*whistling*
doo-be-doo-be-doo. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)
*walks away*
Just remember, you opened this can my dear. :sad:
Nah, I won't be playing anyway. I have a pretty full weekend ahead of me. I'm honestly surprised it hasn't come up yet. I figured this would be huge news here.
I always suspected that Obama, at heart, had a more hawkish approach to medical marijuana than he was letting on.
In the end, this is probably just a bump in the road for medical marijuana.
"The real power is with the federal government," he said. "They have the asset forfeiture, and that means either the federal government will own a lot of property or these landlords will evict a lot of dispensaries."
Yeah, what a glorious day, huh?
WARNING: The previous message is fully funded by Big Pharma.
That's interesting, and I must say very provocative timing considering what else is going on in the nation.
I agree with this move. Think of the pressure the poor street dealers have been under for the last decade and a half, trying to compete with licensed "clinics". The whole black market, from drugs, to guns, right through to sex slaves is negatively impacted by this legislative bullshit. Drugs should all be illegal. Give crime a fighting chance.
Prepare for an increase in crime:
Quote
Medical marijuana dispensaries -- with storerooms of high-priced weed, registers brimming with cash and some clientele more interested in getting high than getting well -- are often seen as magnets for crime, a perception deepened by a few high-profile murders.
But a report from the Rand Corp. reaches a startling conclusion: The opposite appears to be true.
In a study of crime near Los Angeles dispensaries -- which the investigators call the most rigorous independent examination of its kind -- the Santa Monica-based think tank found that crime actually increased near hundreds of pot shops after they were required to close last summer.
The researchers compared the 10 days before the city's medical marijuana ordinance took effect June 7, 2010, with the 10 days after, when many of the more than 400 illegal dispensaries shut down -- if only briefly.
They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of a closed dispensary compared to an open one and a 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/local/la-me-0928-marijuana-dispensaries-20110921
Imposition of Order = Escalation of Disorder
works every time
We all know stopping people from using pot is simply the most important thing in the country right now anyway. So let's end many jobs and criminalize legit business people and help the economy grow.
Quote from: The Rev on October 07, 2011, 09:36:29 PM
We all know stopping people from using pot is simply the most important thing in the country right now anyway. So let's end many jobs and criminalize legit business people and help the economy grow.
Now you are thinking the correct thinking..... I think.
Quote from: Khara on October 07, 2011, 09:39:29 PM
Quote from: The Rev on October 07, 2011, 09:36:29 PM
We all know stopping people from using pot is simply the most important thing in the country right now anyway. So let's end many jobs and criminalize legit business people and help the economy grow.
Now you are thinking the correct thinking RIGHT..... I think.
fIXED.
Quote from: The Rev on October 07, 2011, 09:42:07 PM
Quote from: Khara on October 07, 2011, 09:39:29 PM
Quote from: The Rev on October 07, 2011, 09:36:29 PM
We all know stopping people from using pot is simply the most important thing in the country right now anyway. So let's end many jobs and criminalize legit business people and help the economy grow.
Now you are thinking the correct thinking RIGHT..... I think.
fIXED.
You think.....
HA HA HA HA I crack myself up. :lulz:
Thanks RWHN, I'd been hearing buzz about that but hadn't tracked down an article.
Although, I think that this Bill just passed by the House Judicial Committee is much more worrying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/us-drug-policy-war-congress_n_998993.html
It's almost like the Feds are agitating for a further ideological split in the populace, and working toward state secession. The one state that would have a solid economic chance if it seceded is California, and right now its economy is not only fucked, but what it has is also largely bolstered by the legal marijuana farms.
The Feds are raiding hard in Oregon, too; a large farm in Gold Hill was destroyed. No arrests, just total destruction of the entire crop. Utter devastation not only for the farmer but for the economy of the whole town.
Funny funny timing.
I think the amount of diversion that is happening might, at least partly, be fueling this. (referring to the OP, not Telarus' link)
fuck, leaving medical marijuana alone was the only thing I saw Obama doing right, now I don't like anything about him.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 22, 2011, 04:07:33 AM
fuck, leaving medical marijuana alone was the only thing I saw Obama doing right, now I don't like anything about him.
He does have a fucking killer smile, though.
Quote from: Net on October 07, 2011, 08:40:34 PM
Prepare for an increase in crime:
Quote
Medical marijuana dispensaries -- with storerooms of high-priced weed, registers brimming with cash and some clientele more interested in getting high than getting well -- are often seen as magnets for crime, a perception deepened by a few high-profile murders.
But a report from the Rand Corp. reaches a startling conclusion: The opposite appears to be true.
In a study of crime near Los Angeles dispensaries -- which the investigators call the most rigorous independent examination of its kind -- the Santa Monica-based think tank found that crime actually increased near hundreds of pot shops after they were required to close last summer.
The researchers compared the 10 days before the city's medical marijuana ordinance took effect June 7, 2010, with the 10 days after, when many of the more than 400 illegal dispensaries shut down -- if only briefly.
They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of a closed dispensary compared to an open one and a 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/local/la-me-0928-marijuana-dispensaries-20110921
Devil's Advocate
We know crime increases in areas where rule of law is perceived to be lessened, and this can manifest in more rundown/graffiti'd areas having a higher likelihood of crime (though IIRC not necessarily serious crimes)
So its not surprising a closed pot shop has more crime than an open one.
The better question is, how does crime at a pot shop compare to crime at a, say, Walmart or Fruit Store.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 25, 2011, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Net on October 07, 2011, 08:40:34 PM
Prepare for an increase in crime:
Quote
Medical marijuana dispensaries -- with storerooms of high-priced weed, registers brimming with cash and some clientele more interested in getting high than getting well -- are often seen as magnets for crime, a perception deepened by a few high-profile murders.
But a report from the Rand Corp. reaches a startling conclusion: The opposite appears to be true.
In a study of crime near Los Angeles dispensaries -- which the investigators call the most rigorous independent examination of its kind -- the Santa Monica-based think tank found that crime actually increased near hundreds of pot shops after they were required to close last summer.
The researchers compared the 10 days before the city's medical marijuana ordinance took effect June 7, 2010, with the 10 days after, when many of the more than 400 illegal dispensaries shut down -- if only briefly.
They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of a closed dispensary compared to an open one and a 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/local/la-me-0928-marijuana-dispensaries-20110921
Devil's Advocate
We know crime increases in areas where rule of law is perceived to be lessened, and this can manifest in more rundown/graffiti'd areas having a higher likelihood of crime (though IIRC not necessarily serious crimes)
So its not surprising a closed pot shop has more crime than an open one.
What relevance does the broken window effect have to do with open or closed pot shops? You seem to assume that because there is a vacancy in a building that it necessarily has a rundown appearance. Or perhaps you're suggesting that only landlords that rent to pot shop businesses allow their buildings to become unkempt?
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 25, 2011, 02:49:09 PM
The better question is, how does crime at a pot shop compare to crime at a, say, Walmart or Fruit Store.
A "better question" than what?
Comparing even the largest pot shop in the US to the
smallest Walmart is completely unwarranted. Apples and oranges, man. And again, a "fruit store"? I don't know how you Australians do things, but that doesn't exist here and even if they did, you'd have make an argument as to why they are similar enough to compare. Right now it appears to be so dissimilar as to be irrelevant.
A more useful comparison would be a pharmacy, as both pharmacies and pot shops involve controlled substances that are only legally dispensed with prescriptions from a doctor, they both serve adults seeking relief from ailments, and both have similar security measures.
You may be playing devils' advocate, but at least put some oomph into it.
The point was that, your claim that crime dropped when pot shops closed seemed to indicate that there was evidence pot shops did not increase crime rates. To my way of thinking this particular statistic only suggests that crime increases in areas with disused buildings.
if we want to ask 'do pot shops cause crime, we're better off comparing rates of crime outside open stores to other open stores of different types. Or places where a pot shop was replaced by a different shop and crime rates were recoded, or vice versa.
I honestly think it is a wash. Pot shops lead to more crime in one sense. That crime being the diversion of medical marijuana. On the other hand, it could lessen crimes as those who were using marijuana for medical purposes could now do it legally.
So closing down pot shops should cause a drop in medical marijuana diversion.
The questions is how this shift in policy affects medical marijuana users.
I don't know this for fact, but I suspect that the Obama administration is limiting this crack down to dispensers and will leave the end-users alone. I think this is really about sending a message to the people that the Obama administration doesn't believe in the medical marijuana model.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 26, 2011, 07:11:53 AM
The point was that, your claim that crime dropped when pot shops closed seemed to indicate that there was evidence pot shops did not increase crime rates. To my way of thinking this particular statistic only suggests that crime increases in areas with disused buildings.
if we want to ask 'do pot shops cause crime, we're better off comparing rates of crime outside open stores to other open stores of different types. Or places where a pot shop was replaced by a different shop and crime rates were recoded, or vice versa.
If you have an issue with the methodology in the study I linked, go ahead and try to make your case, otherwise you're starting to move into the realm of rhetoric by trying to say this is only a "claim".
You think a nearly 60% increase in crime in the immediate vicinity is typical for the closure of any business? Okay, go ahead and bring some actual evidence, because your unsubstantiated conjecture just sounds like a butt trumpet solo at this point.
Quote from: The Reverend What's-His-Name? Experience on October 09, 2011, 09:52:00 PM
I think the amount of diversion that is happening might, at least partly, be fueling this. (referring to the OP, not Telarus' link)
Red herring. Anyone who got medical marijuana "diverted" from a legitimate medical patient would have just bought it on the black market anyway. All this will do is cause a whole bunch of needless suffering for people who have conditions for which marijuana is a legitimate and effective relief.
But hey, fuck those cancer patients, AIDS patients, and people with digestive system conditions who can't force a bite of food down unless they have the munchies. They'll probably be dead by the time the next election rolls around anyway, right?
(ETA: That anger is directed at the federal government, not at RWHN for bringing this issue to light. I appreciate being made informed of this.)
Well, technically, when it is diverted it becomes part of the black market. Unless of course people are giving it away for free when they divert it, which isn't likely since this stuff can get someone some significant cash. Same reason people divert/sell Rx drugs. A single oxycodone pill can get someone $80-120. In these economic times, people will turn to enterprises like these to make money.
... 30 pages?
I'm not sure.
One thing I know about threads like these is that they're super-funny when you're high.
And I'm not feelin' it.
Quote from: The Reverend What's-His-Name? Experience on October 26, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
Well, technically, when it is diverted it becomes part of the black market. Unless of course people are giving it away for free when they divert it, which isn't likely since this stuff can get someone some significant cash.
Well yeah, my point was more that the diversion isn't adding to the number of recreational marijuana smokers or the amount of recreational marijuana being smoked. And it's not like people are buying from dispensaries in bulk and reselling small bags on the street because the dispensaries don't give the price break for quantity that a black market dealer would, especially since many dispensaries price it by the gram no matter how much you buy. I can buy an ounce of the highest-grade pot available on the street for around $225. That same ounce in a dispensary costs $300+ which makes selling it for $40 an eighth (the going rate in the PNW - YMMV) pretty useless. And you can't even buy a QP or a pound from a dispensary. The diversion is almost strictly coming in the form of "hey, dude, mind picking me up some next time you go to the pot store?" and not in the form of furthering a commercial black market enterprise.
I disagree based upon the information from my sources.
But I'm not going to get into an argument or debate on that.
I'm not much interested in it either. My sources are many years spent in the industry in question and many friends still in it. IMO, extensive firsthand knowledge trumps any academic research conducted by outsiders. You will obviously disagree and that's fine too.
However, though I'm not interested in arguing over it, I am interested in reading any research you can link me to that either states or implies that people are buying marijuana in bulk quantities from dispensaries for resale on the black market.
I mean, I love my job but you never know when the ship might sink and I'd sure like to know where the dispensaries are that make that economically feasible.
I know growers who started growing for a specific patient and sell their excess through the dispensary. They have no need to sell illegally, and the black market is already pretty saturated.
But that's just Portland. And shit might change now, since the Feds are cracking down on farms (destroying local smalltown economies and putting families in financial jeopardy while they're at it).
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
RWHN, do you have any indication that there's a supply problem, such that diverting medical weed to the black market is actually an issue? It's my understanding that weed is a commodity with which only illegality tends to limit supply, so I'd assume that if a lot of diversion is going on but the dispensary has ways of legally getting its hands on more weed, there won't actually be any problem caused by the diversion. Of course, I could be wrong about this.
About the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded. Instead, the interesting question seems to be how much marijuana is used under prohibition vs. legal dispensation, and whether there is a correlation between (de)criminalization and violent crime and/or prostitution.
Another thought: the broken window effect may be relevant not in that the second a dispensary is closed it makes the area feel deserted, but rather in that an open dispensary supports the impression that things are being done in a legal, upright manner, and that impression may have a downward effect on crime levels. In other words, it could be the unusualness of legal marijuana in the cultural context that drives crime down, rather than the closing of dispensaries that drives it up. Maybe.
Quote from: VERBL on October 27, 2011, 12:33:49 PM
RWHN, do you have any indication that there's a supply problem, such that diverting medical weed to the black market is actually an issue? It's my understanding that weed is a commodity with which only illegality tends to limit supply, so I'd assume that if a lot of diversion is going on but the dispensary has ways of legally getting its hands on more weed, there won't actually be any problem caused by the diversion. Of course, I could be wrong about this.
About the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded. Instead, the interesting question seems to be how much marijuana is used under prohibition vs. legal dispensation, and whether there is a correlation between (de)criminalization and violent crime and/or prostitution.
Another thought: the broken window effect may be relevant not in that the second a dispensary is closed it makes the area feel deserted, but rather in that an open dispensary supports the impression that things are being done in a legal, upright manner, and that impression may have a downward effect on crime levels. In other words, it could be the unusualness of legal marijuana in the cultural context that drives crime down, rather than the closing of dispensaries that drives it up. Maybe.
First let me be clear that I'm using a very technical definition of black market. Technically, a soccer mom with a medical marijuana script who then turns around and sells it to some other soccer moms in her social circle would constitute a "black market" operation. So I'm not necessarily talking about your stereotypical black market drug dealer. It's the same thing that is happening with prescription opiates and benzos. People can get a pretty penny when they turn around and sell their excess drugs.
The other thing, and this may just be happening in Maine, is that the potency of the Medical Marijuana seems to be particularly high. This can be attractive particularly to youth, which of course is the focus of my work. This may be different in other more urban states where medical marijuana is legal. And again, I want to be very clear that I'm not arguing or asserting on what level this is happening, just that I know it is happening.
Quote from: NetIf you have an issue with the methodology in the study I linked, go ahead and try to make your case, otherwise you're starting to move into the realm of rhetoric by trying to say this is only a "claim".
'Claim' was not intended as a pejorative. All I'm saying is I don't think the implication in the study (stores legally selling pot dramatically reduce crime) is convincing enough. The data itself, or the methodology of collecting it, I don't see a reason to contradict. The explanation of this data, I do question.
Quote from: NetYou think a nearly 60% increase in crime in the immediate vicinity is typical for the closure of any business?
I don't know if it's typical. I'm not even sure if it matters that it's typical. I'm just trying to propose that there may be an explanation of crime increasing following the closure of a pot shop, other than the idea that the surprisingly positive influence of pot stores is suddenly taken away, leaving crime to take hold.
My attempted explanation may not be great, but that doesn't mean the explanation in the article is.
Quote from: VerblAbout the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded.
I was interested in this; If Pot Shops DO reduce crime, by their very nature, we should see generally lower crime rates outside areas with pot shops, compared to other businesses. I may not have articulated this clearly.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 27, 2011, 02:34:00 PM
Quote from: NetIf you have an issue with the methodology in the study I linked, go ahead and try to make your case, otherwise you're starting to move into the realm of rhetoric by trying to say this is only a "claim".
'Claim' was not intended as a pejorative. All I'm saying is I don't think the implication in the study (stores legally selling pot dramatically reduce crime) is convincing enough. The data itself, or the methodology of collecting it, I don't see a reason to contradict. The explanation of this data, I do question.
Quote from: NetYou think a nearly 60% increase in crime in the immediate vicinity is typical for the closure of any business?
I don't know if it's typical. I'm not even sure if it matters that it's typical. I'm just trying to propose that there may be an explanation of crime increasing following the closure of a pot shop, other than the idea that the surprisingly positive influence of pot stores is suddenly taken away, leaving crime to take hold.
My attempted explanation may not be great, but that doesn't mean the explanation in the article is.
Quote from: VerblAbout the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded.
I was interested in this; If Pot Shops DO reduce crime, by their very nature, we should see generally lower crime rates outside areas with pot shops, compared to other businesses. I may not have articulated this clearly.
Pot shops reduce a very specific kind of crime; the crime of people with medical need illegally purchasing marijuana. That would have no effect on other types of crime in the area. It's not like pot shops magically reduce music piracy or car break-ins.
If you make a common activity no longer criminal, then crime is reduced.
It's odd, though, that the Obama administration is apparently reversing course on this. It must be the election year or something. I mean, CA was going through growing pains with this medical marijuana legalization issue--a lot of counties with their ordinances on where head shops were allowed to operate and under what guidelines has been in the news constantly...the state of CA was weak in some areas in enforcement, strong in others.
The fed crackdown has always been used as a backup for the stronger areas--local county DAs would call in the DEA when they wanted a sting operation on what they perceived as illegal practices in some head/legal med mj shops...and then lately they've just been issued writs telling them they need to shut down/move because they're too near a school, etc.
I thought I remembered that the O-Admin was going to NOT pursue this to the strength of its might, though? They even had PTA (national AND CA state) taking a neutral stance on its legalization for medical purposes. THAT is a big fucking deal, btw. Because most PTA lobbyists would probably posit that ANYthing having to do with legalization of drugs would go down as a definite NO WAY UH-UH FOGEDDABOUDIT. And instead, they took a position that basically said, as long as the government keeps it out of the hands of kids and states a legal age, then PTA is going to remain neutral.
SO...this reversal is telling me this is the politix of the thing, stupid...just like gays in the military 2 years ago, just like fucking Gitmo not closing...but I've no doubt that the O-admin totally knows that like DA, DT...this is a time-ticking issue, and the US as a PEOPLE are much more tolerant of legalized mj than they EVER were about gay marraige rights or DA, DT...it's just a matter of time before this is a moot point.
In fact, if you could wipe out the Mexican et al drug cartels, I'd posit that most Americans in general would just say, legalize the fucker and have done with it.
Because right now, the O-admin looks amazingly like Volstead et al.
I don't know the exact argument on this from the administration. If it were me, my argument would be about countering the message that medical marijuana is (even if unintentionally) sending to our young people.
Well, actually, it is sending two messages, from my perspective.
1) Marijuana is ok. A Dr. is prescribing it now, so that means it is ok.
2) You need drugs/chemicals to combat pain.
America is becoming an increasingly more medicated nation. The average number of scripts per person keeps going up and up. Part of this is because of regulations and insurance companies that make it difficult to impossible for someone to seek treatment modalities that don't involve medication. If you have money you can afford alternative, more holistic approaches to pain. If you don't, pop some pills
The other piece is social and cultural. It has become a cultural norm that if you have pain the solution is to pop a pill. We've become a people who have become very intolerable and inpatient to pain and discomfort. Obviously, there are people who are in some very severe pain who need intervention in the form of medicines. But I think there are also many instances where there are different ways to manage pain and discomfort that doesn't have to be in pill form. But we're impatient and need immediate gratification.
We need Facebook Pharma.
RWHN, I'll posit to you that this has EVER and THUS been the way of things--humans didn't JUST THIS CENTURY promote getting rid of the realities of body and mind with ingestibles.
Just saying.
There's just a different brand of flavah now. It's called Rx. Rx has for the last what? 150 years or so? been legit because DUH A DOCTOR TOLD ME IT WAS.
But medicating your pain? Reducing it with something you drink/eat/smoke?
Oh that goes back for eons.
Humans don't like feeling icky. And mind over matter is a 1) personality trait and/or 2) something you have to learn over time to do successfully.
To pretend we haven't ALWAYS sought an escape for things mentally or physically disturbing is to well...be disingenuous about the essentials in human nature.
Youths know that pain relief is ok when it comes from Tylenol and Advil...so that one's done. Bullet = out of gun.
What they are learning NOW is that when government reverses itself, things that used to not be ok are now ok...and that's just...politics. What I'd like to see more of, and here's my bailiwick to pound as usual for me, is more education on side effects of long-term usage. That's more mainstream and less conjured up, and that's relevant and scary at the same time.
Prison is scary. AIDS is scary.
Longterm pot usage? Just dorky. And few pot smokers who start at 13 have a longview of where they're going to be at 40. That would be a lesson to observe and take note of for the future.
I'm not really arguing that humans haven't always needed and wanted to treat pain. I guess my argument is the threshold for pain has fallen considerably. And the roles are all fucked up now. It used to be you went to the Doctor, told him what was wrong, and he told you what to take or what to do to alleviate the pain.
NOW, a glowing butterfly on TV tells you to tell your doctor that you need that exact pill so you can sleep better. Nevermind that it might actually be something else, like plain 'ol normal stress, that is causing you to lose sleep. I mean, it may very well be that Lunesta is what you need to sleep. But the conversation shouldn't start with the patient telling the doctor what they need.
And that is why the average scripts per person is going up. Because if you tell the doc you need the butterfly to make you sleep better, and the doc says, "Nah, just try some rigorous exercise and you'll be fine", and then it doesn't work. You sue the Doc. Doc's prescribe so much shit because if they don't someone will have their ass in a sling.
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2011, 04:32:09 PM
Pot shops reduce a very specific kind of crime; the crime of people with medical need illegally purchasing marijuana. That would have no effect on other types of crime in the area. It's not like pot shops magically reduce music piracy or car break-ins.
If you make a common activity no longer criminal, then crime is reduced.
Maybe not the music piracy, but the article was pretty clear that this does apply to theft and assault in the area.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/21/local/la-me-0928-marijuana-dispensaries-20110921
Quote
The report looks at such crimes as assaults and thefts, but not "disorder," nuisances such as loitering, double parking, loud noises and graffiti that sparked anger among neighborhood activists. Whitmore said those complaints are often what causes officials to act.
Not that it matters, as the study's been retracted:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-study-20111012,0,1809597.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rand-pot-study-20111025,0,2844501.story
Quote from: The Reverend What's-His-Name? Experience on October 27, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
I'm not really arguing that humans haven't always needed and wanted to treat pain. I guess my argument is the threshold for pain has fallen considerably. And the roles are all fucked up now. It used to be you went to the Doctor, told him what was wrong, and he told you what to take or what to do to alleviate the pain.
NOW, a glowing butterfly on TV tells you to tell your doctor that you need that exact pill so you can sleep better. Nevermind that it might actually be something else, like plain 'ol normal stress, that is causing you to lose sleep. I mean, it may very well be that Lunesta is what you need to sleep. But the conversation shouldn't start with the patient telling the doctor what they need.
And that is why the average scripts per person is going up. Because if you tell the doc you need the butterfly to make you sleep better, and the doc says, "Nah, just try some rigorous exercise and you'll be fine", and then it doesn't work. You sue the Doc. Doc's prescribe so much shit because if they don't someone will have their ass in a sling.
THIS all falls under the category of what my dear husband, the doc of the house, calls "the problems of the well fed." Trouble is, even those in Afghanistan are being treated for depression--are we going to argue that the sleeplessness/stress/PTSD of the average American life is not worth the Rx but those in Afghanistan deserve it more due to generations of ongiong warfare?
I certainly don't want to make that call. I mean peoples' problems are, by and large, peoples' problems. Just because they have a SAFER existence than would have if they'd been born in another time and place, does that mean we don't allow them mitigation of those things that trouble them? I mean, I'm betting suicide is just as high as it ever was, given certain factors held equal. So if we have lightening-fast, easier ways to cope with pain through ingested material...does that mean we're defective morally, or does that mean we see a need through invention that's met and can improve overall health and enjoyment of life?
What's the endgame here is what I'm asking? I'm not just talking in terms of keeping a populace safe from [
fill in the blank here]...I'm talking about what is the optimal result? Only use drugs sparingly and when totally and 100% called for? Only mitigate life-threatening anything? Only only only?
Problem is, who holds the "only" in their hands? And the corrpution between the govermment/powersthatbe and drug companies aside...would we rather not have that power to use and abuse instead of holding the small and weak to a load of suffering because of potential harm that may never arise (like overdose, addiction, etc.).
My own perspective tends to be a middle ground one, as you can probably tell--protection of the young and weak, moderation all around, except when elsewise is called for. And withholding judgement unless you've sorta been there. We're a many-hydra'd society that often tries to shoehorn itself into one all-encompassing philosophy, just to cut corners and for simplicity's sake.
But I hold this problem calls for a many-hydra'd analysis and implementation once an endgoal is proposed...which is why for once I really held the more or less organic propping up of the legalized medical mj shops as a good thing--it sprung out of the majority's need to implement what it wanted and needed...it moved aside big pharma and brought to bear the onward motion of what could be a groupthought idea but in the end I think will become a complicated yearning for something that was banned without any notion of what it was to begin with (and with not a little corruption into the bargain).
Time will tell how quickly the public will turn the tide in favor of total legalization--I think we're well on our way. Education is the only out I see for ANY substance abuse--whether it's alcohol, tobacco, mj, or what they now like to call "other drugs."
I just think there are people who are simply over-medicated. I think the system has evolved to a point where it just isn't viable for patients to seek alternative treatments or to even know they exist. Docs can't recommend them because insurance companies won't cover it. But insurance will (sorta) cover pills. So more often than not, a solution is going to be a pill, even if there are non-chemical solutions to an ailment.
But I'm not advocating playing God and telling people who can have pills and who can't. I do advocate for changes in the system to allow patients greater access to alternative treatments and for Docs to have more freedom to recommend those treatments. This is a big Blue Whale of a problem, as I see it. But, at best, all we have is a little dingy to slightly nudge the whale on a different course.
As for Medical Marijuana, I would rather see us to continue to research it and to develop alternatives that are less likely to be abused and diverted. It's happening with prescription opiates where researchers are trying to come up with pills that are less addictive. I think there is great promise for pill based medicines and would like to see further development in that area. Would it still be diverted? Sure, but it wouldn't be diverted as much. And in substance abuse prevention, reduction is the name of the game.
Well all of that above I see as pretty damned reasonable, though I doubt pot will be predominantly in pill form by the time my kids are my age.
I honestly think Marijuana is going to get buried and set aside for the next few years. If this bath salts thing keeps growing the way it is, that is going to be in the top 3 substances. For the longest time it was Alcohol, Marijuana, and Cocaine. Then it became Alcohol, Rx drugs, Marijuana. Alcohol will always be top of the list but this bath salts stuff is just downright scary.
I've been hearing about it--it is very scary. Again, because FOLKS DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT DOES.
EDUMACAYSHUN, PEOPLE!!
RWHN, can you provide a summary of the arguments as to Cannabis being an illegal substance as opposed to alchohol or tobacco?
I'd like a run down so I can use it in my own conversations. I trust your input because you're an educated expert, and so much which is discussed concerning these topics is personal anecdote, ad hoc, or red herring.
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on October 27, 2011, 08:17:21 PM
RWHN, can you provide a summary of the arguments as to Cannabis being an illegal substance as opposed to alchohol or tobacco?
I'd like a run down so I can use it in my own conversations. I trust your input because you're an educated expert, and so much which is discussed concerning these topics is personal anecdote, ad hoc, or red herring.
Why you trollin'? Got a bet on how many pages this thread hits? :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 27, 2011, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.
No, in Maine anyway, according to the law, you have to have a prescription for it. By law, you aren't legally allowed to possess and use medical marijuana without a prescription.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 09:27:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 27, 2011, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.
No, in Maine anyway, according to the law, you have to have a prescription for it. By law, you aren't legally allowed to possess and use medical marijuana without a prescription.
In Oregon, you have to fill out an application and have your doctor sign it, and send it in with your doctor's diagnosis and your fee to the State, which issues you a license to grow and use marijuana for medical purposes. http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=14549
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.
So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.
It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.
I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous.
That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 27, 2011, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.
I think (but RWHN can correct me if I'm wrong) is that what he said is using a very loose definition of "black market".
So if marijuana is not available for any person to buy (which it isn't), then somebody who can get it "medically" will get a bit more than they'd use for themselves and sell it to other people.
Of course, this is not particularly profitable, let alone on a larger scale. But it is "black market", in a sense.
It's not profitable at all, for reasons stated above. And I'd like to see a citation that you get an actual prescription in Maine, since AFAIK doctor's can't prescribe a drug that is scheduled by the feds to have no medicinal value. Every single other state that has legalized medical marijuana uses the "doctor's reccomendation" model, primarily to protect the doctors from potential federal charges. If in fact Maine doctors DO write an actual prescription as opposed to a reccommendation, I wonder if there's a way that could be used as ammunition towards having marijuana rescheduled.
Also still waiting for a link to whichever study RWHN is using as a source re: diversion of medical marijuana to the black market fueling this new hard-on the feds have for busting dispensaries and farms.
This is what I actually said about what I
suspect is behind the crackdown.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 26, 2011, 02:44:25 PM
I honestly think it is a wash. Pot shops lead to more crime in one sense. That crime being the diversion of medical marijuana. On the other hand, it could lessen crimes as those who were using marijuana for medical purposes could now do it legally.
So closing down pot shops should cause a drop in medical marijuana diversion.
The questions is how this shift in policy affects medical marijuana users.
I don't know this for fact, but I suspect that the Obama administration is limiting this crack down to dispensers and will leave the end-users alone. I think this is really about sending a message to the people that the Obama administration doesn't believe in the medical marijuana model.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 27, 2011, 11:50:57 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 27, 2011, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.
I think (but RWHN can correct me if I'm wrong) is that what he said is using a very loose definition of "black market".
So if marijuana is not available for any person to buy (which it isn't), then somebody who can get it "medically" will get a bit more than they'd use for themselves and sell it to other people.
Of course, this is not particularly profitable, let alone on a larger scale. But it is "black market", in a sense.
Yes. And in this day and age when people are literally scraping up cash to put food on the table, "particularly profitable" isn't necessarily a motivator.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 28, 2011, 12:06:57 AMIt's not profitable at all, for reasons stated above. And I'd like to see a citation that you get an actual prescription in Maine, since AFAIK doctor's can't prescribe a drug that is scheduled by the feds to have no medicinal value. Every single other state that has legalized medical marijuana uses the "doctor's reccomendation" model, primarily to protect the doctors from potential federal charges. If in fact Maine doctors DO write an actual prescription as opposed to a reccommendation, I wonder if there's a way that could be used as ammunition towards having marijuana rescheduled.
Oh okay, I should probably stay out of this discussion, then. I thought you needed a prescription to get medicinal weed?
So how does that work then?
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 28, 2011, 12:40:45 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 28, 2011, 12:06:57 AMIt's not profitable at all, for reasons stated above. And I'd like to see a citation that you get an actual prescription in Maine, since AFAIK doctor's can't prescribe a drug that is scheduled by the feds to have no medicinal value. Every single other state that has legalized medical marijuana uses the "doctor's reccomendation" model, primarily to protect the doctors from potential federal charges. If in fact Maine doctors DO write an actual prescription as opposed to a reccommendation, I wonder if there's a way that could be used as ammunition towards having marijuana rescheduled.
Oh okay, I should probably stay out of this discussion, then. I thought you needed a prescription to get medicinal weed?
So how does that work then?
In Oregon: http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=14549
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 05:24:07 PM
I don't know the exact argument on this from the administration. If it were me, my argument would be about countering the message that medical marijuana is (even if unintentionally) sending to our young people.
Well, actually, it is sending two messages, from my perspective.
1) Marijuana is ok. A Dr. is prescribing it now, so that means it is ok.
2) You need drugs/chemicals to combat pain.
America is becoming an increasingly more medicated nation. The average number of scripts per person keeps going up and up. Part of this is because of regulations and insurance companies that make it difficult to impossible for someone to seek treatment modalities that don't involve medication. If you have money you can afford alternative, more holistic approaches to pain. If you don't, pop some pills
The other piece is social and cultural. It has become a cultural norm that if you have pain the solution is to pop a pill. We've become a people who have become very intolerable and inpatient to pain and discomfort. Obviously, there are people who are in some very severe pain who need intervention in the form of medicines. But I think there are also many instances where there are different ways to manage pain and discomfort that doesn't have to be in pill form. But we're impatient and need immediate gratification.
We need Facebook Pharma.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/152718/as_pill_abuse_and_deaths_intensified,_the_dea_boosted_painkiller_supply?page=2
Florida has been a bane on the rest of the country with it's "pill mills"
We have, admittedly, begun to come down on it very hard recently.
Except for that asshole, Rick Scott, vetoing that legislation for the database.
Hate that guy.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 26, 2011, 09:51:52 PM
Quote from: The Reverend What's-His-Name? Experience on October 26, 2011, 08:52:07 PM
Well, technically, when it is diverted it becomes part of the black market. Unless of course people are giving it away for free when they divert it, which isn't likely since this stuff can get someone some significant cash.
Well yeah, my point was more that the diversion isn't adding to the number of recreational marijuana smokers or the amount of recreational marijuana being smoked. And it's not like people are buying from dispensaries in bulk and reselling small bags on the street because the dispensaries don't give the price break for quantity that a black market dealer would, especially since many dispensaries price it by the gram no matter how much you buy. I can buy an ounce of the highest-grade pot available on the street for around $225. That same ounce in a dispensary costs $300+ which makes selling it for $40 an eighth (the going rate in the PNW - YMMV) pretty useless. And you can't even buy a QP or a pound from a dispensary. The diversion is almost strictly coming in the form of "hey, dude, mind picking me up some next time you go to the pot store?" and not in the form of furthering a commercial black market enterprise.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 12:17:39 AM
I disagree based upon the information from my sources.
But I'm not going to get into an argument or debate on that.
These sources are what I was looking for a link to. Unless these sources are just hearsay, in which case I'll be happy to dismiss them out of hand just as quickly as you do when presented with intimate and extensive first-hand knowledge of the subject at hand from a viewpoint that doesn't match your filters.
In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that you're just trolling. Either that or you're really painfully ignorant of the subject matter in a field in which you're supposed to be knowledgeable about. Makes no difference to me either way, but it's a shame that this sort of ignorance and misinformation is being foisted upon the next generation.
Also still waiting for a link that supports your assertion that doctors in Maine do, in fact, issue actual prescriptions for marijuana rather than just reccommendations. Put up or shut up.
No, because you are now conflating two issues. One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.
And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.
I've got a drug collection to coordinate.
Whoa, thread got a little ahead of me, but I think I can answer ECH's question.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 09:27:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 27, 2011, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 11:50:21 AM
Well what I'm hearing is that people are Dr shopping, getting scripts, and THEN selling. Certainly it is also happening where people are simply giving a little bit of their supply to friends/families. But there is medical marijuana, at least in Maine, that is ending up in the black market.
ehhh...that doesn't make much sense. You don't get a prescription for medical marijuana, you just get a doctor's recommendation. And your insurance doesn't pay for it so you still have to pay full price at whatever rate the dispensary decides to charge.
No, in Maine anyway, according to the law, you have to have a prescription for it. By law, you aren't legally allowed to possess and use medical marijuana without a prescription.
I really think you're mistaken, RWHN. Federal law prevents MMJ from entering into the "licensing scheme" which is Prescription Medication.
