated thread.
:rogpipe:
was there more than one person responsible for interpreting a link between the two threads?
:?
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2011, 03:28:55 AM
was there more than one person responsible for interpreting a link between the two threads?
:?
This thread is, in itself, an abomination.
"Marijuana monster is stalking the streets, you know what it's after, and you know what it eats,
It gobbles your body, and spits out your mind, if you don't believe me, then you must be blind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7pwQOkk8Ao&playnext=1&list=PL8F19AE81F4ED11AC
Evil Reefer Madness is a mind eating Troll..
RWHN may have taken this all a bit too personally; but at the same time, this thread was like his own private Thermopylae. Virtually every other poster in this thread was (more or less) opposed to his viewpoints and, by association, his career. Having to defend and explain your job and opinions for weeks on end is undoubtedly draining, and ultimately disheartening.
In the end, it's not surprising he developed a crushing pun habit.
Quote from: l©m©n©o©, PhD on July 08, 2011, 02:43:33 PM
RWHN may have taken this all a bit too personally; but at the same time, this thread was like his own private Thermopylae. Virtually every other poster in this thread was (more or less) opposed to his viewpoints and, by association, his career. Having to defend and explain your job and opinions for weeks on end is undoubtedly draining, and ultimately disheartening.
In the end, it's not surprising he developed a crushing pun habit.
I suppose being a Punkie can be every bit as debilitating as being a Junkie.
Quote from: l©m©n©o©, PhD on July 08, 2011, 02:43:33 PM
RWHN may have taken this all a bit too personally; but at the same time, this thread was like his own private Thermopylae. Virtually every other poster in this thread was (more or less) opposed to his viewpoints and, by association, his career. Having to defend and explain your job and opinions for weeks on end is undoubtedly draining, and ultimately disheartening.
In the end, it's not surprising he developed a crushing pun habit.
Actually, I think that many peoples' point was that he was deliberately leaving information on the table that would very possibly have helped him in his job.
I don't recall ANYONE ITT saying that they thought that it was a good idea for kids to get all fucked up and that trying to prevent that or help those who had already done so wasn't a good thing.
In case I'm not being obvious enough, it kind of chaps my ass to be mischaracterized that way.
Quote from: l©m©n©o©, PhD on July 08, 2011, 02:43:33 PM
RWHN may have taken this all a bit too personally; but at the same time, this thread was like his own private Thermopylae. Virtually every other poster in this thread was (more or less) opposed to his viewpoints and, by association, his career. Having to defend and explain your job and opinions for weeks on end is undoubtedly draining, and ultimately disheartening.
In the end, it's not surprising he developed a crushing pun habit.
One of the reasons I didn't want to post in this thread, and when I did I felt bad about it. I hope he didn't take it personal and comes back.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 08, 2011, 11:17:55 PM
Quote from: l©m©n©o©, PhD on July 08, 2011, 02:43:33 PM
RWHN may have taken this all a bit too personally; but at the same time, this thread was like his own private Thermopylae. Virtually every other poster in this thread was (more or less) opposed to his viewpoints and, by association, his career. Having to defend and explain your job and opinions for weeks on end is undoubtedly draining, and ultimately disheartening.
In the end, it's not surprising he developed a crushing pun habit.
One of the reasons I didn't want to post in this thread, and when I did I felt bad about it. I hope he didn't take it personal and comes back.
I had an entire thing I wrote for 5 minutes and decided to copy and paste it to another file and rethink it..
But the jest of it was that RWHN has the right intentions but is possibly standing behind the wrong method for accomplishing them.
The status quo is fucking everyone up and sending the least amount but most at risk people his way when really everyone could stand a little RWHN in their early years if for nothing else than to see some examples of what life long addicts can become when that becomes all they are about.
What he does has more value and potential to help than the existing system were the funds there, but the alternative suggested by most in this thread means what he does would easily be overloaded without a guarantee of further funding. Just because you take money from one area where it suddenly isn't needed, doesn't mean it will flow to where it is.
I'm going to miss the guy, and I hardly knew ye.
As the child of addicts who were only pot smokers before some dealer of theirs said "hey, you guys should try this too,"
Don't stop doing what you're doing.
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
And god damn you Dok. I always seem to find myself defending a position I would otherwise not because you're arguing against it.
I'm not sure that means I'm becoming more human, or less.