MRS Title 32, Chapter 117: MAINE PHARMACY ACTQuote30. Prescription drug or legend drug. "Prescription drug" or "legend drug" means a drug that:
A. Under federal law is required, prior to being dispensed or delivered, to be labeled with either of the following statements:
(1) "Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription."; or
(2) "Caution: Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian."; or [2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW).]
B. Is required by an applicable federal or state law or rule to be dispensed on prescription only or is
restricted to use by practitioners only. [2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW).] [ 2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW) .]
31. Prescription drug order. "Prescription drug order" means a lawful written or oral order of a practitioner for a drug or device. Written orders may be issued on a prescription form or by electronic transmission. [ 2007, c. 402, Pt. DD, §2 (NEW) .]
The Federal CSA, when you boil it down, basically says "We have no interest in prohibiting possession/use of these substances when their use and safety has been licensed by a doctor, only when it has not. If you have a license then we will not prosecute, as we have no mandate to prosecute behavior we have no interest in preventing." This ties to a legal term called "General Applicability". Of course, there's a bunch of language exempting "employees or actors of persons authorized for possession".
Title 21 United States Code defines "Prescription" in
§ 802. DEFINITIONS:
Quote(35) The term prescription means an order for medication which is dispensed to or for an ultimate user but does not include an order for medication which is dispensed for immediate administration to the ultimate user. (e.g., an order to dispense a drug to a bed patient for immediate administration in a hospital is not a prescription.)
Also Title 21 United States Code, § 829. PRESCRIPTIONS specifically LEAVES OUT Schedule 1 from the list of "prescriptions".
Now, the specific language that allows MMJ use in Main is this:
Chapter 558, §2383. PossessionQuote1. Marijuana. Except as provided in chapter 558-C, a person may not possess marijuana.
Chapter 558, §2383-B. Authorized possession by individuals [snipping out the veterinary language]
Quote1. Lawfully prescribed drugs. A person to whom or for whose use any scheduled drug, prescription drug or controlled substance has been prescribed, sold or dispensed for a legitimate medical purpose by a physician, dentist, podiatrist, pharmacist or other person acting in the usual course of professional practice and authorized by law or rule to do so [snip] may lawfully possess the drug or substance, except when in use, only in the container in which it was delivered by the person selling or dispensing the drug or substance. For purposes of this subsection, "when in use" includes reasonable repackaging for more convenient legitimate medical use.
3. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.
A. "Controlled substances" has the same meaning as defined in 21 United States Code, Section 812 (1970) and 21 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 1308. [1995, c. 499, §3 (NEW); 1995, c. 499, §5 (AFF).]
C. "Prescription drugs" has the same meaning as defined in Title 32, section 13702-A, subsection 30 and includes so-called legend drugs. [2007, c. 695, Pt. B, §4 (AMD).]
D. "Scheduled drug" has the same meaning as defined in Title 17-A, chapter 45. [1995, c. 499, §3 (NEW); 1995, c. 499, §5 (AFF).]
E. "Usable amount of marijuana for medical use" means 2 1/2 ounces or less of prepared marijuana, as defined in section 2422, subsection 14, and a total of 6 plants as defined by the department pursuant to section 2424, subsection 1. [2009, c. 631, §51 (AFF); 2009, c. 631, §6 (AMD).]
Chapter 588-C, §2422. DefinitionsQuote16. Written certification. "Written certification" means a document signed by a physician and stating that in the physician's professional opinion a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition. A written certification may be made only in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history. The written certification must specify the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition.
[ IB 2009, c. 1, §5 (NEW) .]
Chapter 588-C, §2423-B. Authorized conduct by a physicianQuoteA physician may provide a written certification for the medical use of marijuana under this chapter and, after having done so, may otherwise state that in the physician's professional opinion a qualifying patient is likely to receive therapeutic benefit from the medical use of marijuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition. Nothing in this chapter prevents a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate or treat a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the applicable standard of care for evaluating or treating medical conditions. [2009, c. 631, §22 (NEW); 2009, c. 631, §51 (AFF).]
State CSA Laws incorporate references to the federal CSA in their definition categories, which (in some cases, like Iowa) actually 'downloads' the language from the federal CSA.
Your state's definition of "written certification" doesn't meet the definition of "prescription". Neither does Oregon's, Hawaii's, or California's.
This leads me to Carl Olsen, a MMJ activist out of Iowa. The Iowa statues have totally adopted the language from the fed CSA defining how drugs are scheduled (the "high potential of abuse and no medical use in the United States" language from Sched I). Carl's argument, is that according to the 14th Amendment, the State of Iowa must accept law passed in other states as "valid, and meaning what they say".
So, the Iowa language says "accepted medical use in the United States", and not "accepted medical use in Iowa". Other States have passed laws specifically stating that Cannabis has medical use. The State of Iowa must then implement the rules in their state CSA to re-schedule Cannabis out of schedule I (can I mention that in Iowa, it's in Sched I AND II?). Carl is in state court for this issue now. The latest docket says that the Judge has Dismissed this case as "the questions are abstract and do not present a justiciable controversy" (HA!). Carl has appealed to the State Supreme Court.
Carl also has presented the same argument as an 'intervenor' in a Federal Case. His website is: http://petition.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/
It comes down to a game of semantics. Bottom line, without the signature of a Doc, you can't, by law, have medical marijuana dispensed to you. I've seen references to "prescription" as well as "written certification". It's pedantry at a certain point because the mechanism is the same. To get the drug, legally, you need doctor approval. Obviously insurance doesn't cover it but insurance already doesn't cover every "regular" prescription a doc gives. BUt you still need Doc approval to have the medicine dispsensed.
But let me just tie this up as I am going to be tied up pretty heavily for the next few days.
Referring back to the OP, I don't know precisely why the Obama Administration is doing this.
I will repeat that I suspect it is a statement that they don't believe in the medical marijuana model as it has manifested in the states.
However, I do believe that this crackdown will be limited to dispensaries and not extended to citizens. I think if someone were stopped in possession of medical marijuana, as long as it's in one of these states and there is documentation that it is for them, they will not feel the full force of the law.
I can say it certainly isn't poll driven as recent polls suggest 53% of Americans are for decriminalization or legalization of marijuana.
Which makes me think even more this is related to some kind of information they have on hand that suggests this medical marijuana model is causing more problems than it is solving. Because otherwise there is no motive for them to change course.
WHen I was talking about diversion earlier my only point was to answer the point about increases and decreases in crime. Medical marijuana has lead to one decrease for sure as using marijuana for medical purposes is now, mostly, legal in several states. But it HAS also increased another kind of crime which is drug diversion. Did it open up flood gates of diversion? Probably not. But it is happening and that is based off of what I've heard from law enforcement agents I work very closely with. But I am not, and have not, stated that it was causing an astronomical problem on par with cartel activity.
WIth that, I've got shit to do so I will leave you all to the discussion.
I will also add that there is a certain position in the state that will be opening for which I will likely be putting in my name.
If that happens, this account will be going dark. This may happen very soon.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 03:08:08 AM
No, because you are now conflating two issues. One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.
And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.
I've got a drug collection to coordinate.
translation: I prefer if you just take my word for it rather than making me back up my ridiculous claims with anything approaching facts or science.
I mean, really. You're starting to sound like a taped collection of urban legends stuck on repeat. I hope to god that you're actually trolling and that you don't actually believe the crap you're spewing here because if you do, I weep for the at-risk youth of Maine. Because the fact is, you're so utterly wrongheaded and full of shit about the field that you WORK in, FFS, that it's almost comical.
Almost.
Oh, and the difference between "prescription" and "recommendation" is hardly an issue of semantics, as you well know, and trying to frame it like that is a pretty piss-poor way of backing out of a debate that you had no intentions of having in good faith in the first place, as is trying to equate the "diversion" of medical marijuana to the very real problem of diversion of prescription drugs which are so profitable on the black market precisely because they are prescribed and partially payed for by insurance. At least have the decency and honesty to be up-front about your agenda.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
I will also add that there is a certain position in the state that will be opening for which I will likely be putting in my name.
If that happens, this account will be going dark. This may happen very soon.
Translation: I know you guys are going to shit all over me for my methods of "debating" this topic so I'm trying to set up a reason to flounce again that doesn't make it look like I'm just really butthurt.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 28, 2011, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 03:08:08 AM
No, because you are now conflating two issues. One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.
And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.
I've got a drug collection to coordinate.
translation: I prefer if you just take my word for it rather than making me back up my ridiculous claims with anything approaching facts or science.
I mean, really. You're starting to sound like a taped collection of urban legends stuck on repeat. I hope to god that you're actually trolling and that you don't actually believe the crap you're spewing here because if you do, I weep for the at-risk youth of Maine. Because the fact is, you're so utterly wrongheaded and full of shit about the field that you WORK in, FFS, that it's almost comical.
Almost.
Uh, no, I'm like voicing my opinion from my perspective man. I mean, this is a discussion board right? We're here to discuss, share opinions, right? I'm not sure I said anywhere that I expected everyone to take my opinion as fact. And you may have noticed that Jenne and I had a healthy, but friendly sort-of disagreement on the issue. But, it's why I've made it very clear by using words like
suspect. I don't work for the Obama administration nor do I have any direct ties to them, so I have no way to know why they are doing this. But I have a hunch, a gut feeling (therefore not based on facts), and so I shared it. I could be wrong, I may very well be wrong. Does that make you happy?
Let me make this clear, I am not out there actively advocating against medical marijuana. Its' not part of my job. Hell, it CAN'T be a part of my job. I can't advocate for anything because of my funding. My day to day job hardly involves marijuana at all. My main focus is on alcohol, Rx drug abuse, inhalants, and now bath salts. But, as an individual, I do have opinions on the matter. I think there is probably a better model for medical marijuana and hope that someone out there is working on that.
But I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how aggressive you are being. I mean, I've not done anything or said anything personal against you or anyone else. I'm just voicing my opinion based upon my perspective. I don't understand the aggression. Especially given how long I've been a part of this community. But hopefully it is helping you vent whatever it is you've got going on there.
I suspect that a great deal of it is that you tend to present yourself as an authority due to your work, and also tend to present opinion as fact, and then will argue doggedly to defend your position after positing things that are patent misinformation, then after it is proven to be incorrect, dismiss it as a matter of "semantics".
If you are going to use the appeal to authority, you should be prepared to cite your sources. If you're going to insist that medical marijuana requires a doctor's prescription and not a doctor's recommendation, you should probably either know your material in the first place, or be prepared to concede that you were misinformed and made yourself look ridiculous.
And if you just plain don't know much about something, it might be a wise idea, for your own dignity, to not present yourself as if you are an expert.
Hmm, but when I say over and over again that "I suspect" something. I guess I assume that sends the pretty clear message that I, in fact, don't know and am voicing a hunch. If I knew what the Obama administration was up to, I'd say, "Hey, this is why Obama is doing what he's doing and here's how I know."
But, again, I don't know. I know as much as you guys do based on what I posted. I don't have any inside scoop or information as to why he is doing this. This is being done out in California. I'm in Maine. (Though I imagine it's a matter of time before it comes this way).
Even then, I'm not in a position where I would be involved in that at all.
I'm looking at the fact that there is now a majority of Americans who favor legalization, which means what Obama is doing is against public opinion. that tells me, there is some other information that they have that is causing this shift in course. I don't know what that information is. I wish I did know. But I don't.
And if it makes everyone happy I will concede on the "prescription" thing. Though, I will stipulate that state officials, I work with, very regularly use "prescription" as short hand and interchangeably when they talk about medical marijuana. So it isn't officially in the language of the laws but it is the language being used by people who have authority or impact on the law.
Can we all hug now?
The thing is, no one is questioning your opinion of why Obama is cracking down on dispensaries. Rather, during the course of this discussion you presented some opinions and alluded to having sources that back up those opinions, but refuse to cite the sources alluded to. You can try to divert attention back to your opinion on the crackdown, but that doesn't alter the fact that you made some assertions and then flatly refused to cite sources for your data.
Yes, that was about diversion of medical marijuana. My source is a DEA agent that I obviously can't name for their protection and mine.
Believe it or don't believe it. Do people actually think medical marijuana isn't being diverted? And I've said a couple times now that I'm not saying that medical marijuana is flooding the black market, I was just commenting that it is happening. I don't have data that says what the scale is. I've never put forth that I had data that demonstrated it happening on a big scale. Just that I've been told it is being diverted and sold. That's all I know and am privy to. And so I did mention that I think it might be one thing that is causing the policy shift. I don't know this. I know it is being diverted, but I don't know the amount. Given that Obama is going against public opinion, it would be the kind of data that might cause the administration to change course and go against public opinion. It might not.
Actually, I can't speak for ECH but I am skeptical of your story about your source, because if that was the case why would you not have said so before being backed into a corner about it? Also, you do have a pretty established history of being slippery and playing fast and loose with your story, as well as making assertions about "sources" that never materialize... which makes them hearsay, and diminishes your credibility. I have more than once wondered if this whole persona is just a really, really good troll.
But I do know that marijuana grown with a medical license here in Oregon does get diverted and sold to/shared with people who don't have a license, so I agree with you on that point, though. I don't think it's a terribly widespread/pervasive issue, given that everybody and his dog seems to have a card these days... All it takes is $100 and a doctor willing to sign the form, which isn't hard to find. My doctor asked me if I would consider smoking pot in lieu of much more addictive and dangerous prescription drugs, and at times I wish I'd taken him up on it.
Regarding why the crackdown is happening now when public opinion does seem to be shifting in favor of some sort of decriminalization/legalization, I wonder if part of it is simple bureaucracy. I might not be reading this report right:
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf)
but if I am, it looks like the annual budget for marijuana enforcement related activities is roughly $250 million. From my experience, once there's a line item for something in your budget, the tendency is to want to maintain and defend that item, as that money might just disappear from your department altogether if the reason for it is gone.
Not saying this is the whole reason, or even a major part of the reason, but that is a significant amount of money, and cracking down on medical marijuana distributors might help pad out the annual statistics in order to justify that money to Congress.
Quote from: Nigel on October 28, 2011, 05:21:09 PM
Actually, I can't speak for ECH but I am skeptical of your story about your source, because if that was the case why would you not have said so before being backed into a corner about it? Also, you do have a pretty established history of being slippery and playing fast and loose with your story, as well as making assertions about "sources" that never materialize... which makes them hearsay, and diminishes your credibility. I have more than once wondered if this whole persona is just a really, really good troll.
But I do know that marijuana grown with a medical license here in Oregon does get diverted and sold to/shared with people who don't have a license, so I agree with you on that point, though. I don't think it's a terribly widespread/pervasive issue, given that everybody and his dog seems to have a card these days... All it takes is $100 and a doctor willing to sign the form, which isn't hard to find. My doctor asked me if I would consider smoking pot in lieu of much more addictive and dangerous prescription drugs, and at times I wish I'd taken him up on it.
My bad, and I am a bit pre-occupied with work. I assumed when I said things like "from what I'm hearing" that it was clear that the sources were people. I have some big projects on my plate right now so my thoughts are a bit scattered.
Quote from: deadfong on October 28, 2011, 05:27:31 PM
Regarding why the crackdown is happening now when public opinion does seem to be shifting in favor of some sort of decriminalization/legalization, I wonder if part of it is simple bureaucracy. I might not be reading this report right:
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf)
but if I am, it looks like the annual budget for marijuana enforcement related activities is roughly $250 million. From my experience, once there's a line item for something in your budget, the tendency is to want to maintain and defend that item, as that money might just disappear from your department altogether if the reason for it is gone.
Not saying this is the whole reason, or even a major part of the reason, but that is a significant amount of money, and cracking down on medical marijuana distributors might help pad out the annual statistics in order to justify that money to Congress.
That is certainly possible.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 11:52:47 AM
I will also add that there is a certain position in the state that will be opening for which I will likely be putting in my name.
If that happens, this account will be going dark. This may happen very soon.
??? You're having to leave PD for work purposes? Aw, that bites. :(
Maybe. If the job opens up and if I apply for it. Someone is retiring and the job is coming out but I don't know if they will open the position up to the public or keep it strictly in house. If I don't apply I will stick around.
:( Aw. Well...be sure to warn us before you do (and proxy in from home??? :D ).
Dude, I still totally admire you for your work, and I always will. I know what you meant by DEA guys you deal with etc. because I deal with the same watchdog groups here in San Diego. The Safety and Wellness Commission (SWACC) here in northern San Diego county is very active spying on and helping the police shut DOWN the mmj dispensaries in SD. I have sat in on their meetings, learning their methodologies.
And I've heard power point presentations from park rangers who work with DEA to crack down on pot smuggler who act as coyotes leaving migrant farm workers to take over pot ad hoc farming in the national forest, which incidentally degrades the preserves because of the shit they do to the land. That there alone makes me a proponent for decriminalization and legalization since there wouldn't be THAT shit going down if it happened full scale...
But I digress...I don't see the need to perpetually harp on RWHN (tho this was his can o' worms in the OP this time around) for what he does. That's b.s. I think his assertions were what they were--and you have to realize, I think, in discussing this shit with him, that he's GONNA come from a CERTAIN viewpoint, ALL the fucking time. Period.
Meh.
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on October 28, 2011, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 03:08:08 AM
No, because you are now conflating two issues. One is my perception as to why the Obama administration is changing course and the other is about people selling their medical marijuana.
And I have no interest, nor time, to get steeped into another one of these pointless pissing matches.
I've got a drug collection to coordinate.
translation: I prefer if you just take my word for it rather than making me back up my ridiculous claims with anything approaching facts or science.
I mean, really. You're starting to sound like a taped collection of urban legends stuck on repeat. I hope to god that you're actually trolling and that you don't actually believe the crap you're spewing here because if you do, I weep for the at-risk youth of Maine. Because the fact is, you're so utterly wrongheaded and full of shit about the field that you WORK in, FFS, that it's almost comical.
Almost.
Uh, no, I'm like voicing my opinion from my perspective man. I mean, this is a discussion board right? We're here to discuss, share opinions, right? I'm not sure I said anywhere that I expected everyone to take my opinion as fact. And you may have noticed that Jenne and I had a healthy, but friendly sort-of disagreement on the issue. But, it's why I've made it very clear by using words like suspect. I don't work for the Obama administration nor do I have any direct ties to them, so I have no way to know why they are doing this. But I have a hunch, a gut feeling (therefore not based on facts), and so I shared it. I could be wrong, I may very well be wrong. Does that make you happy?
Let me make this clear, I am not out there actively advocating against medical marijuana. Its' not part of my job. Hell, it CAN'T be a part of my job. I can't advocate for anything because of my funding. My day to day job hardly involves marijuana at all. My main focus is on alcohol, Rx drug abuse, inhalants, and now bath salts. But, as an individual, I do have opinions on the matter. I think there is probably a better model for medical marijuana and hope that someone out there is working on that.
But I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how aggressive you are being. I mean, I've not done anything or said anything personal against you or anyone else. I'm just voicing my opinion based upon my perspective. I don't understand the aggression. Especially given how long I've been a part of this community. But hopefully it is helping you vent whatever it is you've got going on there.
I'll cop to being a little over-aggressive, but it's a subject of some personal import to me given that my father lasted 20 months after being given 6 months to live and all but the last 3 months or so was "good" time, almost entirely due to the fact that smoking pot allowed him to maintain an appetite and to find some relief from his pain without having to gobble down amounts of morphine that would have robbed him of his mind and personality. And given that I have a fiancee with celiac's disease who is only able to stay healthy and eat properly because smoking pot allows her to maintain an appetite and deal with the constant low-grade discomfort without resorting to much stronger prescription drugs (that would probably fuck her up worse anyway since most pills aren't gluten-free). So I am heavily personally invested in the subject of medical marijuana. I could give less than a fuck about it being legalized recreationally, but when someone who works in the field of drug prevention and presents themselves as an expert (and is likely taken as an expert by less knowledgeable people) goes around spewing all sorts of misinformation and passing that misinformation along to voters who rely on "experts" to help them make informed choices, I feel very strongly that I have a duty to lay the fucking smack down. If the LePage administration ever repeals the medical marijuana law in Maine, or if a citizen initiative aiming to do that is ever passed, you and anyone else who has contributed to the amount of misinformation and obfuscation in a public-servant capacity will be responsible. It's nothing personal and doesn't change my opinion of you or make me think any less of your intelligence outside of this very limited context, but within this context you can expect me to keep bulldogging you as long as you insist on bringing the topic up and then using it to disseminate what I see as a very dangerous and ignorant view of the situation.
If that makes me an asshole or a bad guy, so be it.
And you DID bring the topic up. I don't know what else you expected. Everyone else here seems to have realized that this is a toxic line of conversation here, hence my supposition that you might just be trolling.
Whether or not that's the case, it's a masterful troll and I shall add it to my repertoire.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v487/Siochain/b1ca8869.jpg)
:lulz: INSTANT CLASSIC
The reason that comparing marijuana to alcohol, nicotine, cognitive behavioral therapy, hypnosis, as well as prescription drugs is relevant and has important consequences, has to do with my ability to choose the most suitable course of action in the course of any psychological intervention. As an adult, I'm responsible for my choices, and that includes the course of my treatment for psychological conditions. It is only honorable to uphold your status of the medical community by representing truth over rhetoric—science over politics.
I think Obama is just cracking down on the hippies so they'll stop occupying Political Donation Street.
As for the endless debate on pot...
I think I'm going to hold myself to one comment:
Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."
Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."
The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"
Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."
(Position paper #23 from the Guns and Dope Party)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 31, 2011, 06:23:56 PM
I think Obama is just cracking down on the hippies so they'll stop occupying Political Donation Street.
Can't believe I missed that angle. It must have been too obvious. :lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 31, 2011, 06:23:56 PM
Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."
Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."
The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"
Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."
Only argument about this entire subject that REALLY matters. :mittens:
Quote from: Nigel on October 27, 2011, 04:32:09 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on October 27, 2011, 02:34:00 PM
Quote from: NetIf you have an issue with the methodology in the study I linked, go ahead and try to make your case, otherwise you're starting to move into the realm of rhetoric by trying to say this is only a "claim".
'Claim' was not intended as a pejorative. All I'm saying is I don't think the implication in the study (stores legally selling pot dramatically reduce crime) is convincing enough. The data itself, or the methodology of collecting it, I don't see a reason to contradict. The explanation of this data, I do question.
Quote from: NetYou think a nearly 60% increase in crime in the immediate vicinity is typical for the closure of any business?
I don't know if it's typical. I'm not even sure if it matters that it's typical. I'm just trying to propose that there may be an explanation of crime increasing following the closure of a pot shop, other than the idea that the surprisingly positive influence of pot stores is suddenly taken away, leaving crime to take hold.
My attempted explanation may not be great, but that doesn't mean the explanation in the article is.
Quote from: VerblAbout the study Net linked, I agree with PD that it's not a very informative comparison, but I agree with Net that comparing these businesses with Walmarts is retarded.
I was interested in this; If Pot Shops DO reduce crime, by their very nature, we should see generally lower crime rates outside areas with pot shops, compared to other businesses. I may not have articulated this clearly.
Pot shops reduce a very specific kind of crime; the crime of people with medical need illegally purchasing marijuana. That would have no effect on other types of crime in the area. It's not like pot shops magically reduce music piracy or car break-ins.
If you make a common activity no longer criminal, then crime is reduced.
This could potentially have a wider effect however. By removing drug dealers from the corners that changes the atmosphere of an area and could reduce violent crime that tends to gravitate to illegal drug dealing.
Indeed, those countless multitudes of streetcorner pot dealers are notoriously violent.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on October 27, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.
So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.
It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.
I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.
I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime. Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.
It's also stupidly easy to make at home. Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot. There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 01, 2011, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on October 27, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.
So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.
It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.
I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.
I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime. Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.
It's also stupidly easy to make at home. Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot. There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.
Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.
(cue urban legend passed off as fact regarding pot being laced with crack)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 02, 2011, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 01, 2011, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on October 27, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.
So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.
It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.
I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.
I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime. Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.
It's also stupidly easy to make at home. Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot. There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.
Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.
Yep, just one more reason that prohibition of alcohol was shown not to work.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 02, 2011, 12:30:46 PM
(cue urban legend passed off as fact regarding pot being laced with crack)
LOL, which has NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 02, 2011, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 01, 2011, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on October 27, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.
So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.
It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.
I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.
I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime. Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.
It's also stupidly easy to make at home. Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot. There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.
Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.
Brewing and distilling are two completely different things though. Sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but it's almost impossible to fuck up simple fermentation; the worst that you can do is make an unpalatable drink. Distilling to make a hard liquor is a completely different process, and also the "error" is simply the omission of the crucial step of disposing of the methanol, which distills before ethanol. It's not like "ZOMG something can randomly go wrong and then it will kill you!"
Quote from: Nigel on November 02, 2011, 05:13:48 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 02, 2011, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 01, 2011, 06:04:32 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on October 27, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
Quote from: Smells Like What's-His-Name? on October 27, 2011, 08:59:42 PM
I happen to think that debate itself is a red herring. Because it supposes that drugs are scheduled and banned in accordance with each other. But that is not the case. A good example is the recent banning of bath salts. It wasn't banned because, comparitively, it is fucking up people worse than other drugs. It was banned because, on its own merits, it was really fucking up people. (This is a very, very dangerous drug, or I should say, class of drugs)
The problem with that debate is that it instantaneously gets bogged down because the debate is basically saying, marijuana doesn't kill people like alcohol and tobacco, ergo, it should be legal. So maybe a more productive debate or conversation is, does a drug need to be sufficiently lethal to merit scheduling, or does it make sense to schedule for the developmental issues it can cause?
And in that case I would point you to the National Insitute on Drug Abuse as a site where you can get information as to the effects of marijuana on adults and children. There is also the ONDCP website which actually has a couple of specific papers outlining why marijuana is illegal. I know that particular site tends to be very controversial because, well, it's the ONDCP.
The trouble with that is that alcohol is certainly dangerous developmentally and for health issues, (not just for what can happen if a child drinks it, but what can happen if parents of children are addicted), and tobacco has (I believe) more documented health issues than marijuana.
So if the more productive debate is whether it should be banned for its developmental effects as well as associated health risks, alcohol beats it on both counts and tobacco beats it on one, doesn't it? So the question of whether tobacco and alcohol should be banned alongside it is still a valid one.
It is just that our culture makes the banning of alcohol impossible, because that particular drug is held to different standards. Unless I'm missing something here? Not that pointing out the hypocrisy is itself enough to toss concerns out the window on that basis alone, but it still seems like a valid complaint to me, and possibly an argument for more alcohol-focused abuse prevention campaigns.
I don't know about the States, but I wrote a paper on drug and alcohol abuse in the UK, and some of the statistics I was coming across regarding how much damage alcohol does simply because it is a 'socially acceptable' addiction were horrendous. That seems like a pretty good reason to try to fight more substances entering that same category in people's minds.
I think it is more that we have a case study of what happens with alcohol prohibition. We tried it and usage actually went up, along with it serving as a huge source of funds for organized crime. Alcohol prohibition categorically does not work in the US.
It's also stupidly easy to make at home. Take juice, add yeast, let sit, Tada! People may argue that pot is as easy to grow, but that at least requires seeds to start and light and whatnot. There aren't even any signs law enforcement can use to catch a homebrewer if he's brewing small quantities.
Of course, an error in alcohol distillation can result in death. An error in pot growing can result in weak pot... we don't have people dropping dead or going blind from 'bathtub pot'.
Brewing and distilling are two completely different things though. Sorry if this comes off as pedantic, but it's almost impossible to fuck up simple fermentation; the worst that you can do is make an unpalatable drink. Distilling to make a hard liquor is a completely different process, and also the "error" is simply the omission of the crucial step of disposing of the methanol, which distills before ethanol. It's not like "ZOMG something can randomly go wrong and then it will kill you!"
People were also actually cutting liquor with methanol during prohibition, so it wasn't so much a mistake as an intentional addition.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2010/02/the_chemists_war.html
(linking source before anyone asks for it)
Oh, the government poisoned people to further a prohibition agenda? OH SURPRISE! :lulz:
you mean like how they add acetamenophen to opiate-based painkillers for no other reason than to raise the LD50 to a level that justifies the schedule those pills are in? :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 02, 2011, 08:40:24 PM
you mean like how they add acetamenophen to opiate-based painkillers for no other reason than to raise the LD50 to a level that justifies the schedule those pills are in? :lulz:
Yes, exactly.
"Shit, I think we better add something that will FUCKING KILL YOU to this drug that can otherwise be used to get high with no serious side effects. People will still be able to become addicted to it, but rather than just receiving a harmless buzz they will destroy their livers. IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY".
Incidentally, I can't tolerate opiates, they give me such a headache that I generally prefer to suffer rather than take painkillers. The last time I was prescribed them, my doc gave me two kinds so I could combine them in order to get a dose that would take care of the pain without killing me. I still ended up never finishing them, let alone refilling.
(This is why my doctor thinks I'm drug-averse... funny, if not totally inaccurate)
Actually, FWIW, there are initiatives underway to do the exact opposite. Create and manufacture pharmaceutical opiates that are far less likely to be addictive while still delivering the same amount of pain relief. Initiatives that the federal government is behind 100%, which I heard directly from the horse's mouth. Well, he really isn't a horse, doesn't really look like a horse. Actually, he kind of looks like Fred Rogers.
(http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/311959_294285953929068_209125412445123_1128354_762107518_n.jpg)
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 02:49:10 PM
Actually, FWIW, there are initiatives underway to do the exact opposite. Create and manufacture pharmaceutical opiates that are far less likely to be addictive while still delivering the same amount of pain relief. Initiatives that the federal government is behind 100%, which I heard directly from the horse's mouth. Well, he really isn't a horse, doesn't really look like a horse. Actually, he kind of looks like Fred Rogers.
So, they're going to stop adding acetamenophen to opiates and then pat themselves on the back for removing a danger that
they intentionally created in the first place?
I'd say that's mighty white of them.
It was a general statement of policy direction and not a specific recitation of procedure.
And actually that work has been going on for a while now. To develop pharmaceuticals that are less prone to abuse. Of course, your hardcore users are going to find ways around it so it will always be trying to hit a moving target.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 04:30:48 PM
It was a general statement of policy direction and not a specific recitation of procedure.
And actually that work has been going on for a while now. To develop pharmaceuticals that are less prone to abuse. Of course, your hardcore users are going to find ways around it so it will always be trying to hit a moving target.
If ECH is correct that the government intentionally made drugs more deadly, then they are utterly unqualified to speak about drug abuse at all.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 03, 2011, 04:08:52 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 02:49:10 PM
Actually, FWIW, there are initiatives underway to do the exact opposite. Create and manufacture pharmaceutical opiates that are far less likely to be addictive while still delivering the same amount of pain relief. Initiatives that the federal government is behind 100%, which I heard directly from the horse's mouth. Well, he really isn't a horse, doesn't really look like a horse. Actually, he kind of looks like Fred Rogers.
So, they're going to stop adding acetamenophen to opiates and then pat themselves on the back for removing a danger that they intentionally created in the first place?
I'd say that's mighty white of them.
That's bureaucracy for you. :lulz:
Yes, If
I want to point out that ECH and RWHN are saying two different things.
RWHN is saying they will produce drugs that are less prone to abuse
ECH is suggesting they might produce drugs that are less deadly
Putting Aceteminophen in the opiates was an attempt to produce drugs that are less prone to abuse, after all, a rational person is less likely to abuse a drug that is more likely to kill him.
(yes, I know drug users are not rational, no I am not defending the tactic. I'm pointing out that I read RWHN's news as likely to lead to more aceteminophen type tricks, not less)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 03, 2011, 04:58:26 PM
Putting Aceteminophen in the opiates was an attempt to produce drugs that are less prone to abuse, after all, a rational person is less likely to abuse a drug that is more likely to kill him.
I don't give a fuck WHY they did it, if they did in fact do it. Is there any evidence that this in fact happened?
Oh please :lulz:
There's no "if" about it. The reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is to "prevent abuse".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 03, 2011, 04:58:26 PM
Putting Aceteminophen in the opiates was an attempt to produce drugs that are less prone to abuse, after all, a rational person is less likely to abuse a drug that is more likely to kill him.
I don't give a fuck WHY they did it, if they did in fact do it. Is there any evidence that this in fact happened?
Codeine is currently, in US and Canada, mixed with acetaminophen.
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 05:06:27 PM
Oh please :lulz:
There's no "if" about it. The reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is to "prevent abuse".
No.
Codeine is mixed with acetaminophen for analgesic purposes.
The bastards mix it with fucking ATROPINE to "prevent abuse". ATROPINE.
QuoteOther drugs that are present in Schedule V narcotic preparations like the codeine syrups are ethylmorphine and dihydrocodeine. Paregoric and hydrocodone were transferred to Schedule III from Schedule V even if the preparation contains two or more other active ingredients, and diphenoxylate is usually covered by state prescription laws even though this relative of pethidine is a Schedule V substance when adulterated with atropine to prevent abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine
The fucking
filth. This is fucking VILE. The government should not be allowed to have a fucking thing to do with drugs, beyond ensuring that the contents of the drug are as advertised, as with food, etc.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 03, 2011, 04:58:26 PM
I want to point out that ECH and RWHN are saying two different things.
RWHN is saying they will produce drugs that are less prone to abuse
ECH is suggesting they might produce drugs that are less deadly
Putting Aceteminophen in the opiates was an attempt to produce drugs that are less prone to abuse, after all, a rational person is less likely to abuse a drug that is more likely to kill him.
(yes, I know drug users are not rational, no I am not defending the tactic. I'm pointing out that I read RWHN's news as likely to lead to more aceteminophen type tricks, not less)
Eh, acetaminophen is also a medicine that treats pain, which is why it is included in prescription medicines. I think the theory that the U.S. Government intentionally added it for scheduling purposes is interesting and I'd be interested in reading some information on that. Recently, the FDA recommended that amounts of acetaminophen be limited in drugs, but it had nothing to do with addiction. It was about the fact that too much acetaminophen can really fuck up your liver.
I don't think the current attempts to create addiction resistant medications is strictly limited to acetaminophen levels. Again, he didn't lay out the specifics of what is happening now, and as in many research ventures of this kind, I would expect multiple methods are being tested.
yeah, too bad the whole "we'll just mix it with atropine!" thing isn't working out as well as they'd hoped. I'm sure they're just THIS close to finding a drug to cut their drugs with that will turn opiate addicts into rational people who will realize that abusing a drug that's cut with fucking atropine isn't really good for them.
:lulz:
If this doesn't make you feel sick to your stomach, you might need to re-examine your morality settings.
How the FUCK is stepping on codiene with atropine supposed to prevent abuse, if they don't SAY anything out loud and in public?
Oh, yeah. Word of mouth.
"You heard about Billy? He fucking died getting whacked on codiene".
Next, the bastards will be putting Warfarin in our coffee grounds so we don't overdo our fucking morning joe, right?
I'm not too familiar with that particular one so I'm not really sure, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
I'm not too familiar with that particular one so I'm not really sure, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
That's conflating two separate issues. Reformulating an opioid to prevent against the high associated with recreational abuse does absolutely nothing to prevent against physical dependency. So now you have a soccer mom who is STILL phyisically dependent on an opioid AND is putting god-knows-what other dangerous drug into her system that's been added to her pills to prevent her from accidentally enjoying them.
If you can justify that in a way that makes sense, I'll be impressed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:45:05 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.
Can't do that! That would be practically ENCOURAGING addiction, and we have a puritanical moral duty to punish people who want to use drugs for fun.
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:45:05 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.
Can't do that! That would be practically ENCOURAGING addiction, and we have a puritanical moral duty to punish people who want to use drugs for fun.
An accidental overdoses remove people that make accidents. Or their toddlers, for that matter. Codiene plus atropine means baby stays nice and quite while his/her heart goes bang.
Stop looking at me like that. We do this shit for
the children.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:45:05 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.
I think the argument would be that if medicines are taken properly as prescribed by a doctor they wouldn't be heart-exploding poison. The expectation that NOT following strict dosage instructions from the Doc would be a risky behavior.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:45:05 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
I'm not sure about that, but I know they had reformulated oxycodone awhile back in a manner that made it more of a slow-release medicine, so you couldn't just pop a couple of pills to get high. But, then the drug users figured that out and just crushed up the pills and snorted them.
It's really hard to stay ahead of the drug abusers. It's probably impossible. But in all honesty, reformulating drugs to make them less prone to addiction is more about preventing your person who is NOT intending to get hooked on the drugs but does. Like the soccer mom who fucks up her back, starts taking some oxy's and never fucking stops taking the oxy's. It really isn't for the purposes of fixing your hardcore junkie.
Then maybe they should fucking stop bothering, instead of making a mildly dangerous drug into a heart-exploding poison.
I think the argument would be that if medicines are taken properly as prescribed by a doctor they wouldn't be heart-exploding poison. The expectation that NOT following strict dosage instructions from the Doc would be a risky behavior.
So we'll poison people who disobey, or make an error?
WE HAD TO BURN THE VILLAGE TO SAVE IT.
TOE THE LINE OR WE'LL MAKE YOUR HEART EXPLODE, YOU FUCKING HIPPIES.
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
by making it so that it kills them.
"man, I'm hurting really badly today, I think I'll take two Vicodin instead of one"
BANG (that would be the sound of her heart exploding)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 03, 2011, 07:17:49 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
by making it so that it kills them.
"man, I'm hurting really badly today, I think I'll take two Vicodin instead of one"
BANG (that would be the sound of her heart exploding)
I dunno, in the case of Vicodin it looks like the US Government has been pressuring pharmaceutical companies to make the drug
less dangerous to those who take dosages that are too high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocodone/paracetamol#Proposed_U.S._ban
QuoteProposed U.S. ban
On June 30, 2009, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel voted by a narrow margin to advise the FDA to remove Vicodin and another painkiller, Percocet, from the market because of "a high likelihood of overdose from prescription narcotics and acetaminophen products". The panel cited concerns of liver damage from their acetaminophen component, which is also the main ingredient in commonly-used nonprescription drugs such as Tylenol.[10] Each year, acetaminophen overdose is linked to about 400 deaths and 42,000 hospitalizations.[11]
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking manufacturers of prescription combination products that contain acetaminophen to limit the amount of acetaminophen to no more than 325 milligrams (mg) in each tablet or capsule.[12][13][14][15] Manufacturers will have three years to limit the amount of acetaminophen in their prescription drug products to 325 mg per dosage unit.[13][15] The FDA also is requiring manufacturers to update labels of all prescription combination acetaminophen products to warn of the potential risk for severe liver injury.[12][13][15]
Hydrocodone, the narcotic component of Vicodin, is still available in Canada as a single drug and marketed under the trade name Hycodan in syrup and tablet forms by Bristol-Myers-Squibb.[16
People just don't know what's good for them... they need to be controlled.
Of course, an interesting side effect of that particular gambit is that it forces doctors to prescribe two different forms of opiate laced with different toxins that can be safely combined, in order to control severe pain. In my case, hydrocodone and oxycodone.
That doctor, by the way, was the second doctor to tell me that the main reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is not for increased effect, but specifically to increase liver toxicity so people won't take higher doses. This made his job as a doctor more complicated, as well as my job as a patient, because I then had to keep notes of what dose of which medication I was taking at what time, and given that I was in severe pain, weak from blood loss, and DOPED UP, that just sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
That doesn't make much sense to me and doesn't seem very likely, let alone substantiated that it was government intent or government mandate. But if the intent was to deter recreational use and addiction, you would want to either do something to alter the rate at which the controlled substance can enter the blood stream (as they've done with oxycontin) OR combine with another ingredient that creates an unpleasant, but short term, reaction. It wouldn't make any sense to go for something that is slow building and more medium term like liver toxicity. Because it would take too long for the effects to take hold to actually deter addiction.
But if anyone has any documentation on that particular theory I would love to read it.
Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:11:06 PM
That doesn't make much sense to me and doesn't seem very likely, let alone substantiated that it was government intent or government mandate. But if the intent was to deter recreational use and addiction, you would want to either do something to alter the rate at which the controlled substance can enter the blood stream (as they've done with oxycontin) OR combine with another ingredient that creates an unpleasant, but short term, reaction. It wouldn't make any sense to go for something that is slow building and more medium term like liver toxicity. Because it would take too long for the effects to take hold to actually deter addiction.
But if anyone has any documentation on that particular theory I would love to read it.
Still doesn't explain the atropine.
Acetaminophen I can understand, as it is an analgesic.
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:23:54 PM
Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.
That confuses me too.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
It doesn't matter. They deliberately made medication unnecessarily poisonous. There is no excuse for this. None whatsoever.
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:23:54 PM
Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.
Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients.
QuoteSchedule V Controlled Substances
Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.
Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 08:27:26 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
It doesn't matter. They deliberately made medication unnecessarily poisonous. There is no excuse for this. None whatsoever.
Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition. Doctors just help us take amounts that are just enough to treat our symptoms (maybe) but not so much that it puts us in the hospital for a new reason.
And who is "they"?
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:35:16 PM
Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition. Doctors just help us take amounts that are just enough to treat our symptoms (maybe) but not so much that it puts us in the hospital for a new reason.
And who is "they"?
1. Apparently, they put more than that in. Apparently they spike it with a heart over-clocker. It's a little bit dangerous, so it's PERFECTLY OKAY to make it MORE dangerous, in case people abuse it. Or a toddler gets ahold of it.
2. The drug companies, at what appears to be the behest of the FDA.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:23:54 PM
Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.
Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients.
QuoteSchedule V Controlled Substances
Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.
Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).
Right. And you can't just take more because it'll poison you.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
Funny, I've NEVER had a doctor inform me that the codeine he was prescribing me had atropine in it and that I should remember that before I decided to take more than the recommended dose.
Anyone else ever had their doctor tell them that?
I can't believe that you're actually making what appears to be a serious argument in favor of intentionally making prescription drugs MORE DEADLY, and framing that argument as though it's for the greater good.
Please tell me I'm wrong about that and have managed to badly misinterpret you somehow.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:35:16 PM
Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.
Well then you'd be making a horribly wrong argument. Medicines are substances that, while they may have poisonous effects if taken wrong, also have the ability to heal human being and/or relieve discomfort. So they are not "poisons by definition".
Once in a while you guys amaze me.
You are astounded that our government would do something like this?
Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.
I'm not the least bit surprised, but that doesn't make it any less sickening.
I don't think opiates are the only drugs they do this with. I mean, even Robitussin has something in it that makes you puke if you ingest too much (which doesn't seem to stop people from doing it anyway). I was under the impression that it's pretty de riguer to spike potential intoxicants with something that makes people sick if they try to use them in an unapproved way.
Hmmm, this might explain why people who work for government agencies are so obsessed with the idea of marijuana being laced.
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:23:54 PM
Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.
Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients.
QuoteSchedule V Controlled Substances
Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.
Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).
Right. And you can't just take more because it'll poison you.
Uh, if you require the stronger, purer, stuff the doctor will prescribe it for you. P
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 03, 2011, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 07:15:04 PM
Again, I don't think they had a hardcore drug user in mind with that kind of additive. I think the intent was likely more to deter the normal prescription drug user (that is a person taking a prescription drug legitimately prescribed to them) from taking a larger dose of a particular medicine, and therefore, reduce the chances of building a tolerance and addiction. I don't think they had specifically in mind to poison someone who is already abusing prescription drugs for the purposes of getting high.
This may not seem like a significant distinction but I think it is an important one. I don't think it was aimed at the drug abuser, but the patient to keep them from becoming an abuser of that particular drug.
Funny, I've NEVER had a doctor inform me that the codeine he was prescribing me had atropine in it and that I should remember that before I decided to take more than the recommended dose.
Anyone else ever had their doctor tell them that?
I can't believe that you're actually making what appears to be a serious argument in favor of intentionally making prescription drugs MORE DEADLY, and framing that argument as though it's for the greater good.
Please tell me I'm wrong about that and have managed to badly misinterpret you somehow.
I would say you have a shitty doctor. Doctor was very thorough with my wife in explaining some meds he had to put her on for her migraine, INCLUDING, the potential for addiction, and what the different components could create in terms of side effects. Also, usually if you get your prescription from a reputable pharmacy, they will give you a very comprehensive sheet explaining in nauseating detail the medicine you just picked up.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 03, 2011, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:35:16 PM
Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.
Well then you'd be making a horribly wrong argument. Medicines are substances that, while they may have poisonous effects if taken wrong, also have the ability to heal human being and/or relieve discomfort. So they are not "poisons by definition".
Which was pretty much what I said in that bit you deleted from my quote.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 04, 2011, 12:14:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 08:23:54 PM
Well, for SOME reason, if codeine is mixed with other active ingredients such as acetaminophen, it's schedule V, but if it's not, it's schedule II. That seems like a pretty clear message.
Yes, that reason is because Schedule V drugs contain lower levels of narcotics, which is what you'd expect to see when you are mixing in other ingredients.
QuoteSchedule V Controlled Substances
Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. These are generally used for antitussive, antidiarrheal, and analgesic purposes.
Examples include cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC® and Phenergan with Codeine®).
Right. And you can't just take more because it'll poison you.
Uh, if you require the stronger, purer, stuff the doctor will prescribe it for you. P
My doctor didn't, because he needed me to be able to get it right away, before I even left the hospital, and there was some sort of bureaucratic delay with getting schedule II opiates to take home. That was at the hospital pharmacy. There was also an issue about my husband being able to pick it up for me, because I sure as hell wasn't going anywhere. My doctor specifically did not want me to leave the hospital until I had the meds in my bag and he specifically did not prescribe stronger meds because he knew I would have trouble getting the prescription filled and picked up as quickly as I needed it.
So, I had to take two different meds in order to get the dose high enough not to be in screaming pain. I've been though unmedicated childbirth three times, BTW, and this pain surpassed it by miles. It was horrific. It was so bad that I didn't even notice the opiate headache for weeks. Even ON the drugs I couldn't talk or eat.
I don't think there is any excuse for needlessly adding toxins to medicine. I was on that stuff for weeks, on an every-3-hour dosage schedule... there is absolutely no doubt that I was physically dependent, and my doctor specifically told me that I would have to wean off it, which I did faster than I was supposed to because of the damn headache. I would really rather not have also been exposed to a substance that is poisonous and provides no therapeutic benefit. At the time my heart condition was undiagnosed... sure would have sucked if it'd killed me, all for some puritanical notion of discouraging people from using Codeine to get high.
I am sure that if my doctor had known about my arrhythmia, he would have prescribed something else. And of course, if he'd known my surgery was going to end up being so complicated, he could have sent the prescription down a day in advance. But complications are complicated. I don't think doctors should be hobbled by the FDA (or by insurance companies, or drug companies) in their efforts to provide the best medical care for their patients, but oftentimes they are, and it sucks.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 04, 2011, 12:18:14 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 03, 2011, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 03, 2011, 08:35:16 PM
Eh, I'd argue that all medicines are poisonous, by definition.
Well then you'd be making a horribly wrong argument. Medicines are substances that, while they may have poisonous effects if taken wrong, also have the ability to heal human being and/or relieve discomfort. So they are not "poisons by definition".
Which was pretty much what I said in that bit you deleted from my quote.
Then the rest of your post contradicted your lead statement, so we're in agreement.
Well, no, but I really don't feel like doing this: :argh!:
Dude, words have definitions. They have meanings. And as someone who tries to explain and impress the potential dangers of things upon the most impressionable and vulnerable members of society (or, indirectly, to those who are tasked with that directly), you have a duty to remember the power of those words and their meanings. you might know that "medicines are poison by definition" is inaccurate hyperbole, and you might convince me that you know that, but saying some shit like that to a kid is gonna leave an impression and probably not a helpful or useful one. At the very least, it gives the impression that you're more concerned with defending your position than you are with examining or refining it.
This whole 'laced opiates' debate cuts really close to home for me. I recently lost a good family friend due to liver failure because his doctor failed to tell him of the added acetaminophen / gave him enough info to manage his dosages, and when he developed jaundice and went to the local hospital they told him "
You're just an old drunk, go home." By the time a friend drove from Portland and personally got him from McMinville to PDX (they refused him an ambulance @ the McM hospital) it was way too late.
I's not just dangerous "If you have a shitty doctor", you could have a shitty intake nurse and die from it.
And my friend would still be alive if the mentality towards medications isn't "punish the abuser" (yes, yes, we're _starting_ to change our minds, publicly, on that issue.. but all of the regulations in force today were written in that mindset, see the Supreme Court quote about the purpose of incarceration).
Acetaminophen, arguably, is put in opiods for a variety of reasons (one is the 'opiod sparing effect' where it takes less active opiods to achieve the same pain killing effect.. others may be politically motivated). Unfortunately the process of tolerance, even if slowed by this opioid sparing effect, is still underway. We may have reduced the percentage of people addicted purely due to the tolerance effect by combining them, but with typical acetaminophen content being around 500mg per Vicodin or Percocet pill, a mere 8 pills exceeds the toxicity threshold.
Emergency-room reports involving hydrocodone & acetaminophen drugs increase 500 percent (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/57770/) between 1990 and 2002.
You see this language everywhere (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP5ffbdc2cc79a49b98aff7da34f0465c0.html):
QuoteA New York state senator is calling on fellow lawmakers to tighten controls over hydrocodone, the key ingredient in Vicodin and other painkillers, amid growing concern over abuse of the powerful and addictive narcotic.
Hydrocodone has become the country's second most-abused medicine after oxycodone, the key ingredient in OxyContin, according to DEA data. Emergency room visits related to non-medical hydrocodone use quadrupled between 2000 and 2009, soaring from 19,221 to 86,258 in 2009. Overdoses kill hundreds of people each year.
Hydrocodone and oxycodone are both powerful narcotics related to opium, but they fall into different legal categories when mixed with a non-narcotic painkiller such as acetaminophen or aspirin.
Under federal law, oxycodone combinations like Percocet or Percodan are classified as Schedule II drugs. Their hydrocodone equivalents like Vicodin, Lortab or Norco fall into the less restrictive Schedule III.
States have their own drug laws and controlled substance schedules, but they usually mirror the federal rules.
It's all fear talk about the Opiod, even though they know very well what's putting these people in the emergency room.
The LD50 level for hydrocodone is surprisingly large. Around 375 milligrams of the drug per kilogram of body weight (in the animal models the FDA used for approval). According to this guy (http://knappster.blogspot.com/2005/07/stupid-drug-warrior-tricks.html), that means, "For a 40 pound kid, that would mean almost
seven grams of the stuff."
Now, the LD50 level for acetaminophen is also very high, around 1944 mg/kg in animal models. But, it causes irreparable liver damage at much lower chronic doses. Yet @ the normal 5mg hydrocodone / 500 mg acetaminophen in vicodin, you're still dying from acetaminophen poisoning first.
Adding acetaminophen to an arguably addictive substance simply so the government can "schedule it lower" (the actual effect of this being that doctors can refill prescriptions with just a phone call, not a office visit, thus the 'wheels of business' are greased), and then having the government claiming they doing it to _prevent_ harm (abuse) reeks of hypocrisy.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 04, 2011, 02:38:11 AM
Dude, words have definitions. They have meanings. And as someone who tries to explain and impress the potential dangers of things upon the most impressionable and vulnerable members of society (or, indirectly, to those who are tasked with that directly), you have a duty to remember the power of those words and their meanings. you might know that "medicines are poison by definition" is inaccurate hyperbole, and you might convince me that you know that, but saying some shit like that to a kid is gonna leave an impression and probably not a helpful or useful one. At the very least, it gives the impression that you're more concerned with defending your position than you are with examining or refining it.
:news:
Conversations on internet message boards =/= conversations in a professional setting
The larger point I was making was pretty clear. You and I both know you are just trying to "get me", which is fine. It clearly is a thing with you and Nigel, a need to discredit me. I hope that this exercise is bringing you two some peace of mind.
I mean, let's be real, even when a medicine does address the symptoms for which it was prescribed, it still will generate some unpleasant side effects. The drug with the pretty butterfly, Lunesta, will help you sleep. But it will also make someone have suicidal thoughts. I was prescribed some medicine for a really nasty bug I had a couple of years ago. It relieved my cough and allowed me to sleep, but I was in a cloudy fog for days. There are not many medicines out there that will solely target the symptom and not generate some other unpleasant side effects. And that is when they are taken in proper dosages. And even when taken in proper dosages, they can have some very adverse effects on some people and will have to be discontinued. So I think a very general use of the word "poison", as I was using, is certainly appropriate for a conversation on the internet about the dangerous potential of prescription medicines.
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 03, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
Once in a while you guys amaze me.
You are astounded that our government would do something like this?
Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.
Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 04, 2011, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 04, 2011, 02:38:11 AM
Dude, words have definitions. They have meanings. And as someone who tries to explain and impress the potential dangers of things upon the most impressionable and vulnerable members of society (or, indirectly, to those who are tasked with that directly), you have a duty to remember the power of those words and their meanings. you might know that "medicines are poison by definition" is inaccurate hyperbole, and you might convince me that you know that, but saying some shit like that to a kid is gonna leave an impression and probably not a helpful or useful one. At the very least, it gives the impression that you're more concerned with defending your position than you are with examining or refining it.
:news:
Conversations on internet message boards =/= conversations in a professional setting
The larger point I was making was pretty clear. You and I both know you are just trying to "get me", which is fine. It clearly is a thing with you and Nigel, a need to discredit me. I hope that this exercise is bringing you two some peace of mind.
I mean, let's be real, even when a medicine does address the symptoms for which it was prescribed, it still will generate some unpleasant side effects. The drug with the pretty butterfly, Lunesta, will help you sleep. But it will also make someone have suicidal thoughts. I was prescribed some medicine for a really nasty bug I had a couple of years ago. It relieved my cough and allowed me to sleep, but I was in a cloudy fog for days. There are not many medicines out there that will solely target the symptom and not generate some other unpleasant side effects. And that is when they are taken in proper dosages. And even when taken in proper dosages, they can have some very adverse effects on some people and will have to be discontinued. So I think a very general use of the word "poison", as I was using, is certainly appropriate for a conversation on the internet about the dangerous potential of prescription medicines.
1) You've given no indication that you make a distinction between how you approach the subject here and how you approach it in a professional setting.
2) Ah yes, we're back to this. Some people vehemently disagree with your position on a certain subject and are willing to have (and expecting in return) a reasoned an eloquent debate on the matter. Since you seem unwilling or unable to provide that from your side of the argument, we must be "out to get you". :lulz:
PROTIP: There's only one person ITT who is discrediting you. It's you.
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2011, 09:54:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 03, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
Once in a while you guys amaze me.
You are astounded that our government would do something like this?
Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.
Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.
Yeah, I totally said it was, right?
:lulz: Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 04, 2011, 02:59:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2011, 09:54:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 03, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
Once in a while you guys amaze me.
You are astounded that our government would do something like this?
Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.
Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.
Yeah, I totally said it was, right?
You might as well have. "US did w, x and y bad things, and you guys are surprised it also does z bad thing as well? Wow, you guys are really gullible."
It's not, and never has been, a matter of being surprised. It's a matter of having evidence. You can suspect the US of doing all sorts of nasty things based on past expectations, but sneering at everyone else for being outraged when they actually find proof of it is nothing but pure cynicism masquerading as knowledge. It's signalling "I am superior, because I expected this, and you did not". But those expectations were not based on specific knowledge of the wrongdoing in question, only of previous instances.
Sorry. I guess the next time you decide to post about the US doing something you don't like, I'll show up with some belittling comment for all those involved in the conversation, and see how that goes down.
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2011, 03:33:23 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 04, 2011, 02:59:13 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2011, 09:54:53 AM
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 03, 2011, 11:08:19 PM
Once in a while you guys amaze me.
You are astounded that our government would do something like this?
Like deliberately infecting poor black people with syphilis?
Like telling soldiers that dirt would protect them from radiation poisoning?
Well, the list is endless, but you get the idea.
Cynicism isn't a substitute for actual knowledge.
Yeah, I totally said it was, right?
You might as well have. "US did w, x and y bad things, and you guys are surprised it also does z bad thing as well? Wow, you guys are really gullible."
It's not, and never has been, a matter of being surprised. It's a matter of having evidence. You can suspect the US of doing all sorts of nasty things based on past expectations, but sneering at everyone else for being outraged when they actually find proof of it is nothing but pure cynicism masquerading as knowledge. It's signalling "I am superior, because I expected this, and you did not". But those expectations were not based on specific knowledge of the wrongdoing in question, only of previous instances.
Sorry. I guess the next time you decide to post about the US doing something you don't like, I'll show up with some belittling comment for all those involved in the conversation, and see how that goes down.
Sure, go ahead.
Leaving this thread now.
Wait. Fuck, no, I'm not.
A few things:
1. RWHN: Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you". Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department. Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention. That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.
2. Charley: Yeah, I expect shitty things from my government and their masters. That's realism. However, I reserve the fucking right to rage the fuck out when I find they've done something fucking horrible. There's two kinds of complacency, and one of them involves just sitting back quietly when the fat bastards stick it to us again. I am not ashamed to get pissed off about it, and if that means I'm "gullible" and insufficiently worldly-wise, then fuck me, I must still have a little moral outrage left in me. Just kill me now or kill me.
3. There is precisely ZERO FUCKING REASON to spike painkillers with atropine to "prevent abuse", especially when THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT THEY FUCKING DID IT. This is the same sort of shit intel organizations do routinely: Fuck with people JUST BECAUSE THEY FUCKING CAN. These people should be fed into a goddamn chipper feet first.
Pissed? Yeah, I'm fucking pissed. If you AREN'T pissed, you're either blinded by ideology, or you've lost your sense of moral outrage entirely, which IS JUST ONE MORE FUCKING WAY THE MACHINE BEATS YOU DOWN.
What the hell kind of country puts up with this bullshit? Are there any SPINES left in America at all?
Get the fuck off my planet. All of you.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 04, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
Wait. Fuck, no, I'm not.
A few things:
1. RWHN: Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you". Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department. Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention. That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.
2. Charley: Yeah, I expect shitty things from my government and their masters. That's realism. However, I reserve the fucking right to rage the fuck out when I find they've done something fucking horrible. There's two kinds of complacency, and one of them involves just sitting back quietly when the fat bastards stick it to us again. I am not ashamed to get pissed off about it, and if that means I'm "gullible" and insufficiently worldly-wise, then fuck me, I must still have a little moral outrage left in me. Just kill me now or kill me.
3. There is precisely ZERO FUCKING REASON to spike painkillers with atropine to "prevent abuse", especially when THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT THEY FUCKING DID IT. This is the same sort of shit intel organizations do routinely: Fuck with people JUST BECAUSE THEY FUCKING CAN. These people should be fed into a goddamn chipper feet first.
Pissed? Yeah, I'm fucking pissed. If you AREN'T pissed, you're either blinded by ideology, or you've lost your sense of moral outrage entirely, which IS JUST ONE MORE FUCKING WAY THE MACHINE BEATS YOU DOWN.
What the hell kind of country puts up with this bullshit? Are there any SPINES left in America at all?
Get the fuck off my planet. All of you.
*sigh*
Roger, I never said anything of the sort. Personally I found the conversation interesting as hell since Terri and I both take hydrocodone on a regular basis. Outrage=/= surprise.
It was a comment that passed through my head and fell out my fingers, but this is the last time I will offer clarification on any of my comments. Misread them all and be damned as far as I am concerned.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 04, 2011, 01:13:48 PM
1) You've given no indication that you make a distinction between how you approach the subject here and how you approach it in a professional setting.
You have to be told that? :lulz:
Quote2) Ah yes, we're back to this. Some people vehemently disagree with your position on a certain subject and are willing to have (and expecting in return) a reasoned an eloquent debate on the matter. Since you seem unwilling or unable to provide that from your side of the argument, we must be "out to get you". :lulz:
Wait, so, you have been reasoned and eloquent? And please do not mistake my critique of your approach to this debate as me taking your tact personally. I'm simply making observations as to what you and Nigel seem to be attempting to accomplish, instead of having an actual reasoned and eloquent debate. I can assure you I am quite comfortable with my status and standing in my field.
QuotePROTIP: There's only one person ITT who is discrediting you. It's you.
Well, no, I've not been discredited by anyone so far.
Quote from: Nigel on November 04, 2011, 03:15:17 PM
:lulz: Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?
Do you and ECH PM each other before you post in this thread? Or is "eloquence" the secret PD.COM forum "word of the day"?
My consistency is fine. The problem with these debates is the different knowledge bases. It's pretty clear that my knowledge base is a bit different than some on the other side, and so it doesn't really matter what I say, it's always going to be viewed as "wrong". This gets into that "knows just enough to be dangerous" idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 04, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
1. RWHN: Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you". Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department. Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention. That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.
Again, with the "out to get you" meme. I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting. That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help." In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."
But again, I reitirate, one should not take this observation as me taking that personally. I can assure everyone that I do not. I'm very comfortable with my performance in my profession. I kinda figure when I am appointed to significant positions, get invited to exclusive summits, and receive "atta boys" from the state and federal level, I must be doing okay. I'm not going to lose sleep at night because a couple of people on the internet think I'm wrong.
And I honestly disagree with your and the assessment of others when it comes to other ingredients in prescription drugs. You all seem to be assuming nefarious intent. A focused intent to make drug abusers gravely ill. Any prescription drug when taken in too high amounts can make someone gravely ill even if they don't add any other ingredients in the mix. But again, if someone has some smoking gun that proves that there was a calculated and nefarious intent, I would like to see it.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:45:47 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 04, 2011, 03:15:17 PM
:lulz: Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?
Do you and ECH PM each other before you post in this thread? Or is "eloquence" the secret PD.COM forum "word of the day"?
My consistency is fine. The problem with these debates is the different knowledge bases. It's pretty clear that my knowledge base is a bit different than some on the other side, and so it doesn't really matter what I say, it's always going to be viewed as "wrong". This gets into that "knows just enough to be dangerous" idea.
I'm not sure how it's secret when he used it in a post before I did? :?
As I've pointed out before, my friend who has an MPH also disagrees with you. She works on the side of health care and has a different perspective than you, but you, much as you did just there with us, tried to belittle her knowledge base by calling her "misinformed".
:lulz:
Not even sure I believe that you work in the field that you claim to work in, at this point.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 04, 2011, 09:50:37 AM
The larger point I was making was pretty clear. You and I both know you are just trying to "get me", which is fine. It clearly is a thing with you and Nigel, a need to discredit me.
This would be where the "out to get you" meme comes from. It's not YOU, it's your IDEAS that I find spurious.
BIP in Full Effect!
Those who experience the drug culture have a very different set of data and perceptions.
Those who work with children and drug abuse have a very different set of data and perceptions.
Those who work in healthcare, dealing with drug issues have a very different set of data and perceptions.
Those who philosophically love personal freedom are arguing from a very different set of data and perceptions.
And we all argue about who is 'right', as if there's some single objective truth about this whole debate.
The philosophical position is right in some sense. We as individuals are (or at least should be) free to put what we want into our own bodies.... and if the government is involved at all, it should be AT LEAST in the area of full disclosure.
The healthcare position is right in some sense. People with addiction issues need help, not prison. People who don't feel well and feel better when they smoke pot, should smoke pot.
The children debate is right in some sense. I've seen people that started doing drugs as children and many of them have had serious consequences.
The people that enjoy drugs responsibly also are right in some sense... I've smoked pot for 12 years, while holding down a six figure job, developing security solutions for a huge corporation and having a great life... never once spent a night in my parents basement.
To think that the governments 'facts', or My Local Anti-Drug team, or personal experience or philosophy or health care issues are THE ISSUE seems to be the root of these debates. Perhaps we should all remember what this one really smart Discordian said:
"A conclusion is simply where you stopped thinking"
Because of this thread, I'm going to bump another thread.
You fuckers just don't know when to leave well enough alone. :lulz:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:53:01 AM
Again, with the "out to get you" meme. I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting. That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help." In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."
Really? Because I'm pretty sure it's been less than 24 hours since you told me I was trying to "get you". :lulz:
And yeah, if your job is to mitigate drug abuse in children and you either 1) think that the things you take as "facts" in regards to how drugs work in the body and how both the black market and the federal government work in regards to recreational drugs are really true OR 2) think that spreading those sorts of lies and misinformation is helping your cause, then I'm'a have to go ahead and say that you are not very good at your job. Some of the things you say and appear to actually believe are so egregiously wrong that I wonder if Nigel isn't onto something with regards to wondering if you actually work in the drug prevention field at all. At the very least, I'd sure as hell like to know where you got your field-related education and what level of related degree you hold.
And now I have to go find a libertariansim thread and an anarchy thread.
LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO. :cry:
Quote from: Nigel on November 05, 2011, 12:58:34 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:45:47 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 04, 2011, 03:15:17 PM
:lulz: Nobody is "out to get you", RWHN. Some of us just think you're wrong and that your arguments in this arena show a dismaying lack of consistency, eloquence, or credibility. Is that really so hard to believe?
Do you and ECH PM each other before you post in this thread? Or is "eloquence" the secret PD.COM forum "word of the day"?
My consistency is fine. The problem with these debates is the different knowledge bases. It's pretty clear that my knowledge base is a bit different than some on the other side, and so it doesn't really matter what I say, it's always going to be viewed as "wrong". This gets into that "knows just enough to be dangerous" idea.
I'm not sure how it's secret when he used it in a post before I did? :?
As I've pointed out before, my friend who has an MPH also disagrees with you. She works on the side of health care and has a different perspective than you, but you, much as you did just there with us, tried to belittle her knowledge base by calling her "misinformed".
:lulz:
Not even sure I believe that you work in the field that you claim to work in, at this point.
I'm not even sure I give a fuck what either you or ECH think.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:53:01 AM
Again, with the "out to get you" meme. I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting. That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help." In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."
Really? Because I'm pretty sure it's been less than 24 hours since you told me I was trying to "get you". :lulz:
And yeah, if your job is to mitigate drug abuse in children and you either 1) think that the things you take as "facts" in regards to how drugs work in the body and how both the black market and the federal government work in regards to recreational drugs are really true OR 2) think that spreading those sorts of lies and misinformation is helping your cause, then I'm'a have to go ahead and say that you are not very good at your job. Some of the things you say and appear to actually believe are so egregiously wrong that I wonder if Nigel isn't onto something with regards to wondering if you actually work in the drug prevention field at all. At the very least, I'd sure as hell like to know where you got your field-related education and what level of related degree you hold.
Or 3) maybe, just maybe, you and Nigel are misinformed? No, you guys couldn't be wrong could you.
And thanks, but I'd rather not feed your hunt for PI. I'm kinda shocked, actually, that you would even crack that door open given your status on this board. It's very disappointing.
Yes, because asking where you got your degree is totally fishing for PI. PI that I could obtain any time I want to anyway given that, y'know, I have access to every part of the site AND a pretty decent datamining skillset.
No, really, your personal information (that I could have any time I wanted) is terribly interesting and valuable to me. :lulz:
And what, exactly, am I misinformed about? I'm not making any claims ITT that are not backed up by either science (atropine is a deadly dangerous drug that does not create a synergistic effect with regards to opioids, that's easy enough to look up) or, in the context of how the black market really works, many years of being a drug dealer/pot grower/smuggler with generations of my family's firsthand knowledge to draw from as well as my own. I mean, have you ever even bought a bag of weed? Have you ever even taken a puff? I'm almost certain you've never smuggled anything across an international border or had to talk your way out of a room full of people pointing automatic weapons at you. You trying to posit that I'm misinformed about how the black market works is like me telling Kai that he doesn't know shit about insects. :lulz:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 02:32:35 PMI'd rather not feed your hunt for PI. I'm kinda shocked, actually, that you would even crack that door open given your status on this board. It's very disappointing.
Upon further reflection, this is one of the ten stupidest things I've ever seen posted here, including anything from Hugh or Eldora. :lulz:
It's probably a good thing I don't have time to make a new "Unlimited" thread.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 02:32:35 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:53:01 AM
Again, with the "out to get you" meme. I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting. That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help." In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."
Really? Because I'm pretty sure it's been less than 24 hours since you told me I was trying to "get you". :lulz:
And yeah, if your job is to mitigate drug abuse in children and you either 1) think that the things you take as "facts" in regards to how drugs work in the body and how both the black market and the federal government work in regards to recreational drugs are really true OR 2) think that spreading those sorts of lies and misinformation is helping your cause, then I'm'a have to go ahead and say that you are not very good at your job. Some of the things you say and appear to actually believe are so egregiously wrong that I wonder if Nigel isn't onto something with regards to wondering if you actually work in the drug prevention field at all. At the very least, I'd sure as hell like to know where you got your field-related education and what level of related degree you hold.
Or 3) maybe, just maybe, you and Nigel are misinformed? No, you guys couldn't be wrong could you.
And thanks, but I'd rather not feed your hunt for PI. I'm kinda shocked, actually, that you would even crack that door open given your status on this board. It's very disappointing.
Wow, there's even paranoia to go along with those delusions of grandeur! :lulz: You could not pay me to believe anyone gives even half a crap about your PI.
Yeah, I'm misinformed because I value documentation, statistics, critical thinking, and the opinions of actual doctors and a woman with an MPH who is highly respected in her field, which is making healthcare policy based on best patient outcome, formerly at OHSU, currently at Providence, and is currently weighing job offers from Kaiser and Outside In, over the opinion of a guy on the internet whose job is (allegedly) being the dude who tells high school students "Don't do drugs, drugs are bad, mmmkay?" and who won't back up most of his claims because it comes from "inside sources" ("DEA informant", lol, too many cops shows dude), or even talk about what kind of training he received, or where.
Dude, come ON, how is anyone supposed to respect that? And then you pop up with the "out to get me" shit when anyone presents an argument you can't counter, or "I'm too busy/important to talk about this". But you started the thread knowing full well that people would challenge your alleged expertise and staunch anti-drug propaganda. It's what you do every time you're not getting enough attention. 99% that you're trolling.
And then you make these absolutely laughable claims about inside knowledge and having to disappear from the board because you might be applying for a Very Big Job and lol dude, this is not some shady organization, it's a little internet forum, and you work for what, the State of Maine? Or a county in Maine? However much you would like us to think you're some kind of big shot... which, by the way, is ludicrous and makes me giggle every time you allude to your "exclusive summits" and "important meetings".
It HAS to be a troll. There's just no way. :lulz: It's just too much.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Yes, because asking where you got your degree is totally fishing for PI. PI that I could obtain any time I want to anyway given that, y'know, I have access to every part of the site AND a pretty decent datamining skillset.
No, really, your personal information (that I could have any time I wanted) is terribly interesting and valuable to me. :lulz:
And what, exactly, am I misinformed about? I'm not making any claims ITT that are not backed up by either science (atropine is a deadly dangerous drug that does not create a synergistic effect with regards to opioids, that's easy enough to look up) or, in the context of how the black market really works, many years of being a drug dealer/pot grower/smuggler with generations of my family's firsthand knowledge to draw from as well as my own. I mean, have you ever even bought a bag of weed? Have you ever even taken a puff? I'm almost certain you've never smuggled anything across an international border or had to talk your way out of a room full of people pointing automatic weapons at you. You trying to posit that I'm misinformed about how the black market works is like me telling Kai that he doesn't know shit about insects. :lulz:
To borrow from an earlier post:
Not even sure I believe that you were really a dealer/smuggler that you claim to have been, at this point. ;)
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 02:32:35 PMI'd rather not feed your hunt for PI. I'm kinda shocked, actually, that you would even crack that door open given your status on this board. It's very disappointing.