I do know I'm thinking about things differently though, so ok.
ok.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Balls. I've never been so stoned on pot that I thought that maybe trying heroin would be a good idea. People who make that decision were always going to make that decision.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:32:20 AM
I'm not sure that means I'm becoming more human, or less.
It's a primate thing.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 09, 2011, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Balls. I've never been so stoned on pot that I thought that maybe trying heroin would be a good idea. People who make that decision were always going to make that decision.
Baby steps ECH. That's the idea behind the label "gateway drug"
It's a little bump of coke to keep you in the party.
It's a line later while everyone else is doing it.
Tell me shit like this doesn't happen and I'll tell you I've seen it happen dozens of times.
Does everyone who does it come out of it becoming a long term customer?
Nope. But that's the point, you only need one or two in a small group to begin to build a statistical truth.
Heroin well.. that bitch is different and I have to admit I have only known one who it claimed and he's gone.
Most now are getting hooked on opiate derivatives that are much easier to pass off at a party as "just a little something to help you sleep"
"It happens" + "the person was stoned" =/= "It happened because the person was stoned."
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 04:09:59 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 09, 2011, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Balls. I've never been so stoned on pot that I thought that maybe trying heroin would be a good idea. People who make that decision were always going to make that decision.
Baby steps ECH. That's the idea behind the label "gateway drug"
It's a little bump of coke to keep you in the party.
It's a line later while everyone else is doing it.
Tell me shit like this doesn't happen and I'll tell you I've seen it happen dozens of times.
Does everyone who does it come out of it becoming a long term customer?
Nope. But that's the point, you only need one or two in a small group to begin to build a statistical truth.
Heroin well.. that bitch is different and I have to admit I have only known one who it claimed and he's gone.
Most now are getting hooked on opiate derivatives that are much easier to pass off at a party as "just a little something to help you sleep"
Yeah, but those steps didn't occur
because those people were smoking pot.
Those people were smoking pot
because they were working up to their inevitable next step.
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on July 09, 2011, 04:44:17 AM
"It happens" + "the person was stoned" =/= "It happened because the person was stoned."
I'm gonna say that stupidity is increased when people are all fucked up.
That being said, I'm 20 times more likely - at least - to do something utterly stupid when I'm drunk, than when I'm doing any other intoxicants. Fact is, I'm a sub-moronic giggling asswipe when I'm drunk. When I'm fucked up otherwise, I just rant a lot or go to sleep.
Drunk is another story, yeah. :lol: But "you can't legislate morality!!!!!!" and "prohibition didn't worrrrrk!!!"
Quote from: Anna Mae Bollocks on July 09, 2011, 04:57:00 AM
Drunk is another story, yeah.
Oh, yeah. I deliberately get stinking drunk every six months or so for stress relief reasons, then spend the next three months cringing as I remember the asshole things I did and said while running around with a liter of bourbon in me.
On the other hand, I can get fucked out of my gourd on cactus, and then laugh at the asshole things I did and said.
without quoting a wall of text:
to ECH: no, but it likely happened while they were smoking pot or, as Dok pointed out, while they were drinking. If you'd like to dance words about tendencies toward addiction I'll gladly dance that dance but the fact is that even people who've no family history of substance addiction can easily be roped in to one with little effort when their judgement is otherwise impaired by a drug like herb or alcohol. The truth is that prohibition has done NOTHING to limit the availability of it but what making it legal has NOT guaranteed is that money spent on eradication, incarceration and prohibition will go toward abuse prevention of addiction to other drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking the rest of us, and those drugs have fucked an entire generation of people since the 70's and while numbers have fallen, still continue to ream out the assholes of too many families to just turn a blind eye toward.
Wanted to hit your points too Dok but I'm crashing out, been a hell of a day.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:20:01 AM
Wanted to hit your points too Dok but I'm crashing out, been a hell of a day.
Snort a line and drive on, soldier.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 05:00:33 AM
On the other hand, I can get fucked out of my gourd on cactus, and then laugh at the asshole things I did and said.
While you might be able to become psychologically addicted to hallucinogens, your body wont allow you to become physically addicted to them.
and even your psychological addiction will shut down as even if your brain wanted to be in that lost place, your body is pushed to such extremes that your brain says "hey, we aren't doing this again real soon"
And of course, those are both related.
IMO hallucinogens do not belong in a discussion of addictive drugs. Feel free to correct me on that if you think otherwise.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 05:23:53 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:20:01 AM
Wanted to hit your points too Dok but I'm crashing out, been a hell of a day.