Upon further reflection, this is one of the ten stupidest things I've ever seen posted here, including anything from Hugh or Eldora. :lulz:
You are publicly asking on a public message board for me to provide information that would link my real name to RWHN. There is a particular reason I only share as much information on this board that I do.
While it's not as creepy as Agrippa's comments concerning my daughter, it hits a lot closer than I would have expected from someone like you.
It is really disappointing.
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/Smileys/default/roglol.gif)
K. Note to self. Any further Cannabis from me posts go in a new thread.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 05:37:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 02:32:35 PMI'd rather not feed your hunt for PI. I'm kinda shocked, actually, that you would even crack that door open given your status on this board. It's very disappointing.
Upon further reflection, this is one of the ten stupidest things I've ever seen posted here, including anything from Hugh or Eldora. :lulz:
You are publicly asking on a public message board for me to provide information that would link my real name to RWHN. There is a particular reason I only share as much information on this board that I do.
While it's not as creepy as Agrippa's comments concerning my daughter, it hits a lot closer than I would have expected from someone like you.
It is really disappointing.
Yeah, it would be as easy to figure out your real name from what college you went to as it is to deduce my friend's real name if I tell you she got her grad degree at PSU.
Yep! It's practically giving you her maiden name and home address! SO CREEPY!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on November 05, 2011, 04:13:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 02:32:35 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 01:01:48 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:53:01 AM
Again, with the "out to get you" meme. I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting. That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help." In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."
Really? Because I'm pretty sure it's been less than 24 hours since you told me I was trying to "get you". :lulz:
And yeah, if your job is to mitigate drug abuse in children and you either 1) think that the things you take as "facts" in regards to how drugs work in the body and how both the black market and the federal government work in regards to recreational drugs are really true OR 2) think that spreading those sorts of lies and misinformation is helping your cause, then I'm'a have to go ahead and say that you are not very good at your job. Some of the things you say and appear to actually believe are so egregiously wrong that I wonder if Nigel isn't onto something with regards to wondering if you actually work in the drug prevention field at all. At the very least, I'd sure as hell like to know where you got your field-related education and what level of related degree you hold.
Or 3) maybe, just maybe, you and Nigel are misinformed? No, you guys couldn't be wrong could you.
And thanks, but I'd rather not feed your hunt for PI. I'm kinda shocked, actually, that you would even crack that door open given your status on this board. It's very disappointing.
Wow, there's even paranoia to go along with those delusions of grandeur! :lulz: You could not pay me to believe anyone gives even half a crap about your PI.
Yeah, I'm misinformed because I value documentation, statistics, critical thinking, and the opinions of actual doctors and a woman with an MPH who is highly respected in her field, which is making healthcare policy based on best patient outcome, formerly at OHSU, currently at Providence, and is currently weighing job offers from Kaiser and Outside In, over the opinion of a guy on the internet whose job is (allegedly) being the dude who tells high school students "Don't do drugs, drugs are bad, mmmkay?" and who won't back up most of his claims because it comes from "inside sources" ("DEA informant", lol, too many cops shows dude), or even talk about what kind of training he received, or where.
Dude, come ON, how is anyone supposed to respect that? And then you pop up with the "out to get me" shit when anyone presents an argument you can't counter, or "I'm too busy/important to talk about this". But you started the thread knowing full well that people would challenge your alleged expertise and staunch anti-drug propaganda. It's what you do every time you're not getting enough attention. 99% that you're trolling.
And then you make these absolutely laughable claims about inside knowledge and having to disappear from the board because you might be applying for a Very Big Job and lol dude, this is not some shady organization, it's a little internet forum, and you work for what, the State of Maine? Or a county in Maine? However much you would like us to think you're some kind of big shot... which, by the way, is ludicrous and makes me giggle every time you allude to your "exclusive summits" and "important meetings".
It HAS to be a troll. There's just no way. :lulz: It's just too much.
I suppose what I do isn't quite as esteemed as painting beads, or whatever it is you do.
Look, maybe I didn't make it clear enough a few months back but I can fix that. I don't like you. I've never really liked you very much. Yes, I think you are grossly misinformed on many of these topics. I think trying to debate or discuss this topic with you is like trying to reason with a Birther.
Yeah, I did expect this to happen in this thread because you two just can't resist. I knew it would only be a matter of time before you found an angle to start acting like asshats. And you performed just as I imagined you would. This thread was fine, as it was simply a discussion about what the motivation was behind the administration going after the dispensaries in California. It wasn't, nor was it ever meant, to be another knock-down, drag-out philosophical debate on medical marijuana.
I mean, we can do that, but it is really pointless to do it with you or ECH. Rat and I also have some serious disagreements on this issue but he at least is able to actually debate the topic on a productive level. You two aren't capable of that. That's why these threads turn out the way they do. And I can assure you I'm not alone in that assessment.
Oh! Oh! Oh! I have one for you... I met this guy at a bar, and he's a fish biologist with a degree from Evergreen. I am pretty sure you can ID him based on that, right? :lulz:
I know you don't like me, RWHN. And that's why I poke you, because you make yourself so easy to make fun of. :) That, and your arguments are lame.
And you use the word "misinformed" incorrectly a LOT.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 12:53:01 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 04, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
1. RWHN: Disagreeing with you is NOT "being out to get you". Trust me on this, I have some experience in the paranoia department. Being against drug abuse does not mean you have to support or defend every shitty thing done in the name of prevention. That's the same mindset you see over at Capitol Grilling when the two sides line up to defend all manner of odious shit because "their side" did it.
Again, with the "out to get you" meme. I didn't say anyone was "out to get me", I was simply observing a pattern in posting. That pattern being disagreeing with my position, and then tacking on some kind of statement along the lines of "oh woe the children that RWHN is trying to help." In other words, "I disagree with you, and, you must be pretty awful at what you do."
But again, I reitirate, one should not take this observation as me taking that personally. I can assure everyone that I do not. I'm very comfortable with my performance in my profession. I kinda figure when I am appointed to significant positions, get invited to exclusive summits, and receive "atta boys" from the state and federal level, I must be doing okay. I'm not going to lose sleep at night because a couple of people on the internet think I'm wrong.
And I honestly disagree with your and the assessment of others when it comes to other ingredients in prescription drugs. You all seem to be assuming nefarious intent. A focused intent to make drug abusers gravely ill. Any prescription drug when taken in too high amounts can make someone gravely ill even if they don't add any other ingredients in the mix. But again, if someone has some smoking gun that proves that there was a calculated and nefarious intent, I would like to see it.
Aceteminophen I can see conceivably being a legitimate additive, since it is a painkiller. Atropine though? Can you think of any other reason to add Atropine aside from to make people gravely ill if they take more than the suggested dose? I know it does have some legitimate medical uses, none of them are in any way related to pain relief or cough supression, the two uses for Codeine. The stated purpose is to "reduce the potential for abuse" which it does, rather effectively, by KILLING ABUSERS. How is that intent anything but nefarious?
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
Quote from: Nigel on November 05, 2011, 05:44:31 PM
Oh! Oh! Oh! I have one for you... I met this guy at a bar, and he's a fish biologist with a degree from Evergreen. I am pretty sure you can ID him based on that, right? :lulz:
AT A BAR YOU SAY?
THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW ...
OK, just hacked into his webcam. Can you tell him to put on some pants, people are watching! I mean, the lobster-boxershorts is kind of awesome, but I'm trying to
eat.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
So would a court of law. Good luck with that.
The government doesn't 'force' the drug companies to do it via any language in the law.
They say, "do this and you can let people refill prescriptions by telephone, don't do this and you can't", and which point the decision has been taken out of the corp's hands (meaningfully) because one product leads to market exposure (Dr's willing to prescribe their products on the knowledge they won't have to see the patient for just 15 minutes every week just to refill a script), while the other (un-laced) product get buried under the other drug companies marketing/lobbying Drs on their products, which do toe the "refill by telephone" guidelines.
That the Feds are now going, "Oh, maybe we shouldn't 'allow' that much additives to opiates, y'know due to the amount that emergency room visits have spiked in the past 15 years." is not only refreshing, it's
INSANELY HONEST.
Oh, wait, they let the drug companies have 2 years to sell their back-stock of already laced opiates.
NEVER MIND.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 05:43:53 PMI knew it would only be a matter of time before you found an angle to start acting like asshats. And you performed just as I imagined you would.
Now, where have I heard this before?
RWHN, are you conducting a socioLOLgical experiment?
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
two problems here:
1) someone who is physically dependent on an opiate is not going to stop taking it just because an adulterant in it makes them feel funny. Opiate withdrawal is going to make them feel way worse.
2) Atropine doesn't work like that anyway. It just builds up and makes your heart stop once you reach a critical threshold.
And last I checked, drug abusers are, you know,
still human fucking beings. There's no justification at all for poisoning them. Period.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 05:48:01 PM
Can you think of any other reason to add Atropine aside from to make people gravely ill if they take more than the suggested dose?
Well, they might want to give the patients really pretty eyes... :lulz:
As an aside, adding anything that is not necessary to a drug is a very stupid thing to do. If pot growers were lacing weed with atropa belladonna 'to make sure the pot smokers didn't smoke too much' I'm sure we'd be hearing about how the DEADLY WEED LACING is claiming lives and putting the innocent kids in the hospital.
I think RWHN is probably in the field he claims, because his comments seem pretty close to the comments I've heard from other people in similar work.
I think ol' Fuck You One-Eye is also well informed, because my personal experiences seem to align pretty closely with what he's said.
In short:
Obama is an asshole politican going after people that are not really causing harm, while the country falls apart.
Drug companies, with or without the government's pushing, are assholes for making any drug more poisonous than necessary.
This thread is just chalk-full of unfortunate. :(
And yeah, defending anyone for putting poison in medicine is a completely indefensible position. Defending it because then drug abusers, who are going to get their drugs anyway, could get high easier otherwise is an atrocious sentiment, and puts you on a level of... I can't even think of a good comparison right now, it's that abhorrent.
Dude, RWHN, I thought you were for helping people who had a drug problem, not for punishing everyone just to minimize (what seems like a fractional amount) the people who want to get fucked up. I thought you were a better guy than that.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
Why don't we just use cattle prods?
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
How is "not putting poison in" the same thing as "making sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers"?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 07:40:42 PM
This thread is just chalk-full of unfortunate. :(
And yeah, defending anyone for putting poison in medicine is a completely indefensible position. Defending it because then drug abusers, who are going to get their drugs anyway, could get high easier otherwise is an atrocious sentiment, and puts you on a level of... I can't even think of a good comparison right now, it's that abhorrent.
Dude, RWHN, I thought you were for helping people who had a drug problem, not for punishing everyone just to minimize (what seems like a fractional amount) the people who want to get fucked up. I thought you were a better guy than that.
I'm not defending I'm explaining. This thread of the discussion started by people asserting that the government was intentionally putting in an additive to punish drug users. What I'm explaining is that it is far more likely, short of someone producing evidence otherwise, that the goal was to keep the person who was prescribed the drug form developing an addiction. I also did state a couple of posts ago that there are likely better ways to do this and if their are they should be pursued. I'm not defending what they did I'm just pushing back on the assertion that this was the government attacking drug abusers which is pretty much what has been alleged.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 05, 2011, 07:43:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
Why don't we just use cattle prods?
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
How is "not putting poison in" the same thing as "making sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers"?
Again, my main argument here is against the implied intent. You guys are implying, well more than implying, that the government purposefully mandated pharmaceutical companies put in this ingredient to punish drug abusers. So far I see a lot of belief statements but no proof of intent. I'm not going to disagree that there may be better ways to make this particular drug abuse resistant. I'm just pushing back against the, so far, unfounded assertion that this was a deliberate government sanctioned attack on drug abusers.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 05, 2011, 07:34:59 PMAs an aside, adding anything that is not necessary to a drug is a very stupid thing to do. If pot growers were lacing weed with atropa belladonna 'to make sure the pot smokers didn't smoke too much' I'm sure we'd be hearing about how the DEADLY WEED LACING is claiming lives and putting the innocent kids in the hospital.
But it's different if Big Pharma does it in order to let doctors prescribe laced medications more easily.
...
Actually, Rat, come to think of it, you better want to keep that idea very
very quiet, because they'd DO IT too, you know that. I won't spell it out anymore, because whatever dystopian prophecies we make here have the nasty tendency to come true. There's enough .gov IPs in our server logs, who's to say they're not watching us to keep tabs on us, but
for inspiration?? :horrormirth:
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 05, 2011, 07:55:28 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 05, 2011, 07:34:59 PMAs an aside, adding anything that is not necessary to a drug is a very stupid thing to do. If pot growers were lacing weed with atropa belladonna 'to make sure the pot smokers didn't smoke too much' I'm sure we'd be hearing about how the DEADLY WEED LACING is claiming lives and putting the innocent kids in the hospital.
But it's different if Big Pharma does it in order to let doctors prescribe laced medications more easily.
...
Actually, Rat, come to think of it, you better want to keep that idea very very quiet, because they'd DO IT too, you know that. I won't spell it out anymore, because whatever dystopian prophecies we make here have the nasty tendency to come true. There's enough .gov IPs in our server logs, who's to say they're not watching us to keep tabs on us, but for inspiration?? :horrormirth:
GODDAMNIT TRIP!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 07:45:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
You keep ignoring the part where that idea is completely contrary to how both opiates and atropine actually work.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 07:45:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
And those "not too many" are the ones that the put atropine into so that they will. The tolerance levels with Opiates work petty simply, if you take more you need more to get the desired effect and it takes more to give you any adverse effects.
Additives to make people ill are just a bad tactic. making the housewife with the bad back ill when she takes enough of the pills that her doctor perscribed her to actually make hr back stop hurting is wrong and putting poison in that kills her stupid teenage kid when he steals some of moms pills to get high is also wrong, there's no defensible action on the part of the drug company here.
RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.
I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 07:45:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
You keep ignoring the part where that idea is completely contrary to how both opiates and atropine actually work.
Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out. To discourage over-dosage.
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:10:51 PM
RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.
I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.
The government doesn't make medications. Pharmaceutical companies make medications. I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:13:42 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 07:45:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
You keep ignoring the part where that idea is completely contrary to how both opiates and atropine actually work.
Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out. To discourage over-dosage.
You keep ignoring the part where that doesn't work, due to both the nature of opiate dependency and the nature of atropine itself.It's like adding antifreeze to cheap wine to discourage people from drinking too much.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:10:51 PM
RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.
I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.
The government doesn't make medications. Pharmaceutical companies make medications. I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.
If they didn't consider the effect on drug abusers and children, that would make them grossly incompetent at best.
I haven't seen any documentation from you to support your claim that this was primarily targeted at normal people to prevent addiction.
ETA: I also haven't seen any evidence that atropine works the way you keep portraying it either.
You also keep ignoring the part where the FDA doesn't mandate that atropine be added to opiates (obviously), but that they use the scheduling and subsequent difference in marketability and prescribability as such a huge economic incentive as to have no effective difference than if they had actually mandated it.
Pointedly ignoring any points raised in an argument that don't fit your views of things is basically the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
I mean, you've sunk to Teabagger tactics, FFS. At least have the intellectual honesty to face the argument that's actually being presented to you rather than just reciting some idiotic dogma from rote.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 05:43:53 PMI knew it would only be a matter of time before you found an angle to start acting like asshats. And you performed just as I imagined you would.
Now, where have I heard this before?
RWHN, are you conducting a socioLOLgical experiment?
Dude, that's what I've been saying! Dude's
(http://27.media.tumblr.com/avatar_6feb8634e3d0_128.png)
You'd think that a man in such a prominent position would have better things to do than come slumming around trolling PD with this sort of thing, but I'm glad he did. There's some masterful tactical trolling going on here.
Of course, we must keep feeding it so that we can study the coursework to its logical completion.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 05, 2011, 07:40:42 PM
This thread is just chalk-full of unfortunate. :(
And yeah, defending anyone for putting poison in medicine is a completely indefensible position. Defending it because then drug abusers, who are going to get their drugs anyway, could get high easier otherwise is an atrocious sentiment, and puts you on a level of... I can't even think of a good comparison right now, it's that abhorrent.
Dude, RWHN, I thought you were for helping people who had a drug problem, not for punishing everyone just to minimize (what seems like a fractional amount) the people who want to get fucked up. I thought you were a better guy than that.
He absolutely lost me, and any idea I had that he was at all a good person, when he just as doggedly supported the policy of no college financial aid for anyone with a felony drug conviction. Making sure that people who screw up cannot better themselves is punitive to the point of being antisocial; it has no benefit to society, only detriment. Destroying the lives and families of people who use drugs does nothing to better society, and a lot to weaken it, IMO. This is why at this point I am convinced he's a troll, because what kind of person would endorse and defend some of the most heinous and indefensible actions of any government against its own citizens?
So maybe it's not that I don't think he's a good person... more like, I think he might be a decent person who's a superb troll fucking with us for ya-yas. :lol:
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:13:42 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 07:45:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
You keep ignoring the part where that idea is completely contrary to how both opiates and atropine actually work.
Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out. To discourage over-dosage.
It isn't working, so it does need to be rethought.
As to the other stuff, you have a perception of the situation that is different than my perception. You only see the ugly underbelly of things, but there is so much more to it than just that. I think that if it weren't drugs then many of the people you work with are simply self destructive to begin with, and they would find different avenues.
But what the fuck do I know?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:03:30 AM
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:03:30 AM
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.
What I don't get is that you
can take effective measures to reduce addiction and drug use without resorting to socially damaging punitive measures that rob people of health, life, freedom, or the ability to better themselves. There are plenty of effective programs to look at. Outside In, for example, whose model is prevention, rehab and support, and if they can't keep kids off drugs (which they have an excellent track record of doing) their next goal is to simply keep them healthy in the hope that at some point they will be able to become contributing members of society. The punishment model is simply vengeance, which doesn't help anyone. Punish someone for fucking up their life? That doesn't even make SENSE. Making it easier to fatally overdose on medicine in order to prevent drug abuse makes no sense.
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:25:18 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:10:51 PM
RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.
I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.
The government doesn't make medications. Pharmaceutical companies make medications. I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.
If they didn't consider the effect on drug abusers and children, that would make them grossly incompetent at best.
I haven't seen any documentation from you to support your claim that this was primarily targeted at normal people to prevent addiction.
ETA: I also haven't seen any evidence that atropine works the way you keep portraying it either.
Look up some drugs that have atropine as an additive. You will see tha the reason it is there is to reduce the likelihood of addiciton and to deter overdose.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:03:30 AM
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.
It could be the naiveté of living in small towns or predominantly rural areas for most of one's life. Living in a high density urban center of even a small city challenges people's social beliefs on a more regular basis, while more geographically isolated people end up forming strongly held ideas based on limited or no experience.
City dwellers have to develop more skills in changing their social beliefs in the face of new evidence, leading to more experience-based ideas about human nature. Meanwhile, rural denizens have far less tests of their beliefs about people, enabling erroneous conclusions to persist and solidify far before they've ever been challenged by contradictory experiences.
Isolated people don't have as much of an environmental demand for these social skills, and as they grow up they tend to have far fewer circumstances where they are forced to reevaluate their positions. And when they are challenged, it is more often at a distance: through a book, TV show, news report, blog post, the second hand story of a fellow bumpkin. Meanwhile, us city slickers are more likely to have immediate and diverse interactions with the people we are forming opinions about, leading to more practice—by necessity—with altering our inaccurate preconceived notions.
TLDR: It's easier to convince yourself that these punitive measures for addicts are effective and good when you don't have to look into the eyes of these people on a regular basis.
I dunno, there's no shortage of drug addicts in rural Maine. Of course, the vast majority of them are addicted to opiate-based painkillers. And a large number of them became addicted after being legally prescribed the drugs for pain management, since a large percentage of the rural population there works physically demanding jobs that frequently lead to back problems.
You'd think the magic of atropine would have a more noticeable preventative effect there. :lulz:
Can't you get high from atropine too?
technically yes, as it's one of the alkaloids present in belladonna and jimson weed, but it's generally regarded as an unpleasant high at best and since the amount that gets you high and the amount that kills you aren't far apart it's very rare for it to be used recreationally.
actually, apparently I'm wrong about that last part. The incapacitating dose and the LD50 are actually pretty far apart. Still very dangerous and generally considered an unpleasant trip, though.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 02:01:15 AM
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:25:18 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:10:51 PM
RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.
I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.
The government doesn't make medications. Pharmaceutical companies make medications. I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.
If they didn't consider the effect on drug abusers and children, that would make them grossly incompetent at best.
I haven't seen any documentation from you to support your claim that this was primarily targeted at normal people to prevent addiction.
ETA: I also haven't seen any evidence that atropine works the way you keep portraying it either.
Look up some drugs that have atropine as an additive. You will see tha the reason it is there is to reduce the likelihood of addiciton and to deter overdose.
So we should destroy people's futures by keeping weed illegal because it could hurt children, BUT we should add dangerous things to opiates that increase their lethality towards children because it may help deter addiction and overdose in adults?
It really looks like you want it both ways. "For the children" with severe costs to adults and addicts on one hand, "for the adults" with severe costs to children and addicts on the other. The guiding principle in your position appears to be in favor of artificially increasing harm to people, to prevent an intrinsically lesser harm.
If you were in charge of automobile laws, would you require the installation of spikes on people's steering wheels as a way to deter unsafe driving?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 02:16:35 AM
I dunno, there's no shortage of drug addicts in rural Maine. Of course, the vast majority of them are addicted to opiate-based painkillers. And a large number of them became addicted after being legally prescribed the drugs for pain management, since a large percentage of the rural population there works physically demanding jobs that frequently lead to back problems.
You'd think the magic of atropine would have a more noticeable preventative effect there. :lulz:
There might be a lot of addicts in rural Maine, but you don't have to see their miserable existence on the street every time you go out, do you?
As the Milgram experiments show, it's easier for people to harm people the more removed they are from your immediate experience. Many people are only familiar with the part where they shocked people in another room, but the study was more comprehensive than that. They found that when shocks were to be administered face to face, compliance went down.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Yes, because asking where you got your degree is totally fishing for PI. PI that I could obtain any time I want to anyway given that, y'know, I have access to every part of the site AND a pretty decent datamining skillset.
No, really, your personal information (that I could have any time I wanted) is terribly interesting and valuable to me. :lulz:
And what, exactly, am I misinformed about? I'm not making any claims ITT that are not backed up by either science (atropine is a deadly dangerous drug that does not create a synergistic effect with regards to opioids, that's easy enough to look up) or, in the context of how the black market really works, many years of being a drug dealer/pot grower/smuggler with generations of my family's firsthand knowledge to draw from as well as my own. I mean, have you ever even bought a bag of weed? Have you ever even taken a puff? I'm almost certain you've never smuggled anything across an international border or had to talk your way out of a room full of people pointing automatic weapons at you. You trying to posit that I'm misinformed about how the black market works is like me telling Kai that he doesn't know shit about insects. :lulz:
Ha! But you shouldn't trust me as an authority. You can trust me (to some extent) because I'm summarizing information that is easily found and interpreted with a bit of effort.
Also, I'm strongly considering putting my legal name as my user name here. Because my user name already has my initials, and people know I went to grad school in the Carolinas for bugs, so /anyone/ could find out who I was from that anyway, right? :lulz:
Probably shouldn't, though. Probably would kill all chances I'd ever have of getting a job. :lulz:
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 06, 2011, 03:41:34 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Yes, because asking where you got your degree is totally fishing for PI. PI that I could obtain any time I want to anyway given that, y'know, I have access to every part of the site AND a pretty decent datamining skillset.
No, really, your personal information (that I could have any time I wanted) is terribly interesting and valuable to me. :lulz:
And what, exactly, am I misinformed about? I'm not making any claims ITT that are not backed up by either science (atropine is a deadly dangerous drug that does not create a synergistic effect with regards to opioids, that's easy enough to look up) or, in the context of how the black market really works, many years of being a drug dealer/pot grower/smuggler with generations of my family's firsthand knowledge to draw from as well as my own. I mean, have you ever even bought a bag of weed? Have you ever even taken a puff? I'm almost certain you've never smuggled anything across an international border or had to talk your way out of a room full of people pointing automatic weapons at you. You trying to posit that I'm misinformed about how the black market works is like me telling Kai that he doesn't know shit about insects. :lulz:
Ha! But you shouldn't trust me as an authority. You can trust me (to some extent) because I'm summarizing information that is easily found and interpreted with a bit of effort.
Well, yes! That is exactly why I, at least, trust you. You even provide links much of the time, which makes me far less likely to cross-reference things you say when you don't cite sources, because I know from past experience that you have a high level of verifiability. (Which would make it easy to pull the wool over my eyes if you suddenly decided to!)
Also, you have a history of backing down if you find out your position is flawed, which also engenders trust.
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2011, 03:59:06 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 06, 2011, 03:41:34 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Yes, because asking where you got your degree is totally fishing for PI. PI that I could obtain any time I want to anyway given that, y'know, I have access to every part of the site AND a pretty decent datamining skillset.
No, really, your personal information (that I could have any time I wanted) is terribly interesting and valuable to me. :lulz:
And what, exactly, am I misinformed about? I'm not making any claims ITT that are not backed up by either science (atropine is a deadly dangerous drug that does not create a synergistic effect with regards to opioids, that's easy enough to look up) or, in the context of how the black market really works, many years of being a drug dealer/pot grower/smuggler with generations of my family's firsthand knowledge to draw from as well as my own. I mean, have you ever even bought a bag of weed? Have you ever even taken a puff? I'm almost certain you've never smuggled anything across an international border or had to talk your way out of a room full of people pointing automatic weapons at you. You trying to posit that I'm misinformed about how the black market works is like me telling Kai that he doesn't know shit about insects. :lulz:
Ha! But you shouldn't trust me as an authority. You can trust me (to some extent) because I'm summarizing information that is easily found and interpreted with a bit of effort.
Well, yes! That is exactly why I, at least, trust you. You even provide links much of the time, which makes me far less likely to cross-reference things you say when you don't cite sources, because I know from past experience that you have a high level of verifiability. (Which would make it easy to pull the wool over my eyes if you suddenly decided to!)
Also, you have a history of backing down if you find out your position is flawed, which also engenders trust.
You know, it's times like these that make me wish I was a troll, just so I could slip in bits that were totally not true. Alas, I am an honest sort.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 06, 2011, 04:09:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 06, 2011, 03:59:06 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 06, 2011, 03:41:34 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Yes, because asking where you got your degree is totally fishing for PI. PI that I could obtain any time I want to anyway given that, y'know, I have access to every part of the site AND a pretty decent datamining skillset.
No, really, your personal information (that I could have any time I wanted) is terribly interesting and valuable to me. :lulz:
And what, exactly, am I misinformed about? I'm not making any claims ITT that are not backed up by either science (atropine is a deadly dangerous drug that does not create a synergistic effect with regards to opioids, that's easy enough to look up) or, in the context of how the black market really works, many years of being a drug dealer/pot grower/smuggler with generations of my family's firsthand knowledge to draw from as well as my own. I mean, have you ever even bought a bag of weed? Have you ever even taken a puff? I'm almost certain you've never smuggled anything across an international border or had to talk your way out of a room full of people pointing automatic weapons at you. You trying to posit that I'm misinformed about how the black market works is like me telling Kai that he doesn't know shit about insects. :lulz:
Ha! But you shouldn't trust me as an authority. You can trust me (to some extent) because I'm summarizing information that is easily found and interpreted with a bit of effort.
Well, yes! That is exactly why I, at least, trust you. You even provide links much of the time, which makes me far less likely to cross-reference things you say when you don't cite sources, because I know from past experience that you have a high level of verifiability. (Which would make it easy to pull the wool over my eyes if you suddenly decided to!)
Also, you have a history of backing down if you find out your position is flawed, which also engenders trust.
You know, it's times like these that make me wish I was a troll, just so I could slip in bits that were totally not true. Alas, I am an honest sort.
Oh, you could fuck some people up! :lulz:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 02:01:15 AM
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:25:18 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:16:20 PM
Quote from: Net on November 05, 2011, 11:10:51 PM
RWHN insinuates that the government is so incompetent that they didn't realize adding atropine to opiates would result in serious harm and death, as though that thought just never crossed their minds.
I'm sure it was because they were so focused on preventing normal people from getting hooked that they just forgot about how curious kids and drug abusers might be killed.
The government doesn't make medications. Pharmaceutical companies make medications. I still haven't seen anyone provide any information that proves the government forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine to medications to punish drug abusers.
If they didn't consider the effect on drug abusers and children, that would make them grossly incompetent at best.
I haven't seen any documentation from you to support your claim that this was primarily targeted at normal people to prevent addiction.
ETA: I also haven't seen any evidence that atropine works the way you keep portraying it either.
Look up some drugs that have atropine as an additive. You will see tha the reason it is there is to reduce the likelihood of addiciton and to deter overdose.
Perhaps you're right on this point... however, I still see no reasonable justification for putting a poison in a drug that isn't necessary for the drug to be effective. Even in the most optimistic scenario its still a case of 'the road to hell' being paved with belladonna and datura. In a pessimistic interpretation, its no different from the stories of 'laced' street drugs. Maybe the truth is somewhere in-between... but there doesn't really seem to be any good position in-between.
That being said, in the example of diphenoxylate, the amount of atropine added is intended to cause weakness and nausea if the users takes more than the prescribed amount. A short term effect to discourage improper usage. Of course, thats assuming the user took a little more than intended... not that a child took more than intended, or that someone may take some other recreational drug that could cause more problems etc etc etc. Of course, those situations "shouldn't " happen. Many drugs would have adverse effects in those situations... BUT an additive that is not part of the treatment, one that is unnecessary for the drug to work, one that could cause more side effects, worse effects in instances of abuse, child use or even accidental overdose seems like a very bad idea to me.
When you argue for educating people about the dangers of drugs, I agree with you. If society is going to involve itself in people's private lives, providing honest and factual information about the positive and negative impacts of drugs seems reasonable. However, sneaking poisonous additives into prescription drugs(whoever is behind it), putting people in jail, ruining a college education etc etc etc seem absurd and completely illegitimate forms of abuse prevention to me.
In my opinion, that last bit is where you and many of us seem to diverge. We all seem to agree that education is good, that treatment is good... you, however, seem willing to defend even the most absurd anti-abuse positions. It seems kind of dogmatic, like a wall in your BiP... or maybe some shrapnel...
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 06, 2011, 12:07:09 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 11:13:42 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 05, 2011, 08:36:28 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 07:45:00 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 05, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 05, 2011, 06:00:26 PM
Because it wasn't for the drug abuser. It was for the person who was getting the medication for an actual ailment. And so if they double up or take a higher dosage, they feel bad enough that they think twice about taking a higher dosage again. This, then, would reduce the likelihood of someone becoming addicted to it. It wasn't intended for the drug abuser, the drug abuser who is already taking higher dosages of a medication, where there is no ailment, and the medication wasn't prescribed to them.
This argument that you, and TGRR, and ECH are making suggests that it is the pharmaceutical companies' duty to make sure their drugs are safe for drug abusers, people who take far more than was ever intended. Medications are designed for people with legitimate ailments, they are not designed for drug abusers.
Now, with all of that said, it may very well be that there are far more effective ways to make medicines less addictive than adding something like atropine. I will agree that there may be better ways to do that. However, what I'm rejecting, without evidence, is that the government purposefully forced pharmaceutical companies to add atropine as a way to punish drug abusers. Because that is what is being alleged. If there is evidence to support this, not beliefs evidence, I would be glad to consider it.
It looks like you are admitting that the intent is to make people greivously ill.
I don't expect the company to attempt to make drugs safe for people who take more than they are supposed to, I do expect them not to purposely make them unsafe which is what they are doing when they add atropine.
I wouldn't say "greivously ill". There aren't too many prescription drugs that aren't going to make you greivously ill if you take far more than was prescribed by the doctor. From what I've read the intent was to keep someone who is earnestly taking the drug. That is, someone who would likely be gradually increasing their dose. Not someone who is purposefully seeking out rx drugs to abuse. Someone who was prescribed the drug isn't generally going to go from, for example, taking a prescribed dosage of two pills to taking dosages of 5 or 6 pills. More often than not they are going to take an extra pill, maybe two, because they are just trying to treat their pain or symptoms. They aren't seeking to get high or addicted. But of course we know that this is how tolerances are developed. So I think the aim was to stop that from happening. It wasn't for the people who go from two pills to 10 pills.
You keep ignoring the part where that idea is completely contrary to how both opiates and atropine actually work.
Atropine is deliberately added to certain medications for precisely the reason I just laid out. To discourage over-dosage.
It isn't working, so it does need to be rethought.
Well of course it isn't working. And as I said earlier in this thread there are efforts underway to find new ways to reformulate prescription drugs, in particular the prescription opiates, to make them more abuse resistant. But it will always be trying to hit a moving target because drug abusers will find ways around it. And I've said numerous times now that that I'm not defending the atropine additive. I'm simply explaining what was likely the thinking behind it (as I don't work for the pharmaceutical companies that first added it).
But utilizing some common sense thinking one can deduce what the intent was. I don't think there was this nefarious intent as many of you suspect. I just don't because there is no evidence to support that. However, as we all know, sometimes even things with honest intents can go wrong.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:03:30 AM
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.
Except that what you think is my "way of thinking" about a group of people with a disease is completely wrong. You are assuming, incorrectly, that I am cheering drug abusers being poisoned by abusing prescription drugs. I'm not. I've been very clear. All I'm doing is pushing back against the assertion that this was a concerted effort by the government to punish drug abusers. None of you have been able to provide any evidence of this yet. There have been a lot of belief statements, but no evidence.
Indeed I understand fully the disease that is substance abuse. It's why I do what I do. To prevent more kids from becoming addicted to prescription drugs and other substances. But I also fully support and work side by side with the provider community who help treat those who are addicted. Drug abusers are good people who fell into a destructive path. Our societies should do whatever is possible to help them get back on a healthy path.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 02:16:35 AM
I dunno, there's no shortage of drug addicts in rural Maine. Of course, the vast majority of them are addicted to opiate-based painkillers. And a large number of them became addicted after being legally prescribed the drugs for pain management, since a large percentage of the rural population there works physically demanding jobs that frequently lead to back problems.
You'd think the magic of atropine would have a more noticeable preventative effect there. :lulz:
I never said it was effective. I've only been stating WHY it was added. Most measures to prevent addiction to painkillers don't work. They probably are effective for some people, but for many others they don't work and people become addicted anyway. But that doesn't mean, short of documented evidence, that all of these measures are efforts by the government to poison people.
Quote from: Net on November 06, 2011, 03:00:25 AM
So we should destroy people's futures by keeping weed illegal because it could hurt children, BUT we should add dangerous things to opiates that increase their lethality towards children because it may help deter addiction and overdose in adults?