Snort a line and drive on, soldier.
Those short but damned days are long gone, and thankfully.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:24:50 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 05:00:33 AM
On the other hand, I can get fucked out of my gourd on cactus, and then laugh at the asshole things I did and said.
While you might be able to become psychologically addicted to hallucinogens, your body wont allow you to become physically addicted to them.
and even your psychological addiction will shut down as even if your brain wanted to be in that lost place, your body is pushed to such extremes that your brain says "hey, we aren't doing this again real soon"
And of course, those are both related.
IMO hallucinogens do not belong in a discussion of addictive drugs. Feel free to correct me on that if you think otherwise.
Who said anything about being addicted? I just said I'm an asshole when I use them. I to this day am not able to live down the infamous garbage can incident.
I'm addicted to sleeping medication, tobacco, and harassing golfers...But not to cactus.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:24:50 AM
IMO hallucinogens do not belong in a discussion of addictive drugs. Feel free to correct me on that if you think otherwise.
Also, when did this become a discussion of addictive drugs? Last I checked, we were talking about weed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 05:29:33 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:24:50 AM
IMO hallucinogens do not belong in a discussion of addictive drugs. Feel free to correct me on that if you think otherwise.
Also, when did this become a discussion of addictive drugs? Last I checked, we were talking about weed.
fuck I'm staying awake for this.. hate you soooo much Dok
So in you're mind, weed is not addictive, at all
there's never been a weed addict. ever?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 09, 2011, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Balls. I've never been so stoned on pot that I thought that maybe trying heroin would be a good idea. People who make that decision were always going to make that decision.
And fuck I had to quote this to ask:
How many addicts have you ever known that were dead set on being addicts?
Not that they weren't probably headed that way, I get that. But have you ever known anyone who would tell you that yes, that's what they wanted to be?
Drugs are a hell of a drug.
Your description is easily applicable to people who end up needing <insert life saving or extending drug> to survive.
I know that's not the meat of what we're discussing but discounting it means discounting drugs en toto.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:20:01 AM
without quoting a wall of text:
to ECH: no, but it likely happened while they were smoking pot or, as Dok pointed out, while they were drinking.
It likely happened
while they were wearing pants.
OMFG OUTLAW PANCE NAO!!!!!
QuoteThe truth is that prohibition has done NOTHING to limit the availability of it but what making it legal has NOT guaranteed is that money spent on eradication, incarceration and prohibition will go toward abuse prevention of addiction to other drugs
Of course it won't. It'll go towards lining the fat cats' bank accounts just like everything else.
That's still no excuse to keep locking people up for bullshit.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:41:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 05:29:33 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:24:50 AM
IMO hallucinogens do not belong in a discussion of addictive drugs. Feel free to correct me on that if you think otherwise.
Also, when did this become a discussion of addictive drugs? Last I checked, we were talking about weed.
fuck I'm staying awake for this.. hate you soooo much Dok
So in you're mind, weed is not addictive, at all
there's never been a weed addict. ever?
I've known a few. But in all honestly, they'd be just as likely to get addicted to Cheese Whiz.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
IAWTP.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 09, 2011, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Balls. I've never been so stoned on pot that I thought that maybe trying heroin would be a good idea. People who make that decision were always going to make that decision.
No. Neither have I. I've been around both for long enough to see that the two drugs are rarely marketed together. Heroin addicts don't have money to waste on Pot, and Heroin dealers (at least at street level) don't bother selling it because their clientele spend every last penny on either heroin, or rocks. Pot dealers don't sell heroin, because it's far too on top to risk having class A's around, in case they get a spin.
Selling Pot is about £150 fine. Selling Class A's, you can be looking at 4 months on remand before your trial even comes up. If you offer a spliff to a heroin addict, he'll usually refuse it anyway, because it takes the roll out of his buzz, and brings his rattle on quicker.
Pot is a wide spectrum, socially acceptable drug, by and large. Heroin isn't.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Why do they come into contact with those drugs, DP?
Is it because pot is illegal and people who deal pot often deal other illegal drugs?
Is that issue one that might be adequately addressed via legalization?
If pot was not a black market product, would that reduce the pot user's exposure to the ability to purchase illegal drugs?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 06:16:05 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:41:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 05:29:33 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 05:24:50 AM
IMO hallucinogens do not belong in a discussion of addictive drugs. Feel free to correct me on that if you think otherwise.
Also, when did this become a discussion of addictive drugs? Last I checked, we were talking about weed.
fuck I'm staying awake for this.. hate you soooo much Dok
So in you're mind, weed is not addictive, at all
there's never been a weed addict. ever?
I've known a few. But in all honestly, they'd be just as likely to get addicted to Cheese Whiz.
Funny you should say that Dok (SCIENCE!):
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332253/title/Fats_stimulate_binge_eating_
QuoteEating fatty foods may give you the munchies. A new study shows that when rats taste fat, it stimulates the same cellular buttons triggered by the active ingredient in marijuana, telling the body to keep on eating.
Uncovering the events that lead to this molecular "eat, eat" missive will make it easier to develop drugs that curb binge eating and other weight related-problems, says pharmacologist Daniele Piomelli, who led the new work.
Piomelli and his colleagues were interested in compounds known as endocannabinoids — the body's version of the active ingredient in marijuana — and the role they play in overeating. Several kinds of endocannabinoids are released in the brain and body, but researchers are still discovering the nitty-gritty of where and when these compounds regulate mood and behavior.
So the researchers fed rats one of four liquid diets: fat (in the form of corn oil), protein, sugar or a nutrition shake combination of fat, protein and sugar. To ensure that the body's digestive signals wouldn't interfere with the experiments, a surgically implanted valve in the rats' upper stomach drained the food once eaten. Then the team measured endocannabinoid activity in the brain and other tissues. Compared with rats eating sugar or protein alone, rats on the fat diet had a surge of endocannabinoid activity in their gut, the team reported online July 5 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And these rats wouldn't stop slurping their corn oil. When given a compound that blocked the cellular buttons that the endocannabinoids typically hit, the fat-eating rats immediately stopped eating.
"It was a very striking effect," says Piomelli, of the University of California, Irvine and the Italian Institute of Technology in Genoa, Italy.
That a feedback loop in animals encourages bingeing on fats makes sense, says Angelo Izzo of the University of Naples Federico II in Italy, who was not involved in the work. From an evolutionary point of view, fats were once a valuable, rare commodity that played a pivotal role in survival.
The new research is exciting because it suggests blocking endocannabinoid activity in the gut might curb overeating, says Izzo. A drug designed to do just that turned out to also interfere with endocannabinoid activity in the brain, making some people anxious and irritable. But in the new work, the fat-triggered activity was localized to the gut. Piomelli's team hopes to generate new drugs that wouldn't enter the brain.
Quote from: BadBeast on July 09, 2011, 06:53:42 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on July 09, 2011, 03:56:52 AM
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 09, 2011, 03:28:21 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2011, 03:18:23 AM
It is my belief - my opinion - that he has accepted some bad signal, and has built a belief system based on that.
Specifically: That prevention is and must be tied to prohibition. All of the things he believes that I disagree with stem from that.
Then I'd say that it's no different than the belief that legalization will ultimately lead to education that prevents debilitating addiction to everything BUT MJ.
Prohibition is not the answer, but neither is willful ignorance of the fact that the people who become long term pot smokers will eventually come into contact with drugs that have a much higher chance of fucking their lives and families all to shit. Whether they get involved with them sometimes comes down to a few second decision while they're high on whether they'd like to be more high.
Not always, but sometimes and those sometimes are, with statistics to back it, really fucking debilitating.
Balls. I've never been so stoned on pot that I thought that maybe trying heroin would be a good idea. People who make that decision were always going to make that decision.
No. Neither have I. I've been around both for long enough to see that the two drugs are rarely marketed together. Heroin addicts don't have money to waste on Pot, and Heroin dealers (at least at street level) don't bother selling it because their clientele spend every last penny on either heroin, or rocks. Pot dealers don't sell heroin, because it's far too on top to risk having class A's around, in case they get a spin.
Selling Pot is about £150 fine. Selling Class A's, you can be looking at 4 months on remand before your trial even comes up. If you offer a spliff to a heroin addict, he'll usually refuse it anyway, because it takes the roll out of his buzz, and brings his rattle on quicker.
Pot is a wide spectrum, socially acceptable drug, by and large. Heroin isn't.
IME heroin addicts often also smoke pot if they have it, and also drink alcohol.
Coke addicts won't as often smoke pot, but they will drink alcohol
Meth addicts will usually drink alcohol.