Jesus, again, I've not been making any "should" arguments, only "why" explanations. Pharmaceutical companies should be looking at was to reformulate drugs, safely, to deter addiction wherever possible. But that is just for preventing abuse amongst those who have been legitimately prescribed drugs. For your drug abuser seeking out these drugs, it isn't a solution at all. There you need better controls over access to these drugs. That means robust prescription monitoring programs, education to parents and grandparents about locking up and safeguarding their medicines and getting rid of medicines that are expired and not being used. It means working with prescribers to see if there are ways to change their methods to reduce access to drugs, etc., etc.,
QuoteIt really looks like you want it both ways. "For the children" with severe costs to adults and addicts on one hand, "for the adults" with severe costs to children and addicts on the other. The guiding principle in your position appears to be in favor of artificially increasing harm to people, to prevent an intrinsically lesser harm.
Uh, no. You aren't paying attention to my arguments. I've never said anywhere that I agreed with purposefully trying to harm drug addicts. Indeed I've been saying there is no evidence that anyone has purposefully been trying to do that. I've been explaining that I think the purpose of adding atropine was likely to deter the person legitimately taking a drug from taking larger doses than prescribed. I have also stated, which is true, just about any drug that is taken outside of a doctor's prescription and in high doses is going to be dangerous, additives or not. You and ECH are doing some horrible shorthand there somehow conflating these and coming up with an argument that I support intentionally trying to harm drug abusers. Anyone who is paying attention will realize that is completely incorrect.
QuoteIf you were in charge of automobile laws, would you require the installation of spikes on people's steering wheels as a way to deter unsafe driving?
Yes of course! No, we should go even further. Airbags full of sulfuric acid! Snakes in the glove compartment!!!!!
C'mon, use your head here!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 06, 2011, 10:22:46 AM
In my opinion, that last bit is where you and many of us seem to diverge. We all seem to agree that education is good, that treatment is good... you, however, seem willing to defend even the most absurd anti-abuse positions. It seems kind of dogmatic, like a wall in your BiP... or maybe some shrapnel...
Where have I said I support it? Where have I said it has been working like gangbusters and we should continue? No, what you've seen is an explanation as to WHY I THINK companies added atropine to their drugs. People are accusing pharmaceutical companies and the government tag teaming to intentionally kill drug abusers, as opposed to an earnest attempt to dissuade legitimate users from abusing their drugs.
All I've been doing is pushing back against what is still an unfounded assertion that this was a concerted effort to harm drug abusers. Nowhever have I said it is a good idea to intentionally poison drug abusers. What I have said is that you don't have to add anything because just taking prescription drugs outside of a doctors prescription and in high doses is poisonous by itself. I mean, look at your local Poison Center. Many of the calls it handles are in the area of prescription drugs, whether it is ID'ng drugs or dealing with someone who took too much of a drug and is expeirencing problems. These drugs, while helpful, are poisons when not taken according to a Dr's script.
This is the usual PD.COM dogpile where you all stop using your head and stop reading what a person is actually posting. C'mon, you guys are smarter than this.
Just to change things up a bit I want to share this Op-Ed from Dr. Mark Publicker concerning Medical Marijuana:
Quote"It is wrong to claim for it a harmlessness which belongs to no active remedy yet discovered."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Mark Publicker is an addiction medicine specialist at the Mercy Recovery Center in Westbrook. He is also president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine.
– Physician, 1870
WESTBROOK - All medications carry risks as well as benefits. This truism applies to medical marijuana as well.
The unique manner in which the state has legalized its medical use, through voting consensus rather than evidence-based evaluation, has resulted in the minimization of its harmful effects. As an addiction medicine specialist with many years of experience and study, I am concerned that these potentially harmful effects, especially in vulnerable populations, have not been adequately brought to the public's attention.
The Maine Medical Marijuana Act was drafted to increase the access to medical marijuana for patients suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions. It does not address the potential harm that marijuana, as with any other psychoactive substance, can cause.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of early exposure to cannabis.
We know that adolescent brains have different biological responses than adults do to exposure to all drugs of abuse, including marijuana. These include a significantly greater risk of lifelong dependence and changes in cognition and motivation that affect learning and behavior. Teen cannabis use also greatly increases the risk of major mental illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
The rates of teen abuse of cannabis are directly correlated to teens' perception of its harm. The perception of harm is decreased by the promotion of marijuana as a benign herb with pro-health medicinal properties and by its use by trusted parents and other care-givers.
Rates of use are also correlated with drug access. Both direct and passive diversion of medical marijuana will increase access. We should also be very concerned about passive breathing of cannabis fumes by children and teens.
Because of the risk of harm to the fetus, it is unethical to test medications on pregnant women. Receptors for cannabis are found throughout the brain, and we have yet to understand all of their functions.
Smoking cannabis during pregnancy carries unknown risks to the fetus. The act is silent about the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women. Protection of the developing baby's brain demands caution. Pregnant women should be advised to stop medical marijuana.
Addiction is characterized by an intense compulsion to use a drug with a decreased ability to resist the urge to use, despite escalating negative consequences. The drug use is pursued at the expense of naturally rewarding behaviors needed for health.
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people who drink don't develop drinking problems, and the same may be true with marijuana. However, no alcoholic would remain sober if they were prescribed alcohol as a medicine. The same can be said for medical marijuana. And what is the risk of relapse for patients in stable recovery from other addictions who use medical marijuana? How would a recovering patient be counseled about the risk of relapse if treated with medical marijuana?
The act does not require that addiction screening be part of the initial assessment by the qualifying physician. Would active addiction to cannabis or other drugs be exclusions for medical marijuana?
Regarding impairment: Are we prepared for an increase in drivers using medical marijuana? Alcohol and cannabis together increase each others' impairment of judgment, reaction time and coordination. Should medical marijuana patients be advised not to smoke before driving?
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the act is silent on the use of medical marijuana in safety-sensitive professions, including emergency and medical personnel.
Let's understand that all medications produce risks as well as benefits. The risks of medical marijuana have not been adequately considered. These include potential harm to children, adolescents and pregnant women, the real risk of addiction, impaired driving and impaired emergency and medical professionals.
Patients and qualifying physicians must assume their responsibility to protect others, and new legislation will be needed to deal with the issue of the safety-sensitive professionals.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:34:41 AM
Just to change things up a bit I want to share this Op-Ed from Dr. Mark Publicker concerning Medical Marijuana:
Quote"It is wrong to claim for it a harmlessness which belongs to no active remedy yet discovered."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Mark Publicker is an addiction medicine specialist at the Mercy Recovery Center in Westbrook. He is also president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine.
– Physician, 1870
WESTBROOK - All medications carry risks as well as benefits. This truism applies to medical marijuana as well.
The unique manner in which the state has legalized its medical use, through voting consensus rather than evidence-based evaluation, has resulted in the minimization of its harmful effects. As an addiction medicine specialist with many years of experience and study, I am concerned that these potentially harmful effects, especially in vulnerable populations, have not been adequately brought to the public's attention.
The Maine Medical Marijuana Act was drafted to increase the access to medical marijuana for patients suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions. It does not address the potential harm that marijuana, as with any other psychoactive substance, can cause.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of early exposure to cannabis.
We know that adolescent brains have different biological responses than adults do to exposure to all drugs of abuse, including marijuana. These include a significantly greater risk of lifelong dependence and changes in cognition and motivation that affect learning and behavior. Teen cannabis use also greatly increases the risk of major mental illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
The rates of teen abuse of cannabis are directly correlated to teens' perception of its harm. The perception of harm is decreased by the promotion of marijuana as a benign herb with pro-health medicinal properties and by its use by trusted parents and other care-givers.
Rates of use are also correlated with drug access. Both direct and passive diversion of medical marijuana will increase access. We should also be very concerned about passive breathing of cannabis fumes by children and teens.
Because of the risk of harm to the fetus, it is unethical to test medications on pregnant women. Receptors for cannabis are found throughout the brain, and we have yet to understand all of their functions.
Smoking cannabis during pregnancy carries unknown risks to the fetus. The act is silent about the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women. Protection of the developing baby's brain demands caution. Pregnant women should be advised to stop medical marijuana.
Addiction is characterized by an intense compulsion to use a drug with a decreased ability to resist the urge to use, despite escalating negative consequences. The drug use is pursued at the expense of naturally rewarding behaviors needed for health.
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people who drink don't develop drinking problems, and the same may be true with marijuana. However, no alcoholic would remain sober if they were prescribed alcohol as a medicine. The same can be said for medical marijuana. And what is the risk of relapse for patients in stable recovery from other addictions who use medical marijuana? How would a recovering patient be counseled about the risk of relapse if treated with medical marijuana?
The act does not require that addiction screening be part of the initial assessment by the qualifying physician. Would active addiction to cannabis or other drugs be exclusions for medical marijuana?
Regarding impairment: Are we prepared for an increase in drivers using medical marijuana? Alcohol and cannabis together increase each others' impairment of judgment, reaction time and coordination. Should medical marijuana patients be advised not to smoke before driving?
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the act is silent on the use of medical marijuana in safety-sensitive professions, including emergency and medical personnel.
Let's understand that all medications produce risks as well as benefits. The risks of medical marijuana have not been adequately considered. These include potential harm to children, adolescents and pregnant women, the real risk of addiction, impaired driving and impaired emergency and medical professionals.
Patients and qualifying physicians must assume their responsibility to protect others, and new legislation will be needed to deal with the issue of the safety-sensitive professionals.
As you mentioned it is only an op-ed. The author cites no research nor sources and overall it reeks of creating fear while ignoring some critical factors.
I drive while taking hydrocodone as do many other people. In so many cases the known side effects of pot are much less than a great many prescription meds.
In short, it is an opinion of someone who is obviously against medical marijuana.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 06, 2011, 10:22:46 AM
In my opinion, that last bit is where you and many of us seem to diverge. We all seem to agree that education is good, that treatment is good... you, however, seem willing to defend even the most absurd anti-abuse positions. It seems kind of dogmatic, like a wall in your BiP... or maybe some shrapnel...
Where have I said I support it? Where have I said it has been working like gangbusters and we should continue? No, what you've seen is an explanation as to WHY I THINK companies added atropine to their drugs. People are accusing pharmaceutical companies and the government tag teaming to intentionally kill drug abusers, as opposed to an earnest attempt to dissuade legitimate users from abusing their drugs.
All I've been doing is pushing back against what is still an unfounded assertion that this was a concerted effort to harm drug abusers. Nowhever have I said it is a good idea to intentionally poison drug abusers. What I have said is that you don't have to add anything because just taking prescription drugs outside of a doctors prescription and in high doses is poisonous by itself. I mean, look at your local Poison Center. Many of the calls it handles are in the area of prescription drugs, whether it is ID'ng drugs or dealing with someone who took too much of a drug and is expeirencing problems. These drugs, while helpful, are poisons when not taken according to a Dr's script.
This is the usual PD.COM dogpile where you all stop using your head and stop reading what a person is actually posting. C'mon, you guys are smarter than this.
Yeah, you're right. I run into the same problem when I try to explain a perspective on magic and its assumed that I support the belief...
I agree that prescription drugs, by themselves can be dangerous... it still seems absurd to me that anyone would think its a good idea to add more, unnecessary danger.
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 06, 2011, 11:47:27 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:34:41 AM
Just to change things up a bit I want to share this Op-Ed from Dr. Mark Publicker concerning Medical Marijuana:
Quote"It is wrong to claim for it a harmlessness which belongs to no active remedy yet discovered."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Mark Publicker is an addiction medicine specialist at the Mercy Recovery Center in Westbrook. He is also president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine.
– Physician, 1870
WESTBROOK - All medications carry risks as well as benefits. This truism applies to medical marijuana as well.
The unique manner in which the state has legalized its medical use, through voting consensus rather than evidence-based evaluation, has resulted in the minimization of its harmful effects. As an addiction medicine specialist with many years of experience and study, I am concerned that these potentially harmful effects, especially in vulnerable populations, have not been adequately brought to the public's attention.
The Maine Medical Marijuana Act was drafted to increase the access to medical marijuana for patients suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions. It does not address the potential harm that marijuana, as with any other psychoactive substance, can cause.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of early exposure to cannabis.
We know that adolescent brains have different biological responses than adults do to exposure to all drugs of abuse, including marijuana. These include a significantly greater risk of lifelong dependence and changes in cognition and motivation that affect learning and behavior. Teen cannabis use also greatly increases the risk of major mental illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
The rates of teen abuse of cannabis are directly correlated to teens' perception of its harm. The perception of harm is decreased by the promotion of marijuana as a benign herb with pro-health medicinal properties and by its use by trusted parents and other care-givers.
Rates of use are also correlated with drug access. Both direct and passive diversion of medical marijuana will increase access. We should also be very concerned about passive breathing of cannabis fumes by children and teens.
Because of the risk of harm to the fetus, it is unethical to test medications on pregnant women. Receptors for cannabis are found throughout the brain, and we have yet to understand all of their functions.
Smoking cannabis during pregnancy carries unknown risks to the fetus. The act is silent about the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women. Protection of the developing baby's brain demands caution. Pregnant women should be advised to stop medical marijuana.
Addiction is characterized by an intense compulsion to use a drug with a decreased ability to resist the urge to use, despite escalating negative consequences. The drug use is pursued at the expense of naturally rewarding behaviors needed for health.
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people who drink don't develop drinking problems, and the same may be true with marijuana. However, no alcoholic would remain sober if they were prescribed alcohol as a medicine. The same can be said for medical marijuana. And what is the risk of relapse for patients in stable recovery from other addictions who use medical marijuana? How would a recovering patient be counseled about the risk of relapse if treated with medical marijuana?
The act does not require that addiction screening be part of the initial assessment by the qualifying physician. Would active addiction to cannabis or other drugs be exclusions for medical marijuana?
Regarding impairment: Are we prepared for an increase in drivers using medical marijuana? Alcohol and cannabis together increase each others' impairment of judgment, reaction time and coordination. Should medical marijuana patients be advised not to smoke before driving?
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the act is silent on the use of medical marijuana in safety-sensitive professions, including emergency and medical personnel.
Let's understand that all medications produce risks as well as benefits. The risks of medical marijuana have not been adequately considered. These include potential harm to children, adolescents and pregnant women, the real risk of addiction, impaired driving and impaired emergency and medical professionals.
Patients and qualifying physicians must assume their responsibility to protect others, and new legislation will be needed to deal with the issue of the safety-sensitive professionals.
As you mentioned it is only an op-ed. The author cites no research nor sources and overall it reeks of creating fear while ignoring some critical factors.
I drive while taking hydrocodone as do many other people. In so many cases the known side effects of pot are much less than a great many prescription meds.
In short, it is an opinion of someone who is obviously against medical marijuana.
Erm... It's an article opposing medical marijuana so I'm not sure why the author being against medical marijuana is going to take away any credibility. It's like refusing to listen to an argument for legalization because the author is pro legalization.
It is an op Ed but the pOint being made so far as I can tell is that there are rational professional voices out there in opposition to MM, other than RWHNs.
Quote
WESTBROOK - All medications carry risks as well as benefits. This truism applies to medical marijuana as well.
The unique manner in which the state has legalized its medical use, through voting consensus rather than evidence-based evaluation, has resulted in the minimization of its harmful effects. As an addiction medicine specialist with many years of experience and study, I am concerned that these potentially harmful effects, especially in vulnerable populations, have not been adequately brought to the public's attention.
The Maine Medical Marijuana Act was drafted to increase the access to medical marijuana for patients suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions. It does not address the potential harm that marijuana, as with any other psychoactive substance, can cause.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of early exposure to cannabis.
We know that adolescent brains have different biological responses than adults do to exposure to all drugs of abuse, including marijuana. These include a significantly greater risk of lifelong dependence and changes in cognition and motivation that affect learning and behavior. Teen cannabis use also greatly increases the risk of major mental illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
Yep, teens probably shouldn't smoke pot. Doctors shouldn't prescribe it to them. They also shouldn't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco or take any number of anti-depressants that tend to cause suicidal thoughts.
Quote
The rates of teen abuse of cannabis are directly correlated to teens' perception of its harm. The perception of harm is decreased by the promotion of marijuana as a benign herb with pro-health medicinal properties and by its use by trusted parents and other care-givers.
Because keeping it illegal is totally keeping kids from trying it...
Quote
Rates of use are also correlated with drug access. Both direct and passive diversion of medical marijuana will increase access. We should also be very concerned about passive breathing of cannabis fumes by children and teens.
Pot is easier for kids to get than alcohol. I know underage teens that could get good kine bud, when I as an adult was having a hard time finding any pot. Parents maybe shouldn't smoke in the same room as their kids. However, if they (like many patients) are using vaporizers and/or eating it in food... well there's not really an issue.
Quote
Because of the risk of harm to the fetus, it is unethical to test medications on pregnant women. Receptors for cannabis are found throughout the brain, and we have yet to understand all of their functions.
Smoking cannabis during pregnancy carries unknown risks to the fetus. The act is silent about the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women. Protection of the developing baby's brain demands caution. Pregnant women should be advised to stop medical marijuana.
This is a true statement of any drug. Except with cannabis we have thousands of years of use which has yet to provide any strong evidence of serious physical or mental harm. Somehow if a new anti-morning sickness drug was about to hit the market, I doubt that this Doctor would be making the same argument... and then we get thalidomide babies.
Quote
Addiction is characterized by an intense compulsion to use a drug with a decreased ability to resist the urge to use, despite escalating negative consequences. The drug use is pursued at the expense of naturally rewarding behaviors needed for health.
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people who drink don't develop drinking problems, and the same may be true with marijuana. However, no alcoholic would remain sober if they were prescribed alcohol as a medicine. The same can be said for medical marijuana. And what is the risk of relapse for patients in stable recovery from other addictions who use medical marijuana? How would a recovering patient be counseled about the risk of relapse if treated with medical marijuana?
I keep hearing about people being addicted to pot... I have yet to ever meet someone addicted to pot (and I've met a lot of people that smoke pot).
Quote
Regarding impairment: Are we prepared for an increase in drivers using medical marijuana? Alcohol and cannabis together increase each others' impairment of judgment, reaction time and coordination. Should medical marijuana patients be advised not to smoke before driving?
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the act is silent on the use of medical marijuana in safety-sensitive professions, including emergency and medical personnel.
I see no reason not to recommend that people don't drive/do some kinds of work when they are on drugs. Plenty of drugs clearly say that you shouldn't drive/dop some kinds of work when you are on them. Why is this a realistic argument against pot specifically?
All of these arguments seem to apply to any drug, not just to marijuana. Moreover, many legal drugs have much higher risks than pot in these same areas (anti-depressants that make kids suicidal, opiates that have serious addiction issues for the patient, drugs that cause birth defects, drugs that impair the ability to drive or do some kinds of work). In short, this reads like a big pile of anti-pot propaganda to me. I think that there are some risks with pot, just like with any drug. I also think that there are some benefits.
I find it difficult to entertain the thought that pot is as dangerous/more dangerous than any number of drugs that this Doctor probably prescribes regularly. That, for me, is a key point in considering if its propaganda or not.
And lets be honest here. If the federal government allowed the scientific study of marijuana in the US, medical marijuana would have followed the standard rules for medical scheduling. However, the Federal government not only says "its illegal" it also tells doctors and scientists "you can't study it, you can't test it" so the federal government is entirely responsible for the perceived lack of scientific rigor in the medical application of the drug. IE, this guy should be pissed at the feds, not the voters. The voters simply know that pot helps some sick people and they have empathy on the subject. Many voters have also smoked pot at some point in their lives and find the governments position idiotic.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:03:30 AM
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.
Except that what you think is my "way of thinking" about a group of people with a disease is completely wrong. You are assuming, incorrectly, that I am cheering drug abusers being poisoned by abusing prescription drugs. I'm not. I've been very clear. All I'm doing is pushing back against the assertion that this was a concerted effort by the government to punish drug abusers. None of you have been able to provide any evidence of this yet. There have been a lot of belief statements, but no evidence.
Indeed I understand fully the disease that is substance abuse. It's why I do what I do. To prevent more kids from becoming addicted to prescription drugs and other substances. But I also fully support and work side by side with the provider community who help treat those who are addicted. Drug abusers are good people who fell into a destructive path. Our societies should do whatever is possible to help them get back on a healthy path.
Yep. And denying them any financial aid for the rest of their lives, putting poison in prescription drugs, and fining and/or incarcerating them for non-violent offenses seems like an excellent way to go about that, doesn't it?
Mind you, those are all things you've expressed approval for.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:34:41 AM
Just to change things up a bit I want to share this Op-Ed from Dr. Mark Publicker concerning Medical Marijuana:
Quote"It is wrong to claim for it a harmlessness which belongs to no active remedy yet discovered."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Mark Publicker is an addiction medicine specialist at the Mercy Recovery Center in Westbrook. He is also president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine.
– Physician, 1870
WESTBROOK - All medications carry risks as well as benefits. This truism applies to medical marijuana as well.
The unique manner in which the state has legalized its medical use, through voting consensus rather than evidence-based evaluation, has resulted in the minimization of its harmful effects. As an addiction medicine specialist with many years of experience and study, I am concerned that these potentially harmful effects, especially in vulnerable populations, have not been adequately brought to the public's attention.
The Maine Medical Marijuana Act was drafted to increase the access to medical marijuana for patients suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions. It does not address the potential harm that marijuana, as with any other psychoactive substance, can cause.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of early exposure to cannabis.
We know that adolescent brains have different biological responses than adults do to exposure to all drugs of abuse, including marijuana. These include a significantly greater risk of lifelong dependence and changes in cognition and motivation that affect learning and behavior. Teen cannabis use also greatly increases the risk of major mental illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
The rates of teen abuse of cannabis are directly correlated to teens' perception of its harm. The perception of harm is decreased by the promotion of marijuana as a benign herb with pro-health medicinal properties and by its use by trusted parents and other care-givers.
Rates of use are also correlated with drug access. Both direct and passive diversion of medical marijuana will increase access. We should also be very concerned about passive breathing of cannabis fumes by children and teens.
Because of the risk of harm to the fetus, it is unethical to test medications on pregnant women. Receptors for cannabis are found throughout the brain, and we have yet to understand all of their functions.
Smoking cannabis during pregnancy carries unknown risks to the fetus. The act is silent about the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women. Protection of the developing baby's brain demands caution. Pregnant women should be advised to stop medical marijuana.
Addiction is characterized by an intense compulsion to use a drug with a decreased ability to resist the urge to use, despite escalating negative consequences. The drug use is pursued at the expense of naturally rewarding behaviors needed for health.
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people who drink don't develop drinking problems, and the same may be true with marijuana. However, no alcoholic would remain sober if they were prescribed alcohol as a medicine. The same can be said for medical marijuana. And what is the risk of relapse for patients in stable recovery from other addictions who use medical marijuana? How would a recovering patient be counseled about the risk of relapse if treated with medical marijuana?
The act does not require that addiction screening be part of the initial assessment by the qualifying physician. Would active addiction to cannabis or other drugs be exclusions for medical marijuana?
Regarding impairment: Are we prepared for an increase in drivers using medical marijuana? Alcohol and cannabis together increase each others' impairment of judgment, reaction time and coordination. Should medical marijuana patients be advised not to smoke before driving?
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the act is silent on the use of medical marijuana in safety-sensitive professions, including emergency and medical personnel.
Let's understand that all medications produce risks as well as benefits. The risks of medical marijuana have not been adequately considered. These include potential harm to children, adolescents and pregnant women, the real risk of addiction, impaired driving and impaired emergency and medical professionals.
Patients and qualifying physicians must assume their responsibility to protect others, and new legislation will be needed to deal with the issue of the safety-sensitive professionals.
Mercy is a religious organization, as you well know. Nice try. :lulz:
Actually, no. Pretty pathetic try.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 10:55:56 AM
And I've said numerous times now that that I'm not defending the atropine additive. I'm simply explaining what was likely the thinking behind it (as I don't work for the pharmaceutical companies that first added it).
Really? That's the first time I heard you explicitly say that, because for the rest you really sound like you're defending it.
You might have started with that statement, and have saved yourself some trouble.
And when you're trying to explain the thinking of some other entity such as Big Pharma, it
really helps if you prefix it "While I
disagree with the additive, I think their reasoning must have been ..." because if you don't, it really sounds like you're defending them.
I really get the feeling that you're just very reluctant to explicitly admit you disagree with any sort of measure that might be considered drug abuse prevention, no matter if the cure is worse than the disease. Even now you were cushioning it in "I'm not defending" instead of flat out saying you disagree.
Do you disagree with the addition of atropine to these medications, RWHN?
Because if not, people are going to ask you why, and when you explain, you will be defending the addition, like you said you wouldn't.
But if you
do disagree with the addition of atropine to those medications, then a large part of this rather heated discussion would probably not have been necessary.
So which is it?
I'm not trying to "get you" with this, okay? But I'm watching from the sidelines, and I'm just trying to clear up some fog or something, the above confusion is a big reason why people ITT won't let it go.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on November 06, 2011, 02:27:18 AM
Can't you get high from atropine too?
yes, if you are exceptionally stupid.
You can even get high on it again if you have really weird taste in highs.
Quote
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Bolded section is blatantly false and is a common tactic used in anti-legalization arguements. Marijuana, unlike opiates, is not physically addictive, there is no physical dependency. There certainly is a psychological dependency, but as has been shown this is chemically more similar to addiction to gambling or World of Warcraft than it is to opiate addiction.
That doesn't mean it isn't a dangerous and damaging addiction, but equating it to the physical dependency that typifies opiate addiction is false, and can be dangerous, after all, there is no compelling reason for someone coming off weed not to go cold turkey, there are no dangerous withdrawal symptoms, for someone coming off an opiate addiction there are and going cold turkey can potentially kill the addict.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 03:04:11 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:09:56 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 12:03:30 AM
I'm guessing there's some personal history that's turned him into a TRUE BELIEVER. Crackhead stabbed his grandma, bus driver got him stoned and touched his wee-wee, high school girlfriend dumped him for a pot dealer....something.
I know that sounds like I'm just trying to get personal, but I honestly can't think of any other logical explanation for someone who otherwise seems to be mostly rational and non-evil to have so completely internalized such a disgustingly regressive and calvinist way of thinking about a group of people with a disease. I'm actually hoping that I'm right because the alternative is pretty shitty.
Except that what you think is my "way of thinking" about a group of people with a disease is completely wrong. You are assuming, incorrectly, that I am cheering drug abusers being poisoned by abusing prescription drugs. I'm not. I've been very clear. All I'm doing is pushing back against the assertion that this was a concerted effort by the government to punish drug abusers. None of you have been able to provide any evidence of this yet. There have been a lot of belief statements, but no evidence.
Indeed I understand fully the disease that is substance abuse. It's why I do what I do. To prevent more kids from becoming addicted to prescription drugs and other substances. But I also fully support and work side by side with the provider community who help treat those who are addicted. Drug abusers are good people who fell into a destructive path. Our societies should do whatever is possible to help them get back on a healthy path.
Yep. And denying them any financial aid for the rest of their lives, putting poison in prescription drugs, and fining and/or incarcerating them for non-violent offenses seems like an excellent way to go about that, doesn't it?
Mind you, those are all things you've expressed approval for.
Three strikes, you're out!
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 06, 2011, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:34:41 AM
Just to change things up a bit I want to share this Op-Ed from Dr. Mark Publicker concerning Medical Marijuana:
Quote"It is wrong to claim for it a harmlessness which belongs to no active remedy yet discovered."
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Mark Publicker is an addiction medicine specialist at the Mercy Recovery Center in Westbrook. He is also president of the Northern New England Society of Addiction Medicine.
– Physician, 1870
WESTBROOK - All medications carry risks as well as benefits. This truism applies to medical marijuana as well.
The unique manner in which the state has legalized its medical use, through voting consensus rather than evidence-based evaluation, has resulted in the minimization of its harmful effects. As an addiction medicine specialist with many years of experience and study, I am concerned that these potentially harmful effects, especially in vulnerable populations, have not been adequately brought to the public's attention.
The Maine Medical Marijuana Act was drafted to increase the access to medical marijuana for patients suffering from chronic, debilitating conditions. It does not address the potential harm that marijuana, as with any other psychoactive substance, can cause.
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of early exposure to cannabis.
We know that adolescent brains have different biological responses than adults do to exposure to all drugs of abuse, including marijuana. These include a significantly greater risk of lifelong dependence and changes in cognition and motivation that affect learning and behavior. Teen cannabis use also greatly increases the risk of major mental illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders and psychosis.
The rates of teen abuse of cannabis are directly correlated to teens' perception of its harm. The perception of harm is decreased by the promotion of marijuana as a benign herb with pro-health medicinal properties and by its use by trusted parents and other care-givers.
Rates of use are also correlated with drug access. Both direct and passive diversion of medical marijuana will increase access. We should also be very concerned about passive breathing of cannabis fumes by children and teens.
Because of the risk of harm to the fetus, it is unethical to test medications on pregnant women. Receptors for cannabis are found throughout the brain, and we have yet to understand all of their functions.
Smoking cannabis during pregnancy carries unknown risks to the fetus. The act is silent about the use of medical marijuana by pregnant women. Protection of the developing baby's brain demands caution. Pregnant women should be advised to stop medical marijuana.
Addiction is characterized by an intense compulsion to use a drug with a decreased ability to resist the urge to use, despite escalating negative consequences. The drug use is pursued at the expense of naturally rewarding behaviors needed for health.
Cannabis addiction is real. Just as pain patients prescribed opioids may develop an addiction to their medication, medical marijuana patients may as well. It is important to remember that cannabis is a drug of abuse and addiction. I have many patients in good recovery from alcohol or opiate addiction who are unable to stop marijuana and who experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people who drink don't develop drinking problems, and the same may be true with marijuana. However, no alcoholic would remain sober if they were prescribed alcohol as a medicine. The same can be said for medical marijuana. And what is the risk of relapse for patients in stable recovery from other addictions who use medical marijuana? How would a recovering patient be counseled about the risk of relapse if treated with medical marijuana?
The act does not require that addiction screening be part of the initial assessment by the qualifying physician. Would active addiction to cannabis or other drugs be exclusions for medical marijuana?
Regarding impairment: Are we prepared for an increase in drivers using medical marijuana? Alcohol and cannabis together increase each others' impairment of judgment, reaction time and coordination. Should medical marijuana patients be advised not to smoke before driving?
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the act is silent on the use of medical marijuana in safety-sensitive professions, including emergency and medical personnel.
Let's understand that all medications produce risks as well as benefits. The risks of medical marijuana have not been adequately considered. These include potential harm to children, adolescents and pregnant women, the real risk of addiction, impaired driving and impaired emergency and medical professionals.
Patients and qualifying physicians must assume their responsibility to protect others, and new legislation will be needed to deal with the issue of the safety-sensitive professionals.
Mercy is a religious organization, as you well know. Nice try. :lulz:
Actually, no. Pretty pathetic try.
LOL, the New England Society of Addiction Medicine isn't. And the religious organization you are referring to is a hospital, bound my the same medical ethics as any other hospital. You are insulting everyone's intelligence here.
No, you're insulting everyone's intelligence with a stunning combination of weaseling, backpedaling, doublespeak, and presentation of an "op-ed" piece from a religious organization and an organization (NESAM) with a well-known virulently anti-marijuana agenda as something that has any legitimacy whatsoever. And the fact that Mercy Hospital is bound by an code of ethics certainly has absolutely NO bearing on their endorsement of an completely unscientific opinion.
I mean, really? :lulz:
Has it not occurred to you that the fact that everybody else ITT is apparently misinterpreting and/or mischaracterizing your position might be a sign that you're incapable of presenting your side of the argument in a rational, logical, intelligent manner?
Nah, it can't be you. It must be everyone else.
So far we have checked off:
You're all doing exactly what I expected!
and
It's not me, it's everyone else!
Anyone else see one I missed?
Seriously, RWHN, I hope to fuck you're just trolling. The alternative does not speak well of your character.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 06, 2011, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 10:55:56 AM
And I've said numerous times now that that I'm not defending the atropine additive. I'm simply explaining what was likely the thinking behind it (as I don't work for the pharmaceutical companies that first added it).
Really? That's the first time I heard you explicitly say that, because for the rest you really sound like you're defending it.
Law of Fives. People are reading what they want to read. I've been very consistent and prefacing that I am explaining what I believe was the likely rationale. Do I defend purposefully trying to poison drug abusers? Of course not. But no one has proved that this was a deliberate and concerted attempt by pharma and the government to poison and harm drug abusers, as opposed to detering addiction in regular users of the medicines.
IT'S NOT ME IT'S ALL OF YOU.
I'll jump in and lend a hand with parsing out this argument.
RWHN, do you agree with the practice of placing toxic substances into medications as a measure to prevent people from abusing them?
Acceptable answers are "Yes, I agree." or "No, I don't agree". Anything else does not answer the question.
The line between "explaining the justifying rationale of" and "defending" seems to be pretty moot if you don't actually disagree with the justifying rationale that you're explaining.
I also want to point out that I'm sure the doctors who routinely sterilized women of color in the middle of the last century at the bidding of government policy, and the writers of that policy themselves, weren't being malicious, but had a justifying rationale of their actions as being for the good of the American public and the women themselves.
WE HAD TO DO THE TUSKEEGEE EXPERIMENTS FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE!
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 06, 2011, 11:31:09 PM
I'll jump in and lend a hand with parsing out this argument.
RWHN, do you agree with the practice of placing toxic substances into medications as a measure to prevent people from abusing them?
Acceptable answers are "Yes, I agree." or "No, I don't agree". Anything else does not answer the question.
And deprive ECH and Nigel of their fun? I wouldn't hear of it!
RWHN,
A charitable soul.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 12:56:35 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 06, 2011, 11:31:09 PM
I'll jump in and lend a hand with parsing out this argument.
RWHN, do you agree with the practice of placing toxic substances into medications as a measure to prevent people from abusing them?
Acceptable answers are "Yes, I agree." or "No, I don't agree". Anything else does not answer the question.
And deprive ECH and Nigel of their fun? I wouldn't hear of it!
RWHN,
A charitable soul.
So rather than try to alleviate what you continue to state is a misunderstanding you're going to let it go on and dodge a direct question, twice, no less. What possible reason is there NOT to answer the question, that both Trip and I asked, when neither of us have a dog in this fight?
We're not the ones trolling here, rev.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 07, 2011, 01:00:12 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 12:56:35 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 06, 2011, 11:31:09 PM
I'll jump in and lend a hand with parsing out this argument.
RWHN, do you agree with the practice of placing toxic substances into medications as a measure to prevent people from abusing them?
Acceptable answers are "Yes, I agree." or "No, I don't agree". Anything else does not answer the question.
And deprive ECH and Nigel of their fun? I wouldn't hear of it!
RWHN,
A charitable soul.
So rather than try to alleviate what you continue to state is a misunderstanding you're going to let it go on and dodge a direct question, twice, no less. What possible reason is there NOT to answer the question, that both Trip and I asked, when neither of us have a dog in this fight?
I've answered the question already. It's just a few posts above.
Now let me ask you, do you support increasing the number of kids abusing marijuana so that adults are allowed to legally smoke up on their couch?
I mean, if we're just going to engage in hyperbole and loaded questions I get to play too, right?
I mean, really, any serious discussion on this topic ended pages ago save for Rat and Net. So I might as well just play along with the little game being played here, right? I don't want to disrupt the little circle jerk that Nigel and ECH have going on.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:10:17 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 07, 2011, 01:00:12 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 12:56:35 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 06, 2011, 11:31:09 PM
I'll jump in and lend a hand with parsing out this argument.
RWHN, do you agree with the practice of placing toxic substances into medications as a measure to prevent people from abusing them?
Acceptable answers are "Yes, I agree." or "No, I don't agree". Anything else does not answer the question.