Potheads are somewhat less likely to drink alcohol or use harder drugs unless you count hallucinogens
Alcoholics will often use any drug placed within their reach
The main trend I have seen is that the more destructive the drug, the more likely the addict is to use other highly damaging drugs. I think this points to a self-destructive tendency in the addict. This reverts to an earlier point I tried to bring up but which was ignored, which is that the #1 most reliable predictor of substance abuse is a history of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse.
And I don't buy into that "Gateway Drug" myth either. Pot is nothing like a gateway drug. It's got no noticeably addictive trigger for a start. Saying it's a Gateway drug, makes as much sense as saying that a Mars bar is a gateway food that leads to morbid obesity. There is a gateway drug, that triggers every dopamine receptor you've got, really quickly. But the focus gets shifted to the more politically volatile scapegoat of Pot. Purely because there's far too much money involved in legitimate shareholders businesses to make Tobacco look any worse than it already does.
Tobacco is the gateway drug that makes people far more vulnerable to other addictive substances. It's the one that people usually try first, stay with the longest, and are most likely to die from. There's a whole multinational industry, just grown up around the cancers that tobacco causes. And that's secondary to the sales and tax involved.
Two thirds of people who try cigarettes go on to be regular smokers, compared to around 20% of people who try heroin who going on to be habituated users. And just about everyone who uses any kind of recreational or habit forming drug, smokes tobacco as well.
LMNO's time and effort, admirable as it is, would be far better spent, discouraging kids from smoking tobacco, than toking on weed.
All the over exaggerated dangers that people have attributed to weed over the years, that have turned out to be at best spurious, at worst completely untrue, are patently obvious when applied to tobacco.
That's the one that should be ringing bells, not pot!
But where are the dedicated teams of outreach and support workers for those unfortunate youngsters addicted to smoking? Where are the governmental lobbyists campaigning to ban smoking? *Listens* It's all gone quiet all of a sudden. Wonder why? :lulz: Got a light, Lucifer?
ETA; Nigel, Heroin addicts will virtually never mix alcohol with heroin. Not more than once anyway. It's the quickest way to go over. They might use it as a substitute when they've given up, but the two do not mix at all well.
Curiously, the #1 predictor for cigarette smoking in women is also childhood abuse.
Go figure.
Also, I know heroin addicts won't mix, but they often drink when they can't shoot.
IME anyway (as the once squeaky-clean 18-yo gf of a heroin addict and his friends)
Oh, and they ALL smoke cigarettes... except the pot smokers. A few pot smokers I have known will smoke tobacco, but most of them haven't, and a lot of them think it's really gross, damaging, and addictive.
A PS... my first husband, who quit heroin, was never able to quit tobacco. He said it was much harder than the horse and even though he tried many times, the last time I ran into him (ten years ago) he was still smoking Camels.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 07:10:27 AM
IME heroin addicts often also smoke pot if they have it, and also drink alcohol.
Coke addicts won't as often smoke pot, but they will drink alcohol
Meth addicts will usually drink alcohol.
Potheads are somewhat less likely to drink alcohol or use harder drugs unless you count hallucinogens
Alcoholics will often use any drug placed within their reach
The main trend I have seen is that the more destructive the drug, the more likely the addict is to use other highly damaging drugs. I think this points to a self-destructive tendency in the addict. This reverts to an earlier point I tried to bring up but which was ignored, which is that the #1 most reliable predictor of substance abuse is a history of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse.
THIS.
Besides, these people band together with people who have the same drug of choice, and different types of addicts look down on other kinds of addicts. Heroin addicts hate tweakers. Tweakers hate junkies. Alkies hate everybody, except when they love everybody.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 07:37:06 AM
Oh, and they ALL smoke cigarettes... except the pot smokers. A few pot smokers I have known will smoke tobacco, but most of them haven't, and a lot of them think it's really gross, damaging, and addictive.
Yeah, although tobacco is more addicting, and I've smoked for over 30 years, I've never found myself on my knees in shop doorways sucking old men off for cigarette money.
Quote from: BadBeast on July 09, 2011, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 07:37:06 AM
Oh, and they ALL smoke cigarettes... except the pot smokers. A few pot smokers I have known will smoke tobacco, but most of them haven't, and a lot of them think it's really gross, damaging, and addictive.
Yeah, although tobacco is more addicting, and I've smoked for over 30 years, I've never found myself on my knees in shop doorways sucking old men off for cigarette money.
Yes, but people talk about "gateways" more than they talk about "predictors", partly because they don't understand the difference and partly because they're looking for things to punish rather than for avenues of prevention.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 08:21:57 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on July 09, 2011, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 07:37:06 AM
Oh, and they ALL smoke cigarettes... except the pot smokers. A few pot smokers I have known will smoke tobacco, but most of them haven't, and a lot of them think it's really gross, damaging, and addictive.
Yeah, although tobacco is more addicting, and I've smoked for over 30 years, I've never found myself on my knees in shop doorways sucking old men off for cigarette money.
Yes, but people talk about "gateways" more than they talk about "predictors", partly because they don't understand the difference and partly because they're looking for things to punish rather than for avenues of prevention.
True enough. "Gateway" is easier to sell to a public who are generally pretty uninformed, and who like to think that they are protected from nasty things like addiction, by their own superior moral fortitude.
Was checking PMs. (Thanks for the support guys!) Couldn't resist the Monkey urge to leave this little nugget I found on Cracked.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/
Anyhoo, I'm sure I'll be back at some point. Hotel California and all that.
But I'm vamoosing for awhile. But because I'm sure someone will notice and say, yeah, I'll probably lurk here and there.
Trip Zero's a mighty good punner and I can't resist a good pun.
Eris-speed to everyone!
-RWHN
Quote from: Adios Amigos! on July 09, 2011, 04:29:07 PM
Was checking PMs. (Thanks for the support guys!) Couldn't resist the Monkey urge to leave this little nugget I found on Cracked.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/
Anyhoo, I'm sure I'll be back at some point. Hotel California and all that.
But I'm vamoosing for awhile. But because I'm sure someone will notice and say, yeah, I'll probably lurk here and there.
Trip Zero's a mighty good punner and I can't resist a good pun.
Eris-speed to everyone!
-RWHN
Hey If I ever said anything to sway your decision-sorry RWHN.
I dig your postings. Hope to see them again.
:)
QuoteIf the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.
:lulz:
god damn if that part of that article didn't make me laugh until I pooped a little.
I leave the country for six weeks and this thread still hasn't hit 100 pages... and RWHN left
I are disappoint....
Quote from: Adios Amigos! on July 09, 2011, 04:29:07 PM
Was checking PMs. (Thanks for the support guys!) Couldn't resist the Monkey urge to leave this little nugget I found on Cracked.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/
Anyhoo, I'm sure I'll be back at some point. Hotel California and all that.
But I'm vamoosing for awhile. But because I'm sure someone will notice and say, yeah, I'll probably lurk here and there.
Trip Zero's a mighty good punner and I can't resist a good pun.
Eris-speed to everyone!
-RWHN
:lulz:
That's a great article.
I hope I haven't come off in this thread like I don't like you, RWHN. People keep asking me how it's possible that I know a Discordian Reverend who works in Substance Abuse Prevention(like it's some deep contradiction or something), and you've given enough tools and info to blow their head open a bit about the subject. Plus, your one of the best punners I've ever known :D
Glad to hear you'll be lurking around.
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Quote from: BadBeast on July 09, 2011, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 07:37:06 AM
Oh, and they ALL smoke cigarettes... except the pot smokers. A few pot smokers I have known will smoke tobacco, but most of them haven't, and a lot of them think it's really gross, damaging, and addictive.
Yeah, although tobacco is more addicting, and I've smoked for over 30 years, I've never found myself on my knees in shop doorways sucking old men off for cigarette money.
Well what
were you doing it for then? Just to see how the other half live?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Don't fret. He's made it quite clear that he's leaving because some of the people like me. Even though I am sure there are an equal number who would as soon tar and feather me.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 11:42:24 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Don't fret. He's made it quite clear that he's leaving because some of the people like me. Even though I am sure there are an equal number who would as soon tar and feather me.
Can't we all just hit a bong?
\
:hippie:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 11:51:29 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 11:42:24 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Don't fret. He's made it quite clear that he's leaving because some of the people like me. Even though I am sure there are an equal number who would as soon tar and feather me.
Can't we all just hit a bong?
\
:hippie:
Well I am all for that idea...but only if we all throw into a community mull bowl....it's way too expensive for me to be opening up my stash to all comers.