And deprive ECH and Nigel of their fun? I wouldn't hear of it!
RWHN,
A charitable soul.
So rather than try to alleviate what you continue to state is a misunderstanding you're going to let it go on and dodge a direct question, twice, no less. What possible reason is there NOT to answer the question, that both Trip and I asked, when neither of us have a dog in this fight?
I've answered the question already. It's just a few posts above.
Now let me ask you, do you support increasing the number of kids abusing marijuana so that adults are allowed to legally smoke up on their couch?
I mean, if we're just going to engage in hyperbole and loaded questions I get to play too, right?
Yes, but that's a completely different topic.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:10:17 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 07, 2011, 01:00:12 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 12:56:35 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 06, 2011, 11:31:09 PM
I'll jump in and lend a hand with parsing out this argument.
RWHN, do you agree with the practice of placing toxic substances into medications as a measure to prevent people from abusing them?
Acceptable answers are "Yes, I agree." or "No, I don't agree". Anything else does not answer the question.
And deprive ECH and Nigel of their fun? I wouldn't hear of it!
RWHN,
A charitable soul.
So rather than try to alleviate what you continue to state is a misunderstanding you're going to let it go on and dodge a direct question, twice, no less. What possible reason is there NOT to answer the question, that both Trip and I asked, when neither of us have a dog in this fight?
I've answered the question already. It's just a few posts above.
Now let me ask you, do you support increasing the number of kids abusing marijuana so that adults are allowed to legally smoke up on their couch?
I mean, if we're just going to engage in hyperbole and loaded questions I get to play too, right?
Well, let's see. I assume this is the post you're refering to:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 06, 2011, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 10:55:56 AM
And I've said numerous times now that that I'm not defending the atropine additive. I'm simply explaining what was likely the thinking behind it (as I don't work for the pharmaceutical companies that first added it).
Really? That's the first time I heard you explicitly say that, because for the rest you really sound like you're defending it.
Law of Fives. People are reading what they want to read. I've been very consistent and prefacing that I am explaining what I believe was the likely rationale. Do I defend purposefully trying to poison drug abusers? Of course not. But no one has proved that this was a deliberate and concerted attempt by pharma and the government to poison and harm drug abusers, as opposed to detering addiction in regular users of the medicines.
To further narrow it down further:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:15:30 PM
Do I defend purposefully trying to poison drug abusers? Of course not.
That is, unfortunately, not a straight answer to the question posed. It is a semantically similar question, but the actual wording does not explicit lyclarify your position. Giving a clear, concise statement to the effect of "I do not agree with this statement" is the only way to convince people that you aren't dicking around with words, here.
To address the rest of your post, i don't give a fuck about marijuana on way or the other. I only posted ITT in order to help you by giving you a non-hostile way of expressing whether or not you agree explicitly. If you don't agree, hen why are you so reluctant to just say that fucking phrase? Why is it a "loaded question"? Because I'm not seeing it, dude.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 06, 2011, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 06, 2011, 10:55:56 AM
And I've said numerous times now that that I'm not defending the atropine additive. I'm simply explaining what was likely the thinking behind it (as I don't work for the pharmaceutical companies that first added it).
Really? That's the first time I heard you explicitly say that, because for the rest you really sound like you're defending it.
Law of Fives. People are reading what they want to read. I've been very consistent and prefacing that I am explaining what I believe was the likely rationale. Do I defend purposefully trying to poison drug abusers? Of course not. But no one has proved that this was a deliberate and concerted attempt by pharma and the government to poison and harm drug abusers, as opposed to detering addiction in regular users of the medicines.
If it wasn't, why don't they tell people? I had Codiene last year for a cough, and nobody said SHIT about their being atropine in the fucking stuff. Yeah, the information is on the internet, but who the fuck has time to check all that shit? My doctor said nothing. The pharmacist said nothing. The bottle didn't mention it.
What good is a secret deterrent?
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
So the burden of making sure there are no poisons that have been added to medication is upon the layperson being treated?
More comments on the Doctor's concerns about medical Marijuana:
As I said before, if the feds treated pot like any other drug, we'd have a lot of answers to his questions... however, here are some studies that address his concerns:
Driving under the influence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/ (Upshot, pot smokers drive more slowly and that appears to compensate for effects)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360 (Upshot, alcohol made people drive faster, pot made them drive slower)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm (Compared to other medical drugs like Valium and alcohol, pot smoking effects appear to be minimal)
I'm not arguing that pot smoking and driving is a good idea... only that even with the current federal bans on marijuana studies, there are answers to the Doctors question on the subject.
On pregnancy:
http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/use-of-marijuana-during-pregnancy (Summary of several studies, studies listed at the end of the article... Upshot, no major effects)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/1/79.abstract (Studies of infant mortality rates, Upshot, pot babies mortality rates were lower than cocaine babies, opiate babies and ironically lower than the control babies... probably a fluke)
I'm not arguing that mothers should smoke pot, only that the Doctor's concern has been studied, even in the current political situation.
On physical effects:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/314/2/780.abstract (An odd study that indicates THC may actually reduce the brain damage associated with alcohol)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html (No evidence of cancer linked to pot smoking)
There are other studies... ones that show marijuana may actually work as an 'exit' drug rather than a gateway drug:
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/6/1/35
Pot may actually not have the deleterious effect on work that is often assumed:
http://csp.org/chrestomathy/ganja_in.html
Etc etc etc...
Do I believe all of these studies are objective fact? No. They're studies... they're some data that may or may not be accurate. However, if our Doctor friend had bothered to do some research, perhaps some of his concerns could have been mollified.
And, as far as I know, there's no cases of atropine in pot. Pot tends to have its own limiting factor for accidental overdose, you get tired and take a nap.
http://csp.org/chrestomathy/ganja_in.html
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
What's that got to do with atropine in codeine? Was your wife prescribed codeine? If so, dod the doctor specifically tell her that there was atropine in it? Neither I nor anyone I know who has ever been prescribed codeine has ever been told there was atropine in it. Are you saying that most doctors are just "shitty doctors"? And how does that do anything to justify adulterating a widely prescribed painkiller with a much deadlier drug?
I think if you had it in you to give a straight answer to any of the questions you've been asked ITT you'd have seen this thread take on a whole different tone.
But that was never your intent, was it? Other people are still giving you the benefit of the doubt. Myself and (presumably, since I can't speak for her) Nigel are engaging in this "circle jerk" (as you so eloquently put it) because we're pretty sure that you're just a doublespeaking shill who never had any intention of engaging in an honest discussion and lacks the intellectual capacity and moral fiber to do so in the first place. I mean, other than the occasional bad pun this sort of shit is all you ever bring to the table here. Why should you be treated any differently than any other mediocre one-note troll?
Quote from: Donald Coyote on November 07, 2011, 04:55:47 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
So the burden of making sure there are no poisons that have been added to medication is upon the layperson being treated?
Pretty much every goddamned prescription medicine you take is going to be poisonous when taken in doses exceeding the doctor's recommendations. Even when you take them with doctor's recommendations, they can be poisonous. I mean Jesus people, what do you think side effects are? They are a physiological reaction to the medicine.
But yeah, where atropine is poisonous, even in theraputic amounts, pharma should be looking to develop safer alternatives and forumulations. I've said this already, that there is likely a better way to get the effects sought by adding atropine. Now, of course that is going to mean taking all of those drugs mixed with atropine off the market while science helps develop a new drug. You guys realize that's going to take a little bit of time right?
Well, I suppose we could let voters short circuit the scientific method again like they have done with medical marijuana, but that's besides the point.
So now, for those folks who were taking these drugs in theraputic amounts, not being poisoned by atropine, what are you going to tell them? Have any of you considered that point? I'm guessing no since none of you have bothered to bring it up.
I would also like to ask all of you, how many passionate e-mails have you written to your Congrescritters since we started this discussion, demanding that they take these drugs off the market until safer alternatives can be developed? How many have you written ECH? HOw many have you written NIgel?
I mean, if you guys really give a shit about this stuff, you're going to do something about it right?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 10:20:15 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
What's that got to do with atropine in codeine? Was your wife prescribed codeine? If so, dod the doctor specifically tell her that there was atropine in it? Neither I nor anyone I know who has ever been prescribed codeine has ever been told there was atropine in it. Are you saying that most doctors are just "shitty doctors"? And how does that do anything to justify adulterating a widely prescribed painkiller with a much deadlier drug?
I think if you had it in you to give a straight answer to any of the questions you've been asked ITT you'd have seen this thread take on a whole different tone.
But that was never your intent, was it? Other people are still giving you the benefit of the doubt. Myself and (presumably, since I can't speak for her) Nigel are engaging in this "circle jerk" (as you so eloquently put it) because we're pretty sure that you're just a doublespeaking shill who never had any intention of engaging in an honest discussion and lacks the intellectual capacity and moral fiber to do so in the first place. I mean, other than the occasional bad pun this sort of shit is all you ever bring to the table here. Why should you be treated any differently than any other mediocre one-note troll?
No, I have no intent to have a serious conversation on this topic with you or Nigel because you guys aren't capable of having a serious discussion. I mean, your dopey comment about Mercy is a good example. You don't have the intellectual temerity to actually take on the arguments so you look for some stupid, superficial escape hatch so you don't have to engage in that heavy lifting. It's a goddamned hospitale, the recovery center is a goddamned treatment center like any other treatment center.
When they treat people they don't walk up to their bed and just stand there and pray. They follow the same procedures any other treatment center would. I mean Jesus, you must be a little smarter than that, right? Who's trolling who here.
I mean Jesus dude, that was the same argument the fucking Tea Baggers were making about that cultural center in NYC near Ground Zero. That because it had a room for prayer that the whole goddamned building was a gigantic Mosque. I know you are better than that.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on October 07, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
*whistling*
doo-be-doo-be-doo. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)
*walks away*
hehe -
doobie
Quote from: rong on November 07, 2011, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on October 07, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
*whistling*
doo-be-doo-be-doo. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44806723/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)
*walks away*
hehe -doobie
;)
Alright, so I've been thinking, we should form a little task force here.
I mean, clearly, pharmaceutical companies are still adding atropine to different medications. We should get to the bottom of why this is happening.
So, what I will do is some research and get the contact information for the different companies that make the different medications containing atropine. Task force members will then contact these companies to get a rationale for why atropine is a component and what kind of research they have on it as far as impacts on patients. We will then also ask if they've considered or are researching alternatives to atropine.
So, I know we have a good group of passionate people here so I'm just going to assume you are all onboard. So you each will be getting an assignment later today. Keep an eye out!
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 11:52:49 AM
Alright, so I've been thinking, we should form a little task force here.
I mean, clearly, pharmaceutical companies are still adding atropine to different medications. We should get to the bottom of why this is happening.
So, what I will do is some research and get the contact information for the different companies that make the different medications containing atropine. Task force members will then contact these companies to get a rationale for why atropine is a component and what kind of research they have on it as far as impacts on patients. We will then also ask if they've considered or are researching alternatives to atropine.
So, I know we have a good group of passionate people here so I'm just going to assume you are all onboard. So you each will be getting an assignment later today. Keep an eye out!
I like that idea!
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 10:20:15 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
What's that got to do with atropine in codeine? Was your wife prescribed codeine? If so, dod the doctor specifically tell her that there was atropine in it? Neither I nor anyone I know who has ever been prescribed codeine has ever been told there was atropine in it. Are you saying that most doctors are just "shitty doctors"? And how does that do anything to justify adulterating a widely prescribed painkiller with a much deadlier drug?
I think if you had it in you to give a straight answer to any of the questions you've been asked ITT you'd have seen this thread take on a whole different tone.
But that was never your intent, was it? Other people are still giving you the benefit of the doubt. Myself and (presumably, since I can't speak for her) Nigel are engaging in this "circle jerk" (as you so eloquently put it) because we're pretty sure that you're just a doublespeaking shill who never had any intention of engaging in an honest discussion and lacks the intellectual capacity and moral fiber to do so in the first place. I mean, other than the occasional bad pun this sort of shit is all you ever bring to the table here. Why should you be treated any differently than any other mediocre one-note troll?
No, I have no intent to have a serious conversation on this topic with you or Nigel because you guys aren't capable of having a serious discussion. I mean, your dopey comment about Mercy is a good example. You don't have the intellectual temerity to actually take on the arguments so you look for some stupid, superficial escape hatch so you don't have to engage in that heavy lifting. It's a goddamned hospitale, the recovery center is a goddamned treatment center like any other treatment center.
When they treat people they don't walk up to their bed and just stand there and pray. They follow the same procedures any other treatment center would. I mean Jesus, you must be a little smarter than that, right? Who's trolling who here.
:lulz:
that's pretty funny coming from the guy who has yet to give even one straight answer to any question asked of him in this or any other thread on the subject.
And you can try peddling that bullshit line about Mercy on someone whose mother-in-law doesn't work there. I know better. Yes, their hospital acts as secular as Maine Med. But in every other aspect, especially when it comes to endorsements and the like, they are and always have been driven by a religious-based agenda.
Personally, I refuse to take opiate-based painkillers. I don't like how they make me feel and would rather suck it up and put up with the pain. Not to mention that since I don't have insurance and only recently clawed my way out of the underclass, the only way I could usually afford to pay the bill for the doctor visit and prescription was to sell the painkillers on the black market. Combine that with teh fact that, y'know,
I was never once told that atropine was added to codeine by a doctor or nurse and I have never written a congresscritter about it. That said, if you actually put your money where your mouth is for once I'd be happy to join in your little campaign.
But I won't hold my breath.
Alrighty then, let's look at some pharmaceuticals containing Atropine.
Here's one: an injection of Atropine Sulphate. Here is the PIL that a patient receives when they get a prescription:
http://www.medicines.org.uk/EMC/pdfviewer.aspx?isAttachment=true&documentid=24348
So, who would like to contact Antigen Pharmaceuticals? Unfortunately it looks like their website is a bit fucked up, and they are located in the UK, but I know we have some super sleuths here that could easily track down a phone number of e-mail address. Who's up for it?
Okay ECH, how about you get in on this one. Pfizer manufactures Lomotil which is a combination of diphenoxylate/atropine, with the atropine being there to deter over-dosage. You can find their contact info here: http://www.pfizer.com/contact/ Please report back to us with your findings.
Here is the PIL for Lomotil: http://www.medicines.org.uk/EMC/pdfviewer.aspx?isAttachment=true&documentid=23691
TGRR, I'm having some difficulty locating a specific prescription drug containing codeine and atropine. Maybe it's been taken off the market. Do you remember the specific brand name of the drug you were prescribed?
Maybe we should start with the medicines containing atropine that don't have "atropine" in the name?
Like codeine?
Just a thought.
ETA: looks like you beat me to it.
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:26:15 PM
Maybe we should start with the medicines containing atropine that don't have "atropine" in the name?
Like codeine?
Just a thought.
ETA: looks like you beat me to it.
Uhh, Lomotil doesn't have atropine anywhere in its name. I'm not sure what you are talking about. And the atropine is there to deter addiction and over-dosage. Isn't that what we've been talking about this entire time? Why not start with a known while we look for the unknown?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
But atropine is a poison, right? I mean, if it's a poison, it shouldn't be in drugs at all, right?
Ahh, here we go:
Belladonna and Opium Suppositories.
This fits all of the criteria:
It is for pain relief
It doesn't have atropine in the name
AND it contains atropine.
It is manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst which is now a part of Pfizer, and I posted a link earlier to get their contact information.
Have at it and let us know what you discover!
The name of the medicine (as opposed to Lomotil which is the trade name) contains the words "atropine sulphate". Regardless, I sent them an inquiry. Their website is pretty borked and I can't say I appreciated having to give them my telephone number. And they make it pretty clear that I shouldn't expect an actual reply to my inquiry, but if I don't get a reply in a week or so I'll try sending them an actual physical letter.
Are you telling me that "Belladonna and Opium Suppositories" is the trade name of the medicine in question?
http://www.ic-network.com/glossary/glossarypain.html#Bell
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
But atropine is a poison, right? I mean, if it's a poison, it shouldn't be in drugs at all, right?
DERP.
As you undoubtedly know, atropine is considered a core drug by the WHO. It is incredibly useful in certain contexts and for certain conditions. Painkillers/pain management is not one of those contexts. I don't think anyone ITT said that atropine had no medical value, only that it had no business being added to painkillers.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:46:32 PM
http://www.ic-network.com/glossary/glossarypain.html#Bell
Patient monograph information link on their site is no longer on their site. :lulz:
ETA: nor is the link on the Pfizer site available. Now I'm pretty sure you're just fucking with me.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
But atropine is a poison, right? I mean, if it's a poison, it shouldn't be in drugs at all, right?
DERP.
As you undoubtedly know, atropine is considered a core drug by the WHO. It is incredibly useful in certain contexts and for certain conditions. Painkillers/pain management is not one of those contexts. I don't think anyone ITT said that atropine had no medical value, only that it had no business being added to painkillers.
No, it was very clearly labeled a "poison" by a couple of different posters in this thread. I've been constantly drilled on this question of whether or not I agree with "adding a poison"....The "poison" in question being atropine. And in one of the recent examples I just posted, Lomotil, it is specifically there to inhibit addiction. You guys have been putting this forward to me as a very black and white question.
But as you now point out, atropine indeed isn't always a poison and does have some benefits when added to medicines, including a benefit, in the case of Lomotil, of inhibiting over-dosage and addiction.
This is precisely why I haven't answered the question the way you guys wanted me to answer the question because the premise was faulty as you've just demonstrated.
I provided a fucking link, RWHN. As I expected, you didn't even look at it.
Fuck this shit.
A search of the entire Pfizer site returns no hits for any medicines called "belladonna & opium suppositories" or for "B & O Suprettes" (which is supposedly the trade name) or indeed for any medicines at all containing the words "belladonna" or "suprettes".
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
But atropine is a poison, right? I mean, if it's a poison, it shouldn't be in drugs at all, right?
DERP.
As you undoubtedly know, atropine is considered a core drug by the WHO. It is incredibly useful in certain contexts and for certain conditions. Painkillers/pain management is not one of those contexts. I don't think anyone ITT said that atropine had no medical value, only that it had no business being added to painkillers.
No, it was very clearly labeled a "poison" by a couple of different posters in this thread. I've been constantly drilled on this question of whether or not I agree with "adding a poison"....The "poison" in question being atropine. And in one of the recent examples I just posted, Lomotil, it is specifically there to inhibit addiction. You guys have been putting this forward to me as a very black and white question.
But as you now point out, atropine indeed isn't always a poison and does have some benefits when added to medicines, including a benefit, in the case of Lomotil, of inhibiting over-dosage and addiction.
This is precisely why I haven't answered the question the way you guys wanted me to answer the question because the premise was faulty as you've just demonstrated.
Are you high?
There is no mention at all of it being added to lomotil to prevent abuse or addiction, which makes sense since people don't tend to get high on anti-diarrheal drugs. It's added to lomotil for its anti-secretion properties.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:46:32 PM
http://www.ic-network.com/glossary/glossarypain.html#Bell
Patient monograph information link on their site is no longer on their site. :lulz:
ETA: nor is the link on the Pfizer site available. Now I'm pretty sure you're just fucking with me.
It is also manufactured by Paddock Labs: http://www.paddocklabs.com/
Do a search for belladonna and see what comes up. The page seems to be borked but you can see the listing.
Or do you think that I somehow used some magickal HTML ju-jitsu to conjure that up?
You really don't know very much at all about a subject that's critically important to the field you supposedly work in. Until you tell me where you got your degree and what degree you got, I'm calling bullshit.
Especially since, IIRC, you mentioned once a few years ago that you went to school for urban planning.
:troll:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:55:24 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
But atropine is a poison, right? I mean, if it's a poison, it shouldn't be in drugs at all, right?
DERP.
As you undoubtedly know, atropine is considered a core drug by the WHO. It is incredibly useful in certain contexts and for certain conditions. Painkillers/pain management is not one of those contexts. I don't think anyone ITT said that atropine had no medical value, only that it had no business being added to painkillers.
No, it was very clearly labeled a "poison" by a couple of different posters in this thread. I've been constantly drilled on this question of whether or not I agree with "adding a poison"....The "poison" in question being atropine. And in one of the recent examples I just posted, Lomotil, it is specifically there to inhibit addiction. You guys have been putting this forward to me as a very black and white question.
But as you now point out, atropine indeed isn't always a poison and does have some benefits when added to medicines, including a benefit, in the case of Lomotil, of inhibiting over-dosage and addiction.
This is precisely why I haven't answered the question the way you guys wanted me to answer the question because the premise was faulty as you've just demonstrated.
Are you high?
There is no mention at all of it being added to lomotil to prevent abuse or addiction, which makes sense since people don't tend to get high on anti-diarrheal drugs. It's added to lomotil for its anti-secretion properties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenoxylate
QuoteAs with other medicinal opioids, iatrogenic addiction is uncommon although physical dependence secondary to treatment of a functional bowel disorder with diphenoxylate for more than 45–90 days may very well occur; it typically requires the use of high doses to impart a morbid seek orientation for the drug in the user. Because of this, diphenoxylate is manufactured and marketed as a combination drug with atropine (Lomotil, Pfizer) as an abuse deterrent. Lomotil was used during the Apollo program, as was pethidine.[1][2]
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:56:09 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:48:50 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:46:32 PM
http://www.ic-network.com/glossary/glossarypain.html#Bell
Patient monograph information link on their site is no longer on their site. :lulz:
ETA: nor is the link on the Pfizer site available. Now I'm pretty sure you're just fucking with me.
It is also manufactured by Paddock Labs: http://www.paddocklabs.com/
Do a search for belladonna and see what comes up. The page seems to be borked but you can see the listing.
Or do you think that I somehow used some magickal HTML ju-jitsu to conjure that up?
All I can see is that they manufacture a product called "Belladonna & Opium Suppositories". Beyond that, the site is completely borked and provides no information at all about the product.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 01:52:39 PM
I provided a fucking link, RWHN. As I expected, you didn't even look at it.
Fuck this shit.
Well, the thread is kind of long and believe it or not I don't remember every single post made. I will go looking for your link and find the contact info for the company that makes it. Will you send them a letter when I do?
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:30:21 PM
:lulz:
Good job finding the one context in which atropine actually has a synergistic effect with the medicine (atropine apparently acts as an anti-secretion agent which makes it useful in anti-diarrhea medicine).
but how about painkillers? I don't think anyone is trying to abuse anti-diarrhea drugs to get high.
But atropine is a poison, right? I mean, if it's a poison, it shouldn't be in drugs at all, right?
:facepalm:
Christ, what an asshole.
I think it's pretty clear that this thread and any other thread you start is a complete waste of time for everyone else.
Congratulations on successfully trolling PD.com.
I'll bother to post any reply I may get from Pfizer anyway, just for shits and giggles. Otherwise, until you feel like asserting your education credentials in the field and/or dropping the weasely doublespeak and giving a straight answer to a question posed to you, I don't see any reason to continue to treat this as a serious thread.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:55:24 PM
Are you high?
There is no mention at all of it being added to lomotil to prevent abuse or addiction, which makes sense since people don't tend to get high on anti-diarrheal drugs. It's added to lomotil for its anti-secretion properties.
QuoteAs with other medicinal opioids, iatrogenic addiction is uncommon although physical dependence secondary to treatment of a functional bowel disorder with diphenoxylate for more than 45–90 days may very well occur; it typically requires the use of high doses to impart a morbid seek orientation for the drug in the user. Because of this, diphenoxylate is manufactured and marketed as a combination drug with atropine (Lomotil, Pfizer) as an abuse deterrent. Lomotil was used during the Apollo program, as was pethidine.[1][2]
:lulz:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:01:02 PM
Well, the thread is kind of long and believe it or not I don't remember every single post made.
Or read it, or answer it, or have a normal fucking discussion like an adult with a working moral compass without making it into a pissing match that you just HAVE to win because there's people out to "get you", even if it means trying to change the subject, avoiding perfectly normal questions and linking us to sites about diarrhea.
You know the only reason why you have been able to WASTE SO MUCH OF EVERYBODY'S FUCKING TIME with this is that most people actually used to respect and assume your professional knowledge on these matters, right? Well, before this thread, anyway.
Fuck
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:18:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 05:06:27 PM
Oh please :lulz:
There's no "if" about it. The reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is to "prevent abuse".
No.
Codeine is mixed with acetaminophen for analgesic purposes.
The bastards mix it with fucking ATROPINE to "prevent abuse". ATROPINE.
QuoteOther drugs that are present in Schedule V narcotic preparations like the codeine syrups are ethylmorphine and dihydrocodeine. Paregoric and hydrocodone were transferred to Schedule III from Schedule V even if the preparation contains two or more other active ingredients, and diphenoxylate is usually covered by state prescription laws even though this relative of pethidine is a Schedule V substance when adulterated with atropine to prevent abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine
The fucking filth. This is fucking VILE. The government should not be allowed to have a fucking thing to do with drugs, beyond ensuring that the contents of the drug are as advertised, as with food, etc.
TGRR, this is the link you provided, but the reference you quoted is referring to when atropine is added to diphenoxylate to make Lomotil, which is not codeine. Is there a different link you were referring to that I'm missing?
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:01:02 PM
Well, the thread is kind of long and believe it or not I don't remember every single post made.
Or read it, or answer it, or have a normal fucking discussion like an adult with a working moral compass without making it into a pissing match that you just HAVE to win because there's people out to "get you", even if it means trying to change the subject, avoiding perfectly normal questions and linking us to sites about diarrhea.
You know the only reason why you have been able to WASTE SO MUCH OF EVERYBODY'S FUCKING TIME with this is that most people actually used to respect and assume your professional knowledge on these matters, right? Well, before this thread, anyway.
Fuck
I just did thanks! And you've always been a poster I've really enjoyed sharing company even though we have some strong disagreements in certain areas. you are an awesome punner and are obviously a very talented chap. Your comments are disappointing. I'm chalking it up to you not actually reading all of the posts that are being directed at me by all of the participants, and I'm sure you're a busy guy so I can't fault you for that. but there is clearly a distinct tact between posters like ECH and NIgel and posters like Rat and Net.
Yeah, I'm sinking to ECH and Nigel's level because it is what they want. I'm not going to disappoint them. But I will gladly have adult conversations with adults who want to act like adults.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:12:08 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:55:24 PM
Are you high?
There is no mention at all of it being added to lomotil to prevent abuse or addiction, which makes sense since people don't tend to get high on anti-diarrheal drugs. It's added to lomotil for its anti-secretion properties.
QuoteAs with other medicinal opioids, iatrogenic addiction is uncommon although physical dependence secondary to treatment of a functional bowel disorder with diphenoxylate for more than 45–90 days may very well occur; it typically requires the use of high doses to impart a morbid seek orientation for the drug in the user. Because of this, diphenoxylate is manufactured and marketed as a combination drug with atropine (Lomotil, Pfizer) as an abuse deterrent. Lomotil was used during the Apollo program, as was pethidine.[1][2]
:lulz:
In the PIL for Lomotil (you know, the thing they give patients to inform them about the drug they're taking) there is NO MENTION AT ALL of atropine sulphate being added to prevent abuse or addiction. Jesus fucking christ.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
Yeah, I'm sinking to ECH and Nigel's level because it is what they want. I'm not going to disappoint them. But I will gladly have adult conversations with adults who want to act like adults.
So would I. Unfortunately, you are hell-bent on excluding yourself from that category. What I want is to be able to engage in a good-faith debate/discussion with someone who values scientific facts and human-friendly morals over doublespeak, evasion, and word-twisting in order to advance some bizzarre "True Believer" agenda.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:12:08 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 01:55:24 PM
Are you high?
There is no mention at all of it being added to lomotil to prevent abuse or addiction, which makes sense since people don't tend to get high on anti-diarrheal drugs. It's added to lomotil for its anti-secretion properties.
QuoteAs with other medicinal opioids, iatrogenic addiction is uncommon although physical dependence secondary to treatment of a functional bowel disorder with diphenoxylate for more than 45–90 days may very well occur; it typically requires the use of high doses to impart a morbid seek orientation for the drug in the user. Because of this, diphenoxylate is manufactured and marketed as a combination drug with atropine (Lomotil, Pfizer) as an abuse deterrent. Lomotil was used during the Apollo program, as was pethidine.[1][2]
:lulz:
In the PIL for Lomotil (you know, the thing they give patients to inform them about the drug they're taking) there is NO MENTION AT ALL of atropine sulphate being added to prevent abuse or addiction. Jesus fucking christ.
:facepalm:
You're right, and it should be there. Did you mention that when you sent them an e-mail? I would suggest a follow up if you didn't.
I'll wait to see if they bother to reply to my first email, but if they do you can be sure I will mention it.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 11:02:44 AM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on November 07, 2011, 04:55:47 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:57:43 AM
Shitty doctor. When my wife was put on some medicine for her migraines, her neurologist was very thorough with us on the side effects of that particular medicine including that it was potentially additctive. Doctors are in a shitty spot where they need to adequately treat pain while also make sure patients are feeling like they are being seen. I advise anyone getting a medication to err on the side of asking lots of questions.
So the burden of making sure there are no poisons that have been added to medication is upon the layperson being treated?
Pretty much every goddamned prescription medicine you take is going to be poisonous when taken in doses exceeding the doctor's recommendations. Even when you take them with doctor's recommendations, they can be poisonous. I mean Jesus people, what do you think side effects are? They are a physiological reaction to the medicine.
But yeah, where atropine is poisonous, even in theraputic amounts, pharma should be looking to develop safer alternatives and forumulations. I've said this already, that there is likely a better way to get the effects sought by adding atropine. Now, of course that is going to mean taking all of those drugs mixed with atropine off the market while science helps develop a new drug. You guys realize that's going to take a little bit of time right?
Well, I suppose we could let voters short circuit the scientific method again like they have done with medical marijuana, but that's besides the point.
So now, for those folks who were taking these drugs in theraputic amounts, not being poisoned by atropine, what are you going to tell them? Have any of you considered that point? I'm guessing no since none of you have bothered to bring it up.
I would also like to ask all of you, how many passionate e-mails have you written to your Congrescritters since we started this discussion, demanding that they take these drugs off the market until safer alternatives can be developed? How many have you written ECH? HOw many have you written NIgel?
I mean, if you guys really give a shit about this stuff, you're going to do something about it right?
Safer alternatives already exist. Codeine without atropine is safer than codeine with atropine. They don't have to find a new poison to put in there to make people sick before they stop putting the atropine in.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 11:52:49 AM
Alright, so I've been thinking, we should form a little task force here.
I mean, clearly, pharmaceutical companies are still adding atropine to different medications. We should get to the bottom of why this is happening.
So, what I will do is some research and get the contact information for the different companies that make the different medications containing atropine. Task force members will then contact these companies to get a rationale for why atropine is a component and what kind of research they have on it as far as impacts on patients. We will then also ask if they've considered or are researching alternatives to atropine.
So, I know we have a good group of passionate people here so I'm just going to assume you are all onboard. So you each will be getting an assignment later today. Keep an eye out!
I am up for this. Give me some pharmaceutical companies names and I'll pester them till I get answers.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:28:05 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 07, 2011, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 02:01:02 PM
Well, the thread is kind of long and believe it or not I don't remember every single post made.
Or read it, or answer it, or have a normal fucking discussion like an adult with a working moral compass without making it into a pissing match that you just HAVE to win because there's people out to "get you", even if it means trying to change the subject, avoiding perfectly normal questions and linking us to sites about diarrhea.
You know the only reason why you have been able to WASTE SO MUCH OF EVERYBODY'S FUCKING TIME with this is that most people actually used to respect and assume your professional knowledge on these matters, right? Well, before this thread, anyway.
Fuck
I just did thanks! And you've always been a poster I've really enjoyed sharing company even though we have some strong disagreements in certain areas. you are an awesome punner and are obviously a very talented chap. Your comments are disappointing. I'm chalking it up to you not actually reading all of the posts that are being directed at me by all of the participants, and I'm sure you're a busy guy so I can't fault you for that. but there is clearly a distinct tact between posters like ECH and NIgel and posters like Rat and Net.
Yeah, I'm sinking to ECH and Nigel's level because it is what they want. I'm not going to disappoint them. But I will gladly have adult conversations with adults who want to act like adults.
Well, shit. Put me down for "not like an adult". I like the company.
TGRR,
Can do this.
Awww, and no one commented on all of those nice scientific references I found... I are sad.
I (and I suspect several others) have already read them, and of course they tell us nothing we don't already know or suspect. And of course, there's no way RWHN bothered to click any of those links let alone read the information contained therein with anything even remotely resembling an open mind.
but I applaud you for your patient efforts.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 07, 2011, 09:52:19 AM
More comments on the Doctor's concerns about medical Marijuana:
As I said before, if the feds treated pot like any other drug, we'd have a lot of answers to his questions... however, here are some studies that address his concerns:
Driving under the influence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/ (Upshot, pot smokers drive more slowly and that appears to compensate for effects)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360 (Upshot, alcohol made people drive faster, pot made them drive slower)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm (Compared to other medical drugs like Valium and alcohol, pot smoking effects appear to be minimal)
I'm not arguing that pot smoking and driving is a good idea... only that even with the current federal bans on marijuana studies, there are answers to the Doctors question on the subject.
But there is more to it than slow driving. It can also impair driving by causing distorted perception, problems with memory and learning, loss of coordination, trouble with problem-solving and increased reaction time. These are all critical when you are driving, especially if you are driving in an area with other people like pedestrians and other motorists. It gets even dicier when alcohol is mixed into the situation.
Additionally, results of nine studies have found that the greater amount of marijuana compounds in a person's urine, the greater the risk of a car crash. Eight of those nine found drivers who use marijuana are more likely to be involved in a crash compared to those who don't use marijuana. (Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes. Mu-Chen Li, Joanne E. Brady, Charles J. DiMaggio, Arielle R. Lusardi, Keane Y. Tzong and Guohu.)
QuoteOn pregnancy:
http://www.mothering.com/pregnancy-birth/use-of-marijuana-during-pregnancy (Summary of several studies, studies listed at the end of the article... Upshot, no major effects)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/1/79.abstract (Studies of infant mortality rates, Upshot, pot babies mortality rates were lower than cocaine babies, opiate babies and ironically lower than the control babies... probably a fluke)
I'm not arguing that mothers should smoke pot, only that the Doctor's concern has been studied, even in the current political situation.
The point the Dr. was making was that normally a prescription medication goes through a very rigorous scientific process which helps us to understand the risks and benefits of a drug. We all hear the ads on TV about the different medications that pregnant women shouldn't take or, in some cases, even handle. Instead, voters have side-stepped that empirical process and so there are questions that remain that aren't going to be satisfied without that same kind of scientific rigor.
QuoteOn physical effects:
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/314/2/780.abstract (An odd study that indicates THC may actually reduce the brain damage associated with alcohol)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html (No evidence of cancer linked to pot smoking)
There are other studies... ones that show marijuana may actually work as an 'exit' drug rather than a gateway drug:
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/6/1/35
Pot may actually not have the deleterious effect on work that is often assumed:
http://csp.org/chrestomathy/ganja_in.html
Etc etc etc...
Do I believe all of these studies are objective fact? No. They're studies... they're some data that may or may not be accurate. However, if our Doctor friend had bothered to do some research, perhaps some of his concerns could have been mollified.
No, because again his overarching objection is the process by which medical marijuana came to be. It has completely side-stepped the rigors of science that every other prescription medication must go through. The studies you've produced, as you fully admit, do not offer a clear-cut consensus on the complete harmlessness of marijuana as a medicine, namely, in the crude delivery system of smoking it.