Feds Decree Marijuana Has No Medical Purpose and Crack Down on Enforcement
Submitted by Stacey Doyle on 2011-07-09
http://www.huliq.com/10559/feds-decree-marijuana-has-no-medical-purpose-and-crack-down-enforcement
QuoteSupporters of medical marijuana requested the government reclassify cannabis nine years ago. The request followed international research revealing the effectiveness of marijuana at treating certain diseases such as multiple sclerosis. The National Cancer Institute found marijuana may help with pain, nausea and other cancer symptoms.
The Obama administration made it possible for advocates to appeal to the federal courts. Now the United States Drug Enforcement Administration denied supporters' request to reclassify marijuana. Just two months earlier, cannabis advocates asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to compel the DEA to respond to their petition.
The LA Times reports Joe Elford, the chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access and lead attorney on the lawsuit, was not surprised by the government decision. Elford stated, "We have foiled the government's strategy of delay, and we can now go head-to-head on the merits. It is clearly motivated by a political decision that is anti-marijuana."
Michele M. Leonhart, DEA administrator, stated in a June 21 letter that cannabis has "a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." She further stated marijuana lacks the accepted safety to use under medical supervision. The letter and supporting documents were published in the Federal Register on Friday.
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/49120/Diane_Thesis_1.pdf?sequence=1
Synthetic and Endogenous Cannabinoids Inhibit Breast Cancer Cell Growth and Metastasis
Honors Research Thesis
Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation
with honors research distinction in the undergraduate colleges of The Ohio State University
by
Diane E. Smith
The Ohio State University
June 2011
Project Advisor: Professor Dr. Ramesh K. Ganju, Department of Pathology
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 11:42:24 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Don't fret. He's made it quite clear that he's leaving because some of the people like me. Even though I am sure there are an equal number who would as soon tar and feather me.
That's hot.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2011, 04:57:11 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 11:42:24 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Don't fret. He's made it quite clear that he's leaving because some of the people like me. Even though I am sure there are an equal number who would as soon tar and feather me.
That's hot.
:lulz:
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 10, 2011, 07:49:04 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2011, 04:57:11 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 09, 2011, 11:42:24 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on July 09, 2011, 09:50:25 PM
Sorry if my last post was a bit harsh, RWHN. It's just that that argument always makes my eye twitch for about a week every time I hear it.
Don't fret. He's made it quite clear that he's leaving because some of the people like me. Even though I am sure there are an equal number who would as soon tar and feather me.
That's hot.
:lulz:
Yeah, can't I do both?
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/
Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?
Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 01:11:00 PM
Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?
Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?
There was a period where the thread was just links that Telarus threw up, without any debate. I think he's just going back to that model.
I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing. Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 22, 2011, 02:48:01 PM
I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing. Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.
Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 22, 2011, 02:48:01 PM
I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing. Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.
Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.
Confirmation bias can be pretty damn powerful stuff.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 01:11:00 PM
Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?
Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?
this post only makes sense if you assume that the purpose of this thread is to argue about mary jane
Interesting link was interesting. Why does it have to be a counterpoint to something?
I, for one, will not stand for posting links ITT that disagree with the viewpoints of people not posting ITT.
... Unless there's somebody not posting ITT that disagrees. Then, I take it back. FOR BALANCE!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 22, 2011, 02:48:01 PM
I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing. Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.
Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.
Well that's the viewpoint he has and seeks to reinforce. Posting links that keep us informed about developments in the legal status and discoveries regarding benefits is still valuable though. it's not just a bunch of posters reiterating their personal belief that people should be allowed to smoke weed.
This thread kills puppies. With a mallet.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 01:11:00 PM
Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?
Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?
:lulz:
& Let's go post Fox News articles to counterbalance the rest of the political board.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 22, 2011, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 22, 2011, 02:48:01 PM
I still appreciate them as a keeping informed sort of thing. Doesn't mean the thread needs to turn into a "weed is good, durrrr" circle jerk.
Odd, though, that the only links Tel posts are indeed of the "weed is good" type.
Well that's the viewpoint he has and seeks to reinforce. Posting links that keep us informed about developments in the legal status and discoveries regarding benefits is still valuable though. it's not just a bunch of posters reiterating their personal belief that people should be allowed to smoke weed.
Hey, listen now. You're still posting in this thread, and that means you're able to voice and defend your own opinion. Therefore, you should keep it to yourself, for the sake of fairly representing all sides.
:kingmeh:
Forget it. The stoners win.
Say hi to the Spider for me.
If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?
Eh, doesn't really matter.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
:kingmeh:
Forget it. The stoners win.
Say hi to the Spider for me.
Awe man, I was just poking fun at you.