In fact, I recently attended a forum where Dr. Publicker spoke. He does acknowledge that there clearly are chemicals in marijuana that have medical benefit, and that with further scientific research, can be developed into an effective medicine with limited side effects. But the voters in these states have sidestepped that process. And the real shame is that, I believe, there is a larger scheme that is really at play here.
Medical marijuana, in my personal opinion, is a cynical ploy to get marijuana legalized. That is, to make it more accepted in society. By using sick people as a way to win sympathies. Make no mistake, there is an organized, national marijuana industry with a powerful, organized national lobby. A lobby that is helping to craft these initiatives that come up in these states. And once they get it in, they start chipping away at it.
Like they've done here in Maine. The original act required medical marijuana users to be on a registry and carry a card and have one of a list of very specific ailments. The lobby has been successful in weakening the act. The registry is gone, the list of ailments has broadened and the criteria are less rigorous, and they want more. They want it to be allowable for any and all ailments. They want to completely lift the restrictions to specific diseases or sicknesses. But that isn't what was sold to Mainers when they approved it. Mainers were told they needed to pass this so cancer patients could feel better. They were never told the ultimate goal was to allow anyone to get a prescription for medical marijuana for anything. I think if they knew that the results might have been different.
But, of course, I fully recognize that most of you have no problems with any of that and would likely applaud those developments. I suppose shady politics are okay when they support a shared ideal.
A national marijuana industry with a powerful lobby? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I mean, I wish that were true as it would likely result in many of my good friends having high-paying jobs, but it simply is not.
Seriously, where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm reading a DARE pamphlet. :lulz:
I'm still stuck on the idea that adults should be able to be told which substances they can use on their own bodies.
And I don't buy the "for the children" argument. Raising my kids isn't the fucking DEA's job.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 09:09:56 PM
Seriously, where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm reading a DARE pamphlet. :lulz:
http://thecannabisindustry.org/
"Bringing the Cannabis Industry's Issues to Capitol Hill"
I suppose they are just going to go there to have a bake sale and hand out a couple of brochures, right?
:lulz:
I mean really, you might want to try the Google before you say things like that.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:14:29 PM
"Bringing the Cannabis Industry's Issues to Capitol Hill"
Beats the fuck out of Wackenhutt or Raytheon.
But just how big are they? Let's look.
http://thecannabisindustry.org/members/
Be sure to click on "Show All"
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:15:16 PM
I mean really, you might want to try the Google before you say things like that.
Um.
Here's a member of their board.
QuoteDavid Bronner
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps
Wow. That's right up there with the private prison lobby and shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:11:40 PM
I'm still stuck on the idea that adults should be able to be told which substances they can use on their own bodies.
And I don't buy the "for the children" argument. Raising my kids isn't the fucking DEA's job.
No, but general welfare is the Government's job. At least that's what it says on that 200 odd year old piece of paper people get all worked up about.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:17:12 PM
http://thecannabisindustry.org/members/
Be sure to click on "Show All"
"Aunt Sandy's Edibles"?
Yeah, this is a monolith that probably owns half of congress.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:19:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:11:40 PM
I'm still stuck on the idea that adults should be able to be told which substances they can use on their own bodies.
And I don't buy the "for the children" argument. Raising my kids isn't the fucking DEA's job.
No, but general welfare is the Government's job. At least that's what it says on that 200 odd year old piece of paper people get all worked up about.
No, the constitution allows the government to
fund things in the general welfare of the nation (article I, sec 8, clause 1), not throw people in jail and ruin their lives for doing pot. I think you should probably take a look at amendments IX and X.
Don't try to bullshit me on the constitution, RWHN.
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
And if it isn't please map out for me where the line is for where government can protect children and where they can't.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
Nice edit, but I anticipated it.
Yeah, sorry, sometimes when people ask questions a follow up questions pops into ones head.
I'll try to make sure that never happens again.
Bad RWHN, Bad!!!
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:32:20 PM
Yeah, sorry, sometimes when people ask questions a follow up questions pops into ones head.
I'll try to make sure that never happens again.
Bad RWHN, Bad!!!
Beats a rebuttal, eh?
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:13:08 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 09:09:56 PM
Seriously, where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? I feel like I'm reading a DARE pamphlet. :lulz:
http://thecannabisindustry.org/
Yeah, I can spend a couple hundred bucks on a website too. they don't even have a link to NORML on their page, which tells me all I need to know about how powerful and legitimate they are.
Get a fucking grip.
Just asked one of my best friends who is part-owner of Cookieman Care in WA and who was one of the founding vendors of the now-regular Seattle Pot Farmers' Market if he had ever heard of this pervasive and all-powerful cannabis lobby.
His reply: "The who?....Uhh.....nope. Wish I had thought to buy that domain name though."
Just emailed Dominic Holden to ask him the same thing.
PROTIP: If you don't know who he is, RWHN, you really don't know fuck-all about the marijuana legalization movement in the US. Which you've already proven time and time again, but still.
Along with not bullshitting Roger about the constitution, you probably shouldn't try to bullshit me about the marijuana industry.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 09:09:21 PM
A national marijuana industry with a powerful lobby? :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I mean, I wish that were true as it would likely result in many of my good friends having high-paying jobs, but it simply is not.
THAT WAS
AMAZING!I am TOTALLY using that one.
I believe that RWHN once implied that he has an MPH, back when he was telling me that my public-health-expert friend was "misinformed" about drugs and public health.
I'm not asking where it's from because it doesn't matter, and any notion that the information could lead to your personal identity information is nonsensical. But, because you have so often strongly based many of your arguments on your status as an expert, and have asked us to accept them based on your credibility as an expert, I would appreciate a direct answer to the question about your education and credentials, RWHN.
What degree do you hold?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 11:22:50 PM
Just asked one of my best friends who is part-owner of Cookieman Care in WA and who was one of the founding vendors of the now-regular Seattle Pot Farmers' Market if he had ever heard of this pervasive and all-powerful cannabis lobby.
His reply: "The who?....Uhh.....nope. Wish I had thought to buy that domain name though."
Has your best friend ever been invited to the National Press Club?
http://press.org/events/national-cannabis-industry-association-leaders-join-rep-jared-polis-d-co
:lulz:
When on the ropes, just make shit up. Priceless!
:lulz:
It's amazing how some slob can just register a domain name and stand along side a U.S. Rep to speak before such a prestigious organization. I bet that happens every damn day! :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2011, 11:37:18 PM
I believe that RWHN once implied that he has an MPH, back when he was telling me that my public-health-expert friend was "misinformed" about drugs and public health.
I'm not asking where it's from because it doesn't matter, and any notion that the information could lead to your personal identity information is nonsensical. But, because you have so often strongly based many of your arguments on your status as an expert, and have asked us to accept them based on your credibility as an expert, I would appreciate a direct answer to the question about your education and credentials, RWHN.
What degree do you hold?
I don't hold my degree, it's on a wall.
I got it from Klown University.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM
Along with not bullshitting Roger about the constitution, you probably shouldn't try to bullshit me about the marijuana industry.
Really? Given that you didn't know the existence of a national marijuana industry lobbying organization that has enough swing to sit along side Congressmen at the National Press Club? Yeah, you're right, I can't get anything past you.
:lulz:
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!!?!!?!
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 08, 2011, 12:19:20 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 07, 2011, 11:24:55 PM
Along with not bullshitting Roger about the constitution, you probably shouldn't try to bullshit me about the marijuana industry.
Really? Given that you didn't know the existence of a national marijuana industry lobbying organization that has enough swing to sit along side Congressmen at the National Press Club? Yeah, you're right, I can't get anything past you.
:lulz:
Steve DeAngelo is pretty legit, and his presence explains why they were given this level of access. That said, they've got a VERY long way to go to be called a "powerful lobby" (your words), and given their apparent lack of links to other better-established marijuana-related organizations I'm not holding my breath. I'm not even sure if I wish them luck, as it seems more like an attempt to co-opt the industry than an attempt to be inclusive and look out for the interests of the farmers, retailers, and processors that make up the majority of the legal marijuana industry.
Point is, you're still so fucking far off base about there being a "powerful marijuana lobby" that it's laughable.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 08, 2011, 12:16:31 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2011, 11:37:18 PM
I believe that RWHN once implied that he has an MPH, back when he was telling me that my public-health-expert friend was "misinformed" about drugs and public health.
I'm not asking where it's from because it doesn't matter, and any notion that the information could lead to your personal identity information is nonsensical. But, because you have so often strongly based many of your arguments on your status as an expert, and have asked us to accept them based on your credibility as an expert, I would appreciate a direct answer to the question about your education and credentials, RWHN.
What degree do you hold?
I don't hold my degree, it's on a wall.
I got it from Klown University.
Maybe you'll not answer her seriously, but I'm interested. Considering I have taken a great deal of what you've said on word due to your stated education and experience. And from a fellow graduate degree holder to another. Because my credentials have always been clear, and I would post my CV here if I wasn't sure an employer turning up things I've said here in a google search of my name would make me unemployable. And if you won't answer me seriously, I'll stop taking you seriously, despite your history here. That's all there is to it. Because I've taken into account you are on the defensive against multiple people, but keeping that in mind there are still some weird things going on in your argument. All I want is a confirmation of a graduate degree in [whatever it was you got it in] from [region of North America]. I'll go first: I have a MS in Entomology from a university in the Southeastern United States. With my initials and a bit of searching you should be able to find out my legal name, my professional blog, and everything else about me (it's not like many first names start with 'z'). You can confirm mine, and I'm not asking the same of you, just that you state it for the record.
Oh, and I totally made up the part about asking my friend. That's why I used the name of a registered legitimate care service that anyone could check on if they wanted to without much difficulty.
:winner:
He won't give you a straight answer, Kai.
You see, he lacks the integrity to admit that he doesn't have an education in the field he purports to work in, but somehow he still has enough integrity not to take the easy way out and just make up a degree and university.
Impressive, in a way, but for all the wrong reasons. :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 12:36:03 AM
He won't give you a straight answer, Kai.
You see, he lacks the integrity to admit that he doesn't have an education in the field he purports to work in, but somehow he still has enough integrity not to take the easy way out and just make up a degree and university.
Impressive, in a way, but for all the wrong reasons. :lulz:
I'll keep my civility and let him answer for himself, TYVM.
I admire your optimism.
I, however, feel that in light of what he's posted ITT I am already displaying a remarkable level of civility.
I mean, most people who accused me of fishing for PI on my own site would find out exactly how good I can be at doing just that.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 12:31:38 AM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 08, 2011, 12:16:31 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 07, 2011, 11:37:18 PM
I believe that RWHN once implied that he has an MPH, back when he was telling me that my public-health-expert friend was "misinformed" about drugs and public health.
I'm not asking where it's from because it doesn't matter, and any notion that the information could lead to your personal identity information is nonsensical. But, because you have so often strongly based many of your arguments on your status as an expert, and have asked us to accept them based on your credibility as an expert, I would appreciate a direct answer to the question about your education and credentials, RWHN.
What degree do you hold?
I don't hold my degree, it's on a wall.
I got it from Klown University.
Maybe you'll not answer her seriously, but I'm interested. Considering I have taken a great deal of what you've said on word due to your stated education and experience. And from a fellow graduate degree holder to another. Because my credentials have always been clear, and I would post my CV here if I wasn't sure an employer turning up things I've said here in a google search of my name would make me unemployable. And if you won't answer me seriously, I'll stop taking you seriously, despite your history here. That's all there is to it. Because I've taken into account you are on the defensive against multiple people, but keeping that in mind there are still some weird things going on in your argument. All I want is a confirmation of a graduate degree in [whatever it was you got it in] from [region of North America]. I'll go first: I have a MS in Entomology from a university in the Southeastern United States. With my initials and a bit of searching you should be able to find out my legal name, my professional blog, and everything else about me (it's not like many first names start with 'z'). You can confirm mine, and I'm not asking the same of you, just that you state it for the record.
Check your PMs.
I'm not going to report the credentials, out of respect, but I believe them; he has the experience he says. Which, despite the lack of communication taking place in this thread, should be already obvious to the people who have known him for the past 5+ years. You may not agree with his premise, opinions, or conclusions, but he's not a troll and he's not speaking without experience of public policy.
And that's all I have to say. Carry on, or whatever.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 01:53:44 AM
I'm not going to report the credentials, out of respect, but I believe them; he has the experience he says. Which, despite the lack of communication taking place in this thread, should be already obvious to the people who have known him for the past 5+ years. You may not agree with his premise, opinions, or conclusions, but he's not a troll and he's not speaking without experience of public policy.
And that's all I have to say. Carry on, or whatever.
In other words, he actually does the job he claims to do, but doesn't have a degree in a related field. Which really extra makes his pooh-poohing of my MPH friend's opinion that much funnier.
:lulz:
Sorry, but even if I agreed with his opinions, I'd still think the guy's a total dick.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 01:58:51 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 01:53:44 AM
I'm not going to report the credentials, out of respect, but I believe them; he has the experience he says. Which, despite the lack of communication taking place in this thread, should be already obvious to the people who have known him for the past 5+ years. You may not agree with his premise, opinions, or conclusions, but he's not a troll and he's not speaking without experience of public policy.
And that's all I have to say. Carry on, or whatever.
In other words, he actually does the job he claims to do, but doesn't have a degree in a related field. Which really extra makes his pooh-poohing of my MPH friend's opinion that much funnier.
:lulz:
Sorry, but even if I agreed with his opinions, I'd still think the guy's a total dick.
No, he has the degrees.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 02:02:34 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 01:58:51 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 01:53:44 AM
I'm not going to report the credentials, out of respect, but I believe them; he has the experience he says. Which, despite the lack of communication taking place in this thread, should be already obvious to the people who have known him for the past 5+ years. You may not agree with his premise, opinions, or conclusions, but he's not a troll and he's not speaking without experience of public policy.
And that's all I have to say. Carry on, or whatever.
In other words, he actually does the job he claims to do, but doesn't have a degree in a related field. Which really extra makes his pooh-poohing of my MPH friend's opinion that much funnier.
:lulz:
Sorry, but even if I agreed with his opinions, I'd still think the guy's a total dick.
No, he has the degrees.
Thanks for actually SAYING it, since he's too slippery to do it himself. I still want to know on what basis he claims that my friend's public health graduate degree (and extensive background actually working in public health, including at-risk youth) is "misinformation".
That was the exact moment I went from kinda liking the guy even though I don't agree with him, to realizing that he will say anything (and evade anything) to try to maintain his position, however baseless.
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
I don't see him outright lying... misleading, circular, irrational and evasive he may be, but I haven't seen him actually lie.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
Oh, that's right. I'm fishing for your personal information. that I could have anytime I wanted anyway. And couldn't be less interested in.
:lulz:
In case you hadn't noticed, that accusation completely changed the nature of our relationship. And since I doubt you'd ever offer an apology and I wouldn't believe it was sincere if you did, I hope you weren't planning on ever starting another serious thread here again because I will take extra special care to shit all over any thread you start.
can you feel the love?
ECH,
All-time champion grudge-holder
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 02:28:44 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
I don't see him outright lying... misleading, circular, irrational and evasive he may be, but I haven't seen him actually lie.
That may be true, but I suspect it's only because in order to outright lie he'd have to have a grasp of actual facts first.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:30:59 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 02:28:44 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
I don't see him outright lying... misleading, circular, irrational and evasive he may be, but I haven't seen him actually lie.
That may be true, but I suspect it's only because in order to outright lie he'd have to have a grasp of actual facts first.
Point. :lol:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:29:30 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
Oh, that's right. I'm fishing for your personal information. that I could have anytime I wanted anyway. And couldn't be less interested in.
:lulz:
In case you hadn't noticed, that accusation completely changed the nature of our relationship. And since I doubt you'd ever offer an apology and I wouldn't believe it was sincere if you did, I hope you weren't planning on ever starting another serious thread here again because I will take extra special care to shit all over any thread you start.
can you feel the love?
ECH,
All-time champion grudge-holder
That was my favorite part I think, other than the part where my highly-qualified FBF is "misinformed" and the part where the pro-marijuana lobby is "powerful". He didn't even have the wherewithal to link to the group that has the largest budget and the most pro-marijuana lobbying power, NORML... he linked to some brand-new, rinkydink business association that just started last year. And NORML has a total annual budget of
under one million dollars... "Powerful" is definitely not the word for it.
The fact that pro-marijuana lobbying exists does not de facto make the organizations behind it "powerful", and he is trying to deflect attention from that fact by diverting it to the mere fact that pro-legalization organizations exist.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:29:30 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
Oh, that's right. I'm fishing for your personal information. that I could have anytime I wanted anyway. And couldn't be less interested in.
:lulz:
In case you hadn't noticed, that accusation completely changed the nature of our relationship. And since I doubt you'd ever offer an apology and I wouldn't believe it was sincere if you did, I hope you weren't planning on ever starting another serious thread here again because I will take extra special care to shit all over any thread you start.
can you feel the love?
ECH,
All-time champion grudge-holder
Awwww, no more Xmas cards? :sad:
RWHN,
Is now a sad panda.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
I'm a wascally wabbit.
Oh, jesus christ in a crapbucket.
I didn't post the specifics because A) He asked me not to and B) Because why would I do that I if I won't even post my own? I'm not gonna pull that shit. I have more scruples than that, regardless of what anyone else on the whole fucking Internets might think. I mentioned his degree specialization was in public policy, but I'm not going to say more than that because that would be making public too much information.
And for fuck sake, you're questioning my intelligence by implication. And maybe even my trustworthiness as well. That hurts.
Uhh, no. Nobody asked you to divulge anything and nobody is questioning your intelligence in any way. After all, anyone could tell you they had a degree and be truthful or lying and your intelligence has nothing to do with whether you choose to believe them, since you have no way of knowing.
And anyway, on this little corner of the internet I'm pretty sure your integrity and intelligence are beyond reproach. So don't read any of this as though it's directed at you.
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 08, 2011, 02:50:32 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 02:19:24 AM
:lulz:
Can't just tell us all what your degree is? Pretty weak, man. I'm not convinced you're telling the truth to Kai at all. If you are, why wouldn't you tell the rest of us?
I'm a wascally wabbit.
More like a weasely weasel. But that's OK, your inability to be straight with anyone says more than any evasive doublespeak you can come up with.
Naw, see, I have been pretty straight in this thread. I've been straight with Rat, I've been straight with Net, I've been straight with TGRR (I'll get to your Constitutional piece later. I was leaving work when you posted your response and I'm kind of a family guy so I prefer to spend my nights with my wife and kids and not all night on the internet), I've been straight with Kai.....
I'll be perfectly straight with people I respect. But when people spend pages and pages accusing me of being a fraud for the past five years, they are going to get something a little different. I'm just giving you and Nigel what you want. I'm just feeding that little piece inside of both of you that get off on these internet hate-shit fests. The reality is that you two are acting just like some of these Birthers. It doesn't matter what I post, you are just going to find a reason not to believe it. Because you don't want to believe. Because, if you do, it forces you to acknowledge what you don't want to acknowledge, that I actually have a pretty damned good knowledge base in the area of public policy and substance abuse prevention. And when you acknowledge that, of course, it will in turn impeach your knowledge. So, the easier thing to do is just shit on me. That way, you don't actually have to try to debate someone in a straight manner. Just fling shit at them so you don't have to deal with substance.
And so, yeah, I'm going to have fun with you two until you or I get bored and just stop. I'm not going to tell you what degree I hold because you'll just move the goal posts, so it is pointless. And I told Kai when I sent him the information that he is free to believe or disbelieve what I sent him. I mean, I would tend to think the fact that over the past 5 years most everyone on this board, while maybe disagreeing with me, has said they support what I do for a living should count for something. And, yeah, it is a little disappointing too that some of these same people are now seemingly being swayed by you two and questioning. I am a little hurt by that, but not coming from you two because, well, this is what you do. I stopped caring what you two thought about me a long time ago.
So anyway, where were we? Isn't it about time for you post another empty and vapid macho-internet guy screed? Please don't disappoint me.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 02:44:14 AM
That was my favorite part I think, other than the part where my highly-qualified FBF is "misinformed"
Sadly, my life is a little busy so it is hard for me to remember posts from months ago so I don't recall why I said that but I'm sure I had a good reason.
But, if it is of any consequence, I work with other MPH's who show some stunning capabilities of being "misinformed" and frankly just plain daft.
However, to temper what could come off as bravado mired in cartesian duality, I also work closely with some spectacularly brilliant minds that make me feel like an unworthy apprentice in comparison.
Or, maybe, I'm just a janitor working at the local middle school moonlighting as a gas attendent.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:31:32 AM
Naw, see, I have been pretty straight in this thread. I've been straight with Rat, I've been straight with Net, I've been straight with TGRR (I'll get to your Constitutional piece later. I was leaving work when you posted your response and I'm kind of a family guy so I prefer to spend my nights with my wife and kids and not all night on the internet), I've been straight with Kai.....
I'll be perfectly straight with people I respect. But when people spend pages and pages accusing me of being a fraud for the past five years, they are going to get something a little different. I'm just giving you and Nigel what you want. I'm just feeding that little piece inside of both of you that get off on these internet hate-shit fests. The reality is that you two are acting just like some of these Birthers. It doesn't matter what I post, you are just going to find a reason not to believe it. Because you don't want to believe. Because, if you do, it forces you to acknowledge what you don't want to acknowledge, that I actually have a pretty damned good knowledge base in the area of public policy and substance abuse prevention. And when you acknowledge that, of course, it will in turn impeach your knowledge. So, the easier thing to do is just shit on me. That way, you don't actually have to try to debate someone in a straight manner. Just fling shit at them so you don't have to deal with substance.
And so, yeah, I'm going to have fun with you two until you or I get bored and just stop. I'm not going to tell you what degree I hold because you'll just move the goal posts, so it is pointless. And I told Kai when I sent him the information that he is free to believe or disbelieve what I sent him. I mean, I would tend to think the fact that over the past 5 years most everyone on this board, while maybe disagreeing with me, has said they support what I do for a living should count for something. And, yeah, it is a little disappointing too that some of these same people are now seemingly being swayed by you two and questioning. I am a little hurt by that, but not coming from you two because, well, this is what you do. I stopped caring what you two thought about me a long time ago.
So anyway, where were we? Isn't it about time for you post another empty and vapid macho-internet guy screed? Please don't disappoint me.
Uhh, no. You haven't given a straight answer to anything anyone's asked you ITT, except apparently via PM. But since your capacity for self-delusion seems pretty vast, I don't see much point in trying to make you see that.
Oh, and DDT was banned because it weakened eggshells of the endangered california condor, not because it was found to be exceedingly dangerous to humans. It may or may not be, but that's not why it was banned. Just another example of you making facts up when the ones that are actually, y'know, FACTS don't fit your agenda.
Poisons that harm the environment or that harm individuals without consent (ie dumping toxic waste in the water supply) are vastly different that a plant that people must voluntarily inhale the smoke/vapor from or eat. That's a completely absurd comparison.
As for the governments duty to protect children... its duty is to protect its citizens from infringement on their personal rights. If someone beats up a citizen, the government has a right to be involved. If someone slips a rape drug into a citizens drink, the government has a right to be involved. If a person chooses to smoke a plant that has been smoked and eaten for thousands of years (possibly including some of the guys that wrote the Constitution), then its not the governments business.
Now if you find a case of someone forcing kids to smoke pot, or putting pot brownies in their cafeteria lunch, by all means get the government involved.
On the topic of the marijuana industry... ummm... I can't really comment on that without being rude.
On the topic of RWHN's credentials... I know other people in similar lines of work and I find his views to be similar to theirs. So I don't really doubt what he says about himself. Of course, I know religious leaders that hold Doctorates and are heavily involved in Public Policy and think abortion is murder and should be as illegal as marijuana. Just because someone holds credentials and has experience in one side of a debate, doesn't in my opinion, automatically mean they're right or even anything close to it.
I respect anyone that tries to help kids grow up without screwing themselves over. However, to restrict the rights of adults on the basis of "OMGZ TEH KIDZ" is simply not a position I can respect. I know that RWHN has said in the past that legalization would make his job harder. I find that an absurd position... it may well make his job harder, but putting people in prison, taking away their college funding, ruining lives and killing innocent people (have you seen the number of people accidentally killed in drug raids?) far outweighs making RWHN's job harder, in my opinion.
If kids want to smoke pot, they will. Its easy to get, its easy to grow, it will always be easily available. Prohibition has not worked. Prohibition flies in the face of the Constitution. There is simply no argument that supports the continued public policy.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 07, 2011, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 07, 2011, 09:52:19 AM
More comments on the Doctor's concerns about medical Marijuana:
As I said before, if the feds treated pot like any other drug, we'd have a lot of answers to his questions... however, here are some studies that address his concerns:
Driving under the influence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/ (Upshot, pot smokers drive more slowly and that appears to compensate for effects)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360 (Upshot, alcohol made people drive faster, pot made them drive slower)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm (Compared to other medical drugs like Valium and alcohol, pot smoking effects appear to be minimal)
I'm not arguing that pot smoking and driving is a good idea... only that even with the current federal bans on marijuana studies, there are answers to the Doctors question on the subject.
But there is more to it than slow driving. It can also impair driving by causing distorted perception, problems with memory and learning, loss of coordination, trouble with problem-solving and increased reaction time. These are all critical when you are driving, especially if you are driving in an area with other people like pedestrians and other motorists. It gets even dicier when alcohol is mixed into the situation.
Additionally, results of nine studies have found that the greater amount of marijuana compounds in a person's urine, the greater the risk of a car crash. Eight of those nine found drivers who use marijuana are more likely to be involved in a crash compared to those who don't use marijuana. (Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes. Mu-Chen Li, Joanne E. Brady, Charles J. DiMaggio, Arielle R. Lusardi, Keane Y. Tzong and Guohu.)
Alcohol, over-the-counter drugs, and prescription drugs cause more severe impairment to people's driving abilities, however that is not an argument against their responsible use.
Abusus non tollit usum.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 12:09:48 PM
Uhh, no. You haven't given a straight answer to anything anyone's asked you ITT, except apparently via PM. But since your capacity for self-delusion seems pretty vast, I don't see much point in trying to make you see that.
That's because if he would have been, that would have counted as being straight with you or Nigel, by extension. At least, that's the general gist I got from it :roll:
Which is a shame, because you guys asked a lot of the very same questions and made arguments I would have (except for the questioning his credentials part), which is one of the reasons why I stood clear of this thread.
So, by extension, that's now allowing him to avoid or take the piss on a lot of difficult questions that are in fact perfectly sensible, just "because of ECH and Nigel". Which is very childish and frustrating to anyone who is interested in this topic, nor does it make me want to take RWHNs input on this matter very seriously anymore.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:31:32 AMI'll be perfectly straight with people I respect. But when people spend pages and pages accusing me of being a fraud for the past five years, they are going to get something a little different.
... except that reaction flowed forth out of frustration by you not being straight or rational about this well before that. So to me it seems a lot like a cop-out to avoid parts of a discussion you don't like. And indeed if I hadn't known you for years I might have wondered about those credentials as well.
And I don't see why it has to be so difficult every time? It's obvious we disagree
somewhere, but the discussion grows ugly every time before we figure out exactly
what.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Well said, Trip!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 08, 2011, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 12:09:48 PM
Uhh, no. You haven't given a straight answer to anything anyone's asked you ITT, except apparently via PM. But since your capacity for self-delusion seems pretty vast, I don't see much point in trying to make you see that.
That's because if he would have been, that would have counted as being straight with you or Nigel, by extension. At least, that's the general gist I got from it :roll:
Which is a shame, because you guys asked a lot of the very same questions and made arguments I would have (except for the questioning his credentials part), which is one of the reasons why I stood clear of this thread.
So, by extension, that's now allowing him to avoid or take the piss on a lot of difficult questions that are in fact perfectly sensible, just "because of ECH and Nigel". Which is very childish and frustrating to anyone who is interested in this topic, nor does it make me want to take RWHNs input on this matter very seriously anymore.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:31:32 AMI'll be perfectly straight with people I respect. But when people spend pages and pages accusing me of being a fraud for the past five years, they are going to get something a little different.
... except that reaction flowed forth out of frustration by you not being straight or rational about this well before that. So to me it seems a lot like a cop-out to avoid parts of a discussion you don't like. And indeed if I hadn't known you for years I might have wondered about those credentials as well.
And I don't see why it has to be so difficult every time? It's obvious we disagree somewhere, but the discussion grows ugly every time before we figure out exactly what.
I was straight as I could be on an argument that was based on erroneous information. This all started with a link and a quote concerning codeine with atropine which in reality was a quote about Lomotil, not codeine. All of those pages of nonsense were built on a foundation of bullshit.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
What does that have to do with adults being free to do as they see fit with their own bodies?
Are you in favor of making abortion illegal? Because by your logic, you should be.
Just wanted to drop in and thank everyone involved for this discussion.
Prior to PD, I used to be a High Times type thinker in that there was no good reason, whatsoever, for marijuana being illegal.
Since this thread, and the other, I can see that there are decent arguments on both sides of the issue, and that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut stupid-government as the NORML mentality had led me to believe.
I am still of the opinion that anyone who tries to tell me I cannot smoke a bowl on my own time in my own house can go fuck themselves, but otherwise these discussions give me much to think about, and I enjoy reading the course of the debate.
TL;DR: I have nothing intelligent to add, except a thank you to the participants for level-headed discussion on both sides of the issue. It has given me much food for thought.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 03:07:03 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
What does that have to do with adults being free to do as they see fit with their own bodies?
Are you in favor of making abortion illegal? Because by your logic, you should be.
No, because I don't believe a fetus has the same rights as a child, nor do I recognize a fetus as a person.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 04:30:26 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 03:07:03 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
What does that have to do with adults being free to do as they see fit with their own bodies?
Are you in favor of making abortion illegal? Because by your logic, you should be.
No, because I don't believe a fetus has the same rights as a child, nor do I recognize a fetus as a person.
So your personal belief should trump the belief of a religious leader with a doctorate and experience in Public Policy?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 04:37:20 PM
So your personal belief should trump the belief of a religious leader with a doctorate and experience in Public Policy?
1) You are making an assumption that an organization like Mercy Hospital would only employ Christians who are against abortion. I don't know what Dr. Publicker's personal belief system looks like because I've never had any one-on-one conversations with the guy, nor is it something I'd really bring up in a casual conversation.
But
2) I was asked what I believe and I answered. (Jebus, I just can't win with you people) From the actual policy perspective, as it turns out, the laws currently trump what a religious person with a Doctorate and experience in Public Policy believes in terms of the morality of abortion.
Okay, so for anyone who might be interested, I wanted to share links to a couple of documents so you can see what the current national direction is with substance abuse and other behavioral health issues:
This document outlines SAMHSA's strategic direction in terms of substance abuse and mental illness prevention. Note the bullets that outline the costs to society, including financial.
http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA11-4629/03-Prevention.pdf
This one is a bit more cumbersome but you can see the plan for Substance Abuse Prevention starting on page 33. This one also includes data to provide the context of the environment in which this national prevention strategy was crafted.
http://www.healthcare.gov/center/councils/nphpphc/strategy/report.pdf
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.
Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.
DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 04:54:14 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.
Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.
DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.
Gotta think that alcohol, tobacco, prescription opiates, obesity, cars, etc etc etc all add to the premium on health care plans.
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
If we want to make a healthcare argument for the current policy, it would have to be, 'Does the use of Marijuana by adults increase healthcare costs?' based on most studies, the answer appears to be 'No'.
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
I want to point out that the ONLY reason I questioned RWHN's credentials is because of the "your friend is misinformed" comment he made in the other thread when I was trying to say that multiple viewpoints can have validity, and used my friend, who is a highly-qualified maker of health policy and has done extensive work with at-risk kids and addict populations, as an example of someone who really knows her shit but holds a different view from his in terms of prohibition. At the time I was not trying to demean him at all, but he had made an appeal to authority, essentially saying that his view is the one right view because he is the expert.
If he is going to insist that he is the expert and people with different views are "misinformed", even those who are very highly educated and work in the field, he'd better be armed with some really solid facts with citations, and be prepared to present his credentials. Otherwise, it's just so much hot air.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
DDT effects more people than just the farmers that choose to use it. It kills off insects and the birds that depend on them and gets in the water supply.
For the same reason operating a meth lab needs to be restricted, that produces a lot of toxins that get into the water supply, smoking anything tends to be restricted in public places and there is no reason this shouldn't apply to weed as well as tobacco (and also cover meth, heroin, crack or anything else someone might smoke) regulating substances that affect others is different from regulating substances that effect only the user.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 04:54:14 PM
By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.
I blame Quantum Physics.
- triple zero,
not very constructive.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Quote from: trix on November 08, 2011, 04:29:38 PM
Just wanted to drop in and thank everyone involved for this discussion.
Prior to PD, I used to be a High Times type thinker in that there was no good reason, whatsoever, for marijuana being illegal.
Since this thread, and the other, I can see that there are decent arguments on both sides of the issue, and that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut stupid-government as the NORML mentality had led me to believe.
I am still of the opinion that anyone who tries to tell me I cannot smoke a bowl on my own time in my own house can go fuck themselves, but otherwise these discussions give me much to think about, and I enjoy reading the course of the debate.
TL;DR: I have nothing intelligent to add, except a thank you to the participants for level-headed discussion on both sides of the issue. It has given me much food for thought.
Understanding your opponents position and realizing that they are not stupid, just wrong, is the first step toward any sort of meaningful discussion, of any issue.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Poisons that harm the environment or that harm individuals without consent (ie dumping toxic waste in the water supply) are vastly different that a plant that people must voluntarily inhale the smoke/vapor from or eat. That's a completely absurd comparison.
Not really. An impaired person on marijuana can certainly impact the lives of other, innocent people. If a person smokes in their home, and doesn't leave their home until the effects wear off, sure, it is completely harmless. but as soon as they sit behind the wheel, or come into work to operate heavy machinery, or are in charge of a room full of 3rd graders....
QuoteAs for the governments duty to protect children... its duty is to protect its citizens from infringement on their personal rights. If someone beats up a citizen, the government has a right to be involved. If someone slips a rape drug into a citizens drink, the government has a right to be involved. If a person chooses to smoke a plant that has been smoked and eaten for thousands of years (possibly including some of the guys that wrote the Constitution), then its not the governments business.
In theory, if they never leave the house, yes. Otherwise, as I outlined above, no.
QuoteOn the topic of RWHN's credentials... I know other people in similar lines of work and I find his views to be similar to theirs. So I don't really doubt what he says about himself. Of course, I know religious leaders that hold Doctorates and are heavily involved in Public Policy and think abortion is murder and should be as illegal as marijuana. Just because someone holds credentials and has experience in one side of a debate, doesn't in my opinion, automatically mean they're right or even anything close to it.
That cuts both ways my friend.
QuoteI respect anyone that tries to help kids grow up without screwing themselves over. However, to restrict the rights of adults on the basis of "OMGZ TEH KIDZ" is simply not a position I can respect. I know that RWHN has said in the past that legalization would make his job harder.
No, that is not right. I'm not worried about my job being harder. I mean, we are perfectly capable of addressing legal alcohol and legal tobacco. Medical Marijuana is another category because it is living in this nutty grey area that is causing all kinds of problems, the worst of which rest with law enforcement. I'm perfectly capable of adapting my job as the environment changes. My concern is with the kids, not my job. Communities are only as healthy as their children are.
QuoteIf kids want to smoke pot, they will. Its easy to get, its easy to grow, it will always be easily available. Prohibition has not worked. Prohibition flies in the face of the Constitution. There is simply no argument that supports the continued public policy.
I disagree. I think the documented costs to communities and society are more than enough reason to continue support of banning these substances. That doesn't mean there aren't changes to be made with how laws are enforced, and as I've stated many times in previous discussions, there are obviously changes that can be made with respect to how we treat non-violent, non-trafficking marijuana offenders in some States.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:47:08 PM
Quote from: trix on November 08, 2011, 04:29:38 PM
Just wanted to drop in and thank everyone involved for this discussion.
Prior to PD, I used to be a High Times type thinker in that there was no good reason, whatsoever, for marijuana being illegal.
Since this thread, and the other, I can see that there are decent arguments on both sides of the issue, and that the situation is not nearly as clear-cut stupid-government as the NORML mentality had led me to believe.
I am still of the opinion that anyone who tries to tell me I cannot smoke a bowl on my own time in my own house can go fuck themselves, but otherwise these discussions give me much to think about, and I enjoy reading the course of the debate.
TL;DR: I have nothing intelligent to add, except a thank you to the participants for level-headed discussion on both sides of the issue. It has given me much food for thought.
Understanding your opponents position and realizing that they are not stupid, just wrong, is the first step toward any sort of meaningful discussion, of any issue.
That's retarded, and so are you.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 04:54:14 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.
Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.
DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.
No, somethings are outlawed, others are regulated. I happen to think that marijuana acceptably falls into the category of outlawed.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 05:54:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 04:54:14 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
By that standard, EVERYTHING done EVERYWHERE by EVERYONE affects everyone, and should be outlawed under pain of life in prison.
Stop drinking beer, stop driving, stop heating your fucking home.
DARE to keep assholes off of slogans.
No, somethings are outlawed, others are regulated. I happen to think that marijuana acceptably falls into the category of outlawed.
LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!
:lulz:
You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 02:49:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 01:15:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Quote from: Everything's RWHN'd on November 07, 2011, 09:24:23 PM
So is it your position that government has no role whatsoever protecting and providing for the welfare of children?
Never said anything like that.
Congress may allocate money to all manner of things that provide and protect children. Schools, for example.
Congress may pass laws that cover crimes against children that occur in more than one state, or involves crossing state lines (ie, kidnapping, kiddie porn rings, etc). An adult smoking pot, however, is not a crime against a child.
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior. For example, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to fund drug prevention and/or recovery programs. However, the constitutionality (and the effectiveness) of prohibition was answered with the overturning of the Volstead Act.
But we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Do the pesticides remain on the farmer's lands? Or does it affect EVERYONE else, not to mention the entire food chain?
This is a dishonest argument, RWHN. A month ago, I'd have expected better from you.
Adolescent substance abuse effects everyone. Including that premium on your health-care plan that just came out of your last paycheck.
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Not the point, BH. We have to RUIN PEOPLES' LIVES FOREVER. For the children.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?
Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.
But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context) and/or saying things like "well you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube".
but nevermind all that, in a perfect theoretical world, what do YOU think? IF you could start from scratch right now, would you make alcohol or tobacco illegal? And if not, what is your argument for allowing them to be used responsibly by adults and only criminalizing any resultant behavior that incurs a heavily detrimental cost to society (drunk driving, smoking in cars with kids) while the act of using marijuana is, itself, criminalized?
Though I don't expect a straight answer from you, I feel compelled to point out the apparent ridiculous level of hypocrisy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Hmm.... what are the ratios of adults who use/abuse alcohol compared to minors who use/abuse alcohol?
What are the ratios of adults who use/abuse THC in comparison to minors who use/abuse THC?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Yes, I know. But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:58:32 PM
LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!
:lulz:
You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.
What goalposts have I moved?
Quote from: RWHNBut we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and
/based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.
In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects,
then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated
more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.
And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Poisons that harm the environment or that harm individuals without consent (ie dumping toxic waste in the water supply) are vastly different that a plant that people must voluntarily inhale the smoke/vapor from or eat. That's a completely absurd comparison.
Not really. An impaired person on marijuana can certainly impact the lives of other, innocent people. If a person smokes in their home, and doesn't leave their home until the effects wear off, sure, it is completely harmless. but as soon as they sit behind the wheel, or come into work to operate heavy machinery, or are in charge of a room full of 3rd graders....
QuoteAs for the governments duty to protect children... its duty is to protect its citizens from infringement on their personal rights. If someone beats up a citizen, the government has a right to be involved. If someone slips a rape drug into a citizens drink, the government has a right to be involved. If a person chooses to smoke a plant that has been smoked and eaten for thousands of years (possibly including some of the guys that wrote the Constitution), then its not the governments business.
In theory, if they never leave the house, yes. Otherwise, as I outlined above, no.
So it falls into the same category as other LEGAL substances, from the recreational ones to the prescribed ones. Laws against driving intoxicated seem to fit your position above far more aptly than simple prohibition.
Quote
QuoteOn the topic of RWHN's credentials... I know other people in similar lines of work and I find his views to be similar to theirs. So I don't really doubt what he says about himself. Of course, I know religious leaders that hold Doctorates and are heavily involved in Public Policy and think abortion is murder and should be as illegal as marijuana. Just because someone holds credentials and has experience in one side of a debate, doesn't in my opinion, automatically mean they're right or even anything close to it.
That cuts both ways my friend.
Ummm, huh? I said it doesn't automatically mean that they're right. whats the 'other' way that it cuts?
Quote
QuoteI respect anyone that tries to help kids grow up without screwing themselves over. However, to restrict the rights of adults on the basis of "OMGZ TEH KIDZ" is simply not a position I can respect. I know that RWHN has said in the past that legalization would make his job harder.
No, that is not right. I'm not worried about my job being harder. I mean, we are perfectly capable of addressing legal alcohol and legal tobacco. Medical Marijuana is another category because it is living in this nutty grey area that is causing all kinds of problems, the worst of which rest with law enforcement. I'm perfectly capable of adapting my job as the environment changes. My concern is with the kids, not my job. Communities are only as healthy as their children are.
Some people might argue that a nation is only as free as its people. Again, you are pointing to one aspect of a multifaceted issue and hanging everything on it. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. For example, most everyone here has clearly stated that they agree that kids shouldn't do drugs, that there should be controls in place to limit their exposure, education to provide facts about the dangers... ie most of us seem to be acknowledging your position, but we don't seem to get anything in return. That doesn't seem constructive to any debate.
Quote
Quote
QuoteIf kids want to smoke pot, they will. Its easy to get, its easy to grow, it will always be easily available. Prohibition has not worked. Prohibition flies in the face of the Constitution. There is simply no argument that supports the continued public policy.
I disagree. I think the documented costs to communities and society are more than enough reason to continue support of banning these substances. That doesn't mean there aren't changes to be made with how laws are enforced, and as I've stated many times in previous discussions, there are obviously changes that can be made with respect to how we treat non-violent, non-trafficking marijuana offenders in some States.
Documented costs... if we remove the costs associated with legal issues... exactly what are the documented costs? If we can agree that any legalization should come with strict laws regarding minors, if we can agree that educating children (as done with alochol and tobacco) should exist... if we can agree that laws against driving while intoxicated on any substance should exist... what are the costs?
Further, what are the costs to society if we continue to go down the path we're on?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
And yet, in Amsterdam the data seems to contradict your position.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Which would indicate that alcohol needs to be banned as well, no?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Don't you think such a scenario would be far more likely under the influence of alcohol or a number of prescription drugs?
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: RWHNBut we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and /based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.
In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects, then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.
And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.
Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 12:37:28 PM
Poisons that harm the environment or that harm individuals without consent (ie dumping toxic waste in the water supply) are vastly different that a plant that people must voluntarily inhale the smoke/vapor from or eat. That's a completely absurd comparison.
Not really. An impaired person on marijuana can certainly impact the lives of other, innocent people. If a person smokes in their home, and doesn't leave their home until the effects wear off, sure, it is completely harmless. but as soon as they sit behind the wheel, or come into work to operate heavy machinery, or are in charge of a room full of 3rd graders....
I would say the vast majority of marijuana smokers I've encountered, including my own maybe twice a year indulgence, much prefer to stay indoors, or go for a walk in the Arboretum. They don't want to get behind the wheel, and they don't want to operate heavy machinery, or teach a 3rd grade English class. They want to eat some chips and play video games or listen to Electric Wizard.
QuoteQuoteAs for the governments duty to protect children... its duty is to protect its citizens from infringement on their personal rights. If someone beats up a citizen, the government has a right to be involved. If someone slips a rape drug into a citizens drink, the government has a right to be involved. If a person chooses to smoke a plant that has been smoked and eaten for thousands of years (possibly including some of the guys that wrote the Constitution), then its not the governments business.
In theory, if they never leave the house, yes. Otherwise, as I outlined above, no.
Please see my previous point and observe actual potheads.
QuoteQuoteOn the topic of RWHN's credentials... I know other people in similar lines of work and I find his views to be similar to theirs. So I don't really doubt what he says about himself. Of course, I know religious leaders that hold Doctorates and are heavily involved in Public Policy and think abortion is murder and should be as illegal as marijuana. Just because someone holds credentials and has experience in one side of a debate, doesn't in my opinion, automatically mean they're right or even anything close to it.
That cuts both ways my friend.
Quite right. It could very well be that you are the one who is misinformed.
Quote
QuoteI respect anyone that tries to help kids grow up without screwing themselves over. However, to restrict the rights of adults on the basis of "OMGZ TEH KIDZ" is simply not a position I can respect. I know that RWHN has said in the past that legalization would make his job harder.
No, that is not right. I'm not worried about my job being harder. I mean, we are perfectly capable of addressing legal alcohol and legal tobacco. Medical Marijuana is another category because it is living in this nutty grey area that is causing all kinds of problems, the worst of which rest with law enforcement. I'm perfectly capable of adapting my job as the environment changes. My concern is with the kids, not my job. Communities are only as healthy as their children are.
Legalizing it will make it more difficult for minors to acquire it. Please see alcohol and tobacco.
Quote
QuoteIf kids want to smoke pot, they will. Its easy to get, its easy to grow, it will always be easily available. Prohibition has not worked. Prohibition flies in the face of the Constitution. There is simply no argument that supports the continued public policy.
I disagree. I think the documented costs to communities and society are more than enough reason to continue support of banning these substances. That doesn't mean there aren't changes to be made with how laws are enforced, and as I've stated many times in previous discussions, there are obviously changes that can be made with respect to how we treat non-violent, non-trafficking marijuana offenders in some States.
I think that perhaps Trip can help out here, and describe what effect legalization actually has on a population.
And Prohibition is proven not to work. Look at booze. It's just that booze has stronger cultural and religious connotations than does marijuana, at least to modern people. It really is less harmful than booze. I imagine that any costs are actually due to enforcement of ill-informed policy.
Hell, if we're going to criminalize things based on potential, I move that it be illegal to possess a penis because it might be used to rape someone.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:01:33 PM
And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?
Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.
But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context)
BUT COMPARING POT TO DDT IS JUST FINE.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
Nope I gave up tobacco.
Also, that was a substance I started when I was 20. Not when I was 14 or some other such nonsense.
[/quote]
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Don't you think such a scenario would be far more likely under the influence of alcohol or a number of prescription drugs?
Yes, but I also happen to believe that an "it's not as likely as...." model for making public policy is a very good one.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:01:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Yes, I know. But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.
So.... keep booze out of the house too, right?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
It's already illegal to drive while intoxicated. On any substance. It would not stop being illegal if marijuana was legalized.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:58:32 PM
LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!
:lulz:
You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.
What goalposts have I moved?
Well, first you said that we have to keep pot outlawed for the children, because their abuse of drugs effects everyone.
Then, when I pointed out that other things you do affect everyone, you then said the first case was okay because pot is illegal.
You're not even making any sense. I am now buying into the theory that you've been trolling all this time.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
Do you ever perform the Cha-Cha?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
b) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: RWHNBut we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and /based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.
In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects, then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.
And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.
Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.
Do you have a logical explanation for that, or are you just taking "how you feel" and running with it? Because it seems to me that saying "well, we've decided that substance A is legal for adults to use responsibly provided they don't engage in these specific behaviors while doing so, and substance B is accepted by the scientific community as being less harmful to the individual than substance A, therefore substance B should also be legal for adults to use responsibly with the same restrictions on behavior that substance A has" is a very reasonable model for making policy.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:13:08 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Don't you think such a scenario would be far more likely under the influence of alcohol or a number of prescription drugs?
Yes, but I also happen to believe that an "it's not as likely as...." model for making public policy is a very good one.
[/quote]
So your example is:
There is an unlikely scenario that X could cause an effect.
There is a likely scenario that A, B, C, F, Q and Z could cause the same effect.
A, B, C, F, Q and Z are currently legal, but X should remain illegal.
This may not be a good model for Public Policy, but its a really terrible model for a honest debate.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.
An aspect of this discussion that came up in the other epic thread that I find fascinating is how a person whose stated goal is to reduce juvenile drug use can support penalties and punishments that have the effect of destabilizing families and increasing poverty, which puts kids at higher risk for drug use.
Hmmm, gosh, I wonder what an effective way of breaking that cycle might be?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
Do you ever perform the Cha-Cha?
HE's pointing out that it's the same thing. It seems like your whole disagreement on cannabis is due to the fact that the infallible US government decided to make it illegal (which it also did with booze), whereas, all scientific evidence that I've encountered, plus annecdotal evidence seems to indicate that cannabis is less harmful than booze in all categories. If you choose to go after cannabis like this, then you also support Prohibition for alcohol. Otherwise you are either misinformed, or a hypocrite.
I'm gonna go with C: All of the above.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:58:32 PM
LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!
:lulz:
You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.
What goalposts have I moved?
Well, first you said that we have to keep pot outlawed for the children, because their abuse of drugs effects everyone.
Then, when I pointed out that other things you do affect everyone, you then said the first case was okay because pot is illegal.
You're not even making any sense. I am now buying into the theory that you've been trolling all this time.
That was exactly the issue I was having with him in the other thread about the criminal penalties for pot. His rationale is that it's OK for it to ruin someone's life, because it's illegal, and so it should stay illegal because it's illegal and if people choose to use it, it's not wrong to ruin their lives and destroy their families because they knew it was illegal when they decided to use it. It's a completely circular argument.
The bizarre comparisons of pot to DDT, and then declaring that you can't compare pot and alcohol, is another one of those mental roads to nowhere.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 06:23:28 PM
The bizarre comparisons of pot to DDT, and then declaring that you can't compare pot and alcohol, is another one of those mental roads to nowhere.
That's a rather polite way of saying "AS HYPOCRITICAL AS RICK WARREN".
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.
It's OK because RWHN's kids are car-proof.
But are his neighbor's kids car-proof?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:16:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: RWHNBut we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and /based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.
In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects, then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.
And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.
Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.
Do you have a logical explanation for that, or are you just taking "how you feel" and running with it? Because it seems to me that saying "well, we've decided that substance A is legal for adults to use responsibly provided they don't engage in these specific behaviors while doing so, and substance B is accepted by the scientific community as being less harmful to the individual than substance A, therefore substance B should also be legal for adults to use responsibly with the same restrictions on behavior that substance A has" is a very reasonable model for making policy.
Still waiting for a reply to this.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 06:18:42 PM
An aspect of this discussion that came up in the other epic thread that I find fascinating is how a person whose stated goal is to reduce juvenile drug use can support penalties and punishments that have the effect of destabilizing families and increasing poverty, which puts kids at higher risk for drug use.
Hmmm, gosh, I wonder what an effective way of breaking that cycle might be?
To be fair, he has on several occasions said that he doesn't support the current penalties and punishments.
It's almost like he's got a brain chip that makes it so that he cannot criticize the government, even if it forces him to directly contradict himself.
Also, the "powerful" marijuana lobbies. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 06:26:48 PM
It's almost like he's got a brain chip that makes it so that he cannot criticize the government, even if it forces him to directly contradict himself.
Also, the "powerful" marijuana lobbies. :lulz:
"Man, you DON'T fuck with the United Way. They are the most vicious of all the charities."
- From
Death to Smoochie
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:25:46 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:24:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.
It's OK because RWHN's kids are car-proof.
But are his neighbor's kids car-proof?
Given that there's a 90% chance his neighbors' kids are French-Canadian and covered in enough hair to stop a bullet, I'd say yes.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 06:26:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 06:18:42 PM
An aspect of this discussion that came up in the other epic thread that I find fascinating is how a person whose stated goal is to reduce juvenile drug use can support penalties and punishments that have the effect of destabilizing families and increasing poverty, which puts kids at higher risk for drug use.
Hmmm, gosh, I wonder what an effective way of breaking that cycle might be?
To be fair, he has on several occasions said that he doesn't support the current penalties and punishments.
Has he? In between defending them and saying that people deserve what they get because they knew it was illegal? It's a little hard to tell what he's saying when he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 06:26:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 06:18:42 PM
An aspect of this discussion that came up in the other epic thread that I find fascinating is how a person whose stated goal is to reduce juvenile drug use can support penalties and punishments that have the effect of destabilizing families and increasing poverty, which puts kids at higher risk for drug use.
Hmmm, gosh, I wonder what an effective way of breaking that cycle might be?
To be fair, he has on several occasions said that he doesn't support the current penalties and punishments.
Except in the case of distribution, which currently includes possessing weed in two different containers.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:58:32 PM
LOOK AT THOSE GOALPOSTS MOVE!
:lulz:
You intellectually dishonest son of a bitch.
What goalposts have I moved?
Well, first you said that we have to keep pot outlawed for the children, because their abuse of drugs effects everyone.
Well I think that is something that supports government action, yes. My belief as to why marijuana should remain illegal doesn't solely rest on that fact. But given the number of questions being hurled my way, you might understand why it is difficult to write a definitive tome.
QuoteThen, when I pointed out that other things you do affect everyone, you then said the first case was okay because pot is illegal.
Uhh, sorry, I'm not following this part. Could you please rephrase?
ETA: HOLY SHIT 14 NEW REPLIES!!!! WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO DRIVE ME TO DRUGS!?!?!?!
ETA II: Fuck two more? Jesus guys, you might want to try using the brake every once in awhile.
OMFG ANOTHER ONE????
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.
Yep. Loads of replies.
But this is the only one I have.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.
They are outside of using them for medical purposes.
But it certainly is a serious problem.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:16:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: RWHNBut we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and /based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.
In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects, then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.
And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.
Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.
Do you have a logical explanation for that, or are you just taking "how you feel" and running with it? Because it seems to me that saying "well, we've decided that substance A is legal for adults to use responsibly provided they don't engage in these specific behaviors while doing so, and substance B is accepted by the scientific community as being less harmful to the individual than substance A, therefore substance B should also be legal for adults to use responsibly with the same restrictions on behavior that substance A has" is a very reasonable model for making policy.
Still waiting for a reply to this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:01:33 PM
And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?
Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.
But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context)
BUT COMPARING POT TO DDT IS JUST FINE.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
When looking at the structures of policy making in the name of public safety and addressing public health issues, yes, yes it is.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.
They are outside of using them for medical purposes.
But it certainly is a serious problem.
So is the fact that you make children drink alcohol.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:01:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Yes, I know. But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.
So.... keep booze out of the house too, right?
It certainly should be locked up.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:01:33 PM
And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?
Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.
But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context)
BUT COMPARING POT TO DDT IS JUST FINE.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
When looking at the structures of policy making in the name of public safety and addressing public health issues, yes, yes it is.
But booze and pot are different. :lulz:
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:01:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Yes, I know. But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.
So.... keep booze out of the house too, right?
It certainly should be locked up.
Which totally doesn't work for weed, right? :lulz:
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:01:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Yes, I know. But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.
So.... keep booze out of the house too, right?
It certainly should be locked up.
So, in a theoretical world, if Marijuana and Alcohol were handled identically in a responsible fashion (ie, you don't give/sell it to kids, you keep it locked up in your home, you don't drive while intoxicated)... is there some other reason to support continued prohibition?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 06:17:56 PM
So your example is:
There is an unlikely scenario that X could cause an effect.
There is a likely scenario that A, B, C, F, Q and Z could cause the same effect.
A, B, C, F, Q and Z are currently legal, but X should remain illegal.
This may not be a good model for Public Policy, but its a really terrible model for a honest debate.
But I don't agree with your supposition that marijuana fits the criteria for X.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:10:25 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:04:57 PM
Quote from: RWHNBut we also prohibit other poisons like certain pesticides that were found to be very dangerous. Shouldn't farmers still be allowed to use those pesticides? I mean, people can just go ahead and buy organic foods. Do you think the prohibition on DDT should be ended?
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane was restricted due to the eggshell weakening in many predatory birds, including the national symbol, the bald eagle. In other words, it was the individual usage and overusage that had widespread effects. Not to mention all the other overuse of pesticides in the first half of the 20th century, affecting more than just birds of prey. Most of these are now heavily regulated, as they should be. I hate to use the utilitarian perspective, but for regulation of chemical substances, both external and internal, all effects have to be taken into question, positive and negative, individual and global, human and non-human. After the weighing, the determination of what should be legal or what extent should be regulated, should be scalar and /based around regulations of model drugs or chemicals already in place/.
In other words, if we agree that the negative effects of, say, marijuana under regular use are no worse than alcohol or tobacco after weighing all the effects, then Cannabis should not be regulated any more than tobacco or alcohol. Otherwise, the same thinking would dictate that alcohol and tobacco are regulated more heavily. I have yet to see an argument to make this point, and I don't understand what's so difficult or wrong about this reasoning. The only reason I see not to switch to alcohol or tobacco level regulation immediately is the lack of infrastructure and legislation to regulate it properly and keep the amounts sold to minors to a minimum. The only reason it seems that the switch is taking much longer is a general cultural taboo that evolved from a economic banning due to fiber competition. Much like the health department continues to have problems with sale of insects as food despite there being no more reason to do so than to have problems with sale of livestock for food. The same criteria apply, yet there is a double standard due to cultural taboos.
And I for one am glad at seeing several bald eagles over the last week.
Because I don't think an "it's not as bad as..." model for making policy is a very good one.
Then what you propose is an arbitrary double standard.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
Do you ever perform the Cha-Cha?
HE's pointing out that it's the same thing. It seems like your whole disagreement on cannabis is due to the fact that the infallible US government decided to make it illegal (which it also did with booze), whereas, all scientific evidence that I've encountered, plus annecdotal evidence seems to indicate that cannabis is less harmful than booze in all categories. If you choose to go after cannabis like this, then you also support Prohibition for alcohol. Otherwise you are either misinformed, or a hypocrite.
I've never said it wasn't arbitrary.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
So the cops have a way of identifying people driving under the influence... gosh, maybe they could treat them the same way that they do with people under the influence of alcohol (I bet more Mainers got pulled over under the influence of alcohol in the past couple weeks).
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:39:53 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 06:17:56 PM
So your example is:
There is an unlikely scenario that X could cause an effect.
There is a likely scenario that A, B, C, F, Q and Z could cause the same effect.
A, B, C, F, Q and Z are currently legal, but X should remain illegal.
This may not be a good model for Public Policy, but its a really terrible model for a honest debate.
But I don't agree with your supposition that marijuana fits the criteria for X.
Can you expand on that a bit?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:41:48 PM
I've never said it wasn't arbitrary.
Yeah. YOUR chosen intoxicant is just dandy. Nobody else's is.
This is a GREAT way to decide what peoples' rights are.
PS: Stop making kids drink. Think of the children.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
200 out of 1.3 million.
That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent. Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.
And that is in a couple years. I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Numbers on Mainers who were pulled over for driving while drunk?
Quote
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
Or... you know breaking the law and trespassing.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
200 out of 1.3 million.
That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent. Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.
And that is in a couple years. I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.
I wonder what the incidence rate of drunk driving is?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
Do you ever perform the Cha-Cha?
HE's pointing out that it's the same thing. It seems like your whole disagreement on cannabis is due to the fact that the infallible US government decided to make it illegal (which it also did with booze), whereas, all scientific evidence that I've encountered, plus annecdotal evidence seems to indicate that cannabis is less harmful than booze in all categories. If you choose to go after cannabis like this, then you also support Prohibition for alcohol. Otherwise you are either misinformed, or a hypocrite.
I've never said it wasn't arbitrary.
Then why do you support alcohol by consuming it, if it is arbitrary?
Why not support marijuana if it is also arbitrary? You don't have to smoke it, just consider that, you know, your line should probably be drawn elsewhere.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:13:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:01:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 05:57:34 PM
Adolescent substance abuse (or use for that matter) would remain outlawed under pretty much any legalization scheme that has been suggested.
Yes, I know. But adults procreate and have kids in their homes.
So.... keep booze out of the house too, right?
It certainly should be locked up.
I can't believe you drink with children in the house. Do you know the statistics for teen alcoholism?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.
According to the law, yes it is okay for me to drink a beer and not okay for that guy over there to smoke a joint. Philosophically, sure, I have no moral issues with an adult drinking a beer, smoking a joint, injecting heroin into their arms, whatever floats their boat. But, the real world also has these pesky little non-adults running around. And they're not quite ready to make the big grown-up decisions, and quite often will make stupid, bone-headed decisions. Communities with lots of sick, drug addicted drop outs tend to suck.
ETA: JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
200 out of 1.3 million.
That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent. Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.
And that is in a couple years. I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.
I wonder what the incidence rate of drunk driving is?
Considering that it's Maine we're talking about....
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:47:55 PM
According to the law, yes it is okay for me to drink a beer and not okay for that guy over there to smoke a joint. Philosophically, sure, I have no moral issues with an adult drinking a beer, smoking a joint, injecting heroin into their arms, whatever floats their boat. But, the real world also has these pesky little non-adults running around. And they're not quite ready to make the big grown-up decisions, and quite often will make stupid, bone-headed decisions. Communities with lots of sick, drug addicted drop outs tend to suck.
ETA: JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???
But having the little bastards drinking beer is JUST FINE.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:47:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:15:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Do you ever drink beer, RWHN?
Occasionally yes.
So...It's okay if YOU use the intoxicant of YOUR choice, but not okay if OTHER adults use the intoxicants of THEIR choice.
According to the law, yes it is okay for me to drink a beer and not okay for that guy over there to smoke a joint. Philosophically, sure, I have no moral issues with an adult drinking a beer, smoking a joint, injecting heroin into their arms, whatever floats their boat. But, the real world also has these pesky little non-adults running around. And they're not quite ready to make the big grown-up decisions, and quite often will make stupid, bone-headed decisions. Communities with lots of sick, drug addicted drop outs tend to suck.
ETA: JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???
Or, you know, you can lock the bong up with the brandy.
Just saying.
So, do you support legalization of cannabis or no?
If no, then why not support prohibition of alcohol? It's the same argument.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
How many Maine drivers were pulled over in that same time span and found to be driving under the influence of alcohol?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.
They are outside of using them for medical purposes.
But it certainly is a serious problem.
So is the fact that you make children drink alcohol.
Uhh, say what? Try that one again.
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 26, 2011, 09:32:23 PM
... 30 pages?
I'm not sure.
One thing I know about threads like these is that they're super-funny when you're high.
And I'm not feelin' it.
:mittens:
What I've taken away from this thread is that it's okay for kids to drink alcohol, but not to do weed. Because one's illegal for adults, and one isn't.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.
They are outside of using them for medical purposes.
But it certainly is a serious problem.
So is the fact that you make children drink alcohol.
Uhh, say what? Try that one again.
If smoking the occasional joint causes kids to also smoke the occasional joint, then it goes to follow that your occasional beer habit causes children to drink beer.
This is the consequence of your position.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:50:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:18:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:00:34 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
However, it seems to me that the only argument RWHN makes is 'If adults do it, so will the kids." Seems to ignore that plenty of kids are already doing it and sidesteps the question of individual rights, as well as the questions surrounding medical marijuana (ie, If someone is dying painfully and smoking pot makes them feel better, should it be illegal?)
It doesn't ignore that. Indeed it acknowledges that adolescent use is unacceptably high. However, it also acknowledges that use is linked to access and social access is very influential.
About half of the kids who abuse prescription drugs get the drugs from someone they know, often times in their own home. (NSDUH, 2006) If you don't think that would happen with legal marijuana you are smoking something that probably should be illegal.
By that reasoning prescription opiates and benzodiazepines should also be illegal.
They are outside of using them for medical purposes.
But it certainly is a serious problem.
So is the fact that you make children drink alcohol.
Uhh, say what? Try that one again.
You drink. By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.
Stop making kids drink, RWHN.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:05:20 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 05:07:17 PM
Further, I don't think anyone is arguing that adolescents should abuse substances.
RWHN's argument seems to be that if adults use drugs, more kids will use drugs.
In short, your rights should be curtailed because somebody might not be watching their snot-nosed kids.
Or because your neighbor accidentally backs over your kid while impaired.
a) He's probably going to want to stay in his house and watch TV
Or maybe he'll be like one of the 200 or so Maine drivers who were pulled over in the past couple of years and found to be driving under the influence of marijuana. (It's from a PowerPoint I have in my hand here. Or maybe I just pulled it out of my arse. YOU DECIDE!!!)
Quoteb) What are your kids doing in someone else's driveway?
Basking in the Grand Glory of American Freedom!!!
200 out of 1.3 million.
That's an occurance level of 1 hundredth of one percent. Admittedly I am using population rather than registered drivers, but even if half those people don't drive, an incredibly generous margin of error, that means one fiftieth of one percent.
And that is in a couple years. I suspect the incidence rate of running into moose is higher than that.
We should probably make it illegal to be a moose.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
What I've taken away from this thread is that it's okay for kids to drink alcohol, but not to do weed. Because one's illegal for adults, and one isn't.
Yes, and also keep in mind that one should stay legal because it's legal and one should stay illegal because it's illegal, and the two cannot be compared because they are apples to oranges.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 06:55:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:52:09 PM
What I've taken away from this thread is that it's okay for kids to drink alcohol, but not to do weed. Because one's illegal for adults, and one isn't.
Yes, and also keep in mind that one should stay legal because it's legal and one should stay illegal because it's illegal, and the two cannot be compared because they are apples to oranges.
As opposed to pesticide use, which is the exact same thing as smoking pot.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:32:47 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:01:33 PM
And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?
Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.
But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context)
BUT COMPARING POT TO DDT IS JUST FINE.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
When looking at the structures of policy making in the name of public safety and addressing public health issues, yes, yes it is.
But booze and pot are different. :lulz:
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health. I'm not literally comparing the qualities of the two substances.
My issue with the alcohol and pot pairing as pertains to deciding legal status is that, marijuana, on its own merits poses significant risks to public health. and on that basis, on its own, can warrant its current status as an illegal substance.
Is alcohol also very dangerous? Yes, of course it is.
And I've said this in past discussion, I will gladly admit and put forward that it is completely and utterly arbitrary that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. Guess what, that's how public policy works sometimes. Lines get drawn. On one level they make sense to some, on another, they don't make sense to others. So, you guys get together, write your Congrescritters, and get Marijuana off the schedule.
Me, I like it on the schedule. Adolescent marijuana abuse is pretty bad but I believe it would be worse if the substance was legal. It's already starting to creep up higher after declines and I personally blame medical marijuana for part of that increase because it has resulted in a decreased perception of harm amongst adolescents. Because doctors are saying it is okay, it must be okay. That's why kids abuse rx drugs. Because they are kids and they don't think and use logic like (many) adults do.
so yes, it is completely arbitrary.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:47:55 PM
ETA: JEZUZ 7 NEW REPLIES DON'T YOU GUYS HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM OR SOMETHING???
Thats why God invented wireless... PISS AND POST AT THE SAME TIME, BITCHES!!
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
My issue with the alcohol and pot pairing as pertains to deciding legal status is that, marijuana, on its own merits poses significant risks to public health. and on that basis, on its own, can warrant its current status as an illegal substance.
What are those significant risks to public health?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
You drink. By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.
Stop making kids drink, RWHN.
Oh, okay I understand now. Technically, you are correct. Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:32:47 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 06:01:33 PM
And where, exactly, should that line be drawn?
Logically, if you think that pot should be illegal for adults to use then you MUST think that alcohol should be illegal as well given that it incurs a far higher cost to society as well as to the individual.
But you keep saying it's a false comparison (it's not, especially in this theoretical context)
BUT COMPARING POT TO DDT IS JUST FINE.
UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!
When looking at the structures of policy making in the name of public safety and addressing public health issues, yes, yes it is.
But booze and pot are different. :lulz:
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health. I'm not literally comparing the qualities of the two substances.
My issue with the alcohol and pot pairing as pertains to deciding legal status is that, marijuana, on its own merits poses significant risks to public health. and on that basis, on its own, can warrant its current status as an illegal substance.
Is alcohol also very dangerous? Yes, of course it is.
And I've said this in past discussion, I will gladly admit and put forward that it is completely and utterly arbitrary that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. Guess what, that's how public policy works sometimes. Lines get drawn. On one level they make sense to some, on another, they don't make sense to others. So, you guys get together, write your Congrescritters, and get Marijuana off the schedule.
Me, I like it on the schedule. Adolescent marijuana abuse is pretty bad but I believe it would be worse if the substance was legal. It's already starting to creep up higher after declines and I personally blame medical marijuana for part of that increase because it has resulted in a decreased perception of harm amongst adolescents. Because doctors are saying it is okay, it must be okay. That's why kids abuse rx drugs. Because they are kids and they don't think and use logic like (many) adults do.
so yes, it is completely arbitrary.
No.
Look, I used to pop pills in high school. I knew it was bad for me. I did it because I wanted to and it was fun. I didn't do it because the doctor said it was ok for me to do prescriptions that weren't prescribed for me. And I eventually stopped.
Kids may be stupid, but they're not misinformed or mislead in their choices. Kids can use logic.
Kids know they're not supposed to drink booze. They know the reasons why. Kids know they're not supposed to smoke up. They know the reasons why. Now if THC is a substance that's less addictive and has fewer health consequences than alcohol, and, I might point out, has the paranoid factor that helps prevent you from doing stupid shit unlike alcohol which makes you think that it's the best idea in the world to go and do something stupid rightfuckingnow, then why are you ok with it remaining illegal and keeping booze legal.
Now that is not logical.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:04:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
You drink. By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.
Stop making kids drink, RWHN.
Oh, okay I understand now. Technically, you are correct. Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway.
Or, you know, you could teach him yourself that he's not allowed to open it until he's 21.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:04:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
You drink. By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.
Stop making kids drink, RWHN.
Oh, okay I understand now. Technically, you are correct. Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway.
Now 3 year olds can operate a bong.
This thread is absolutely fascinating.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Well, at least not with the rationale that adult users == minor abusers. Certainly there are credible arguments that "It's illegal, you'll go to jail".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:08:02 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:04:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
You drink. By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.
Stop making kids drink, RWHN.
Oh, okay I understand now. Technically, you are correct. Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway.
Now 3 year olds can operate a bong.
This thread is absolutely fascinating.
:spittake:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
Don't you remember that time that those kids drank 10 beers and a bottle of vodka smoked some joints at a party and totally died of alcohol weed poisoning?
Thank god there's no legal substances that can cause that
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:09:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Well, at least not with the rationale that adult users == minor abusers. Certainly there are credible arguments that "It's illegal, you'll go to jail".
I don't smoke pot because I'm not really wild about it.
Not because the government tells me I can't, for two reasons:
1. They're not the boss of me, and
2. If I get caught by the kind of cops I've known, then I'm TOO FUCKING HIGH. Seriously.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:09:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Well, at least not with the rationale