Quote from: Nigel on July 22, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?
Hmm, just today I was thinking whether I should start a thread called REFERER MADNESS.
Though I was intending to fill it with crazy stuff I find in the site's referer-logs (aka people linking to us).
(and yes, the "Referer" header is misspelled in the HTTP specifications. It's just one of those things)
I don't know, I love how this thread was originally touted for some time as proof that we could have a "civilized" discussion about marijuana usage on PD. For a while it was. Then, over time, as all things it degenerated and became not only another case of poo-flinging but actually the examplar of how we can't have reasonable discussions about marijuana usage on PD, culminating in the departure of a longstanding member. It's really almost poetic.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 22, 2011, 02:48:01 PM
There was a period where the thread was just links that Telarus threw up, without any debate. I think he's just going back to that model.
That was kinda the idea, originally. Thread has picked up a good deal of shrapnel.
I will admit that it's the positives displayed by the recent research that's really interesting to me (especially considering the comment from NIDA about the 'spice' chemicals /synthetic cannabinoids/ and how diversion into a recreational market isn't enough of a reason to outright prohibit them - due to the 'therapeutic potential').
I'll keep looking for stories with some good data on the other 'side' of the position, tho. Unanswered bias, perceived and otherwise (yes, I have bias, and it parallels the NIDA position), will shut down communication on the topic. As such, I think before I post any more links I'll actually post my thoughts on the last links RWHN provided for this thread.
Quote from: Telarus on July 22, 2011, 12:44:31 PM
http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/
Ok, in all fairness, this study started when participants were 20-22, and says nothing about effects of use started earlier than that. I thought that it being a Time.com article may have blunted any bias perceived in the title. It really is an interesting article.
I think that one of the most interesting points was that, having detected reduced capabilities in language and math tasks they wanted to see if they could control those factors out.
They did. The girls were the ones scoring low on math (lines up with national averages), and the lower sociology-economic-educational class males where the ones that scored low on the verbal tests (also aligning with national averages). These 'signs of cognitive impairment' disappeared after they controlled for those factors.
I respect RWHN's position on this, and I will keep an eye out for articles with the competing narrative.
Quote from: Nigel on July 22, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?
Good question.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 06:26:53 PM
:kingmeh:
Forget it. The stoners win.
Say hi to the Spider for me.
Awe man, I was just poking fun at you.
Quote from: Nigel on July 22, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?
Hmm, just today I was thinking whether I should start a thread called REFERER MADNESS.
Though I was intending to fill it with crazy stuff I find in the site's referer-logs (aka people linking to us).
(and yes, the "Referer" header is misspelled in the HTTP specifications. It's just one of those things)
I like that idea, actually.
I'll run a filter on the logs one of these days and see what drops out :)
Quote from: Risus on July 22, 2011, 05:01:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 01:11:00 PM
Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?
Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?
:lulz:
& Let's go post Fox News articles to counterbalance the rest of the political board.
:lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2011, 10:01:42 PM
I'll run a filter on the logs one of these days and see what drops out :)
Internet http background radiation and horrible things are dripping out :x This might take a while.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 23, 2011, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 22, 2011, 10:01:42 PM
I'll run a filter on the logs one of these days and see what drops out :)
Internet http background radiation and horrible things are dripping out :x This might take a while.
Oh dear...
I don't really want to write it down cause it might trigger google searches from sick fucks, nor do I want to visit the link (which seems like it'll be some domain squatter spam site anyhow) for not even wanting to send http requests containing this bullshit.
Fun fun fun!
It's like cleaning in a student's house, some things you just don't want to look under or behind.
Quote from: Nigel on July 22, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
If THIS thread exists solely to serve as a debating ground for pro vs. anti legalization, should Telarus and other interested parties start a new marijuana thread in which to post links that interest them?
I think that would cause the thread to die, and it is a good example both of how to debate without hurting people's feelings and how to debate to hurt people's feelings.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (deceased) on July 22, 2011, 01:11:00 PM
Considering that this entire subject will be almost completely one sided now that RWHN is gone, how about giving it a rest?
Or is this a victory lap kind of thing for you?
Sorry, dude. We'll stop requiring you to click this thread.
By popular demand!
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsmmve2Tjos85dD_vBl7atbfx1Z-Ab94IMda6XzC1uqkUTjjI9)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYZLHkClUUHo9DDxBeiWSpk8DttMCjrgey4tXtt522bqyDV6awSA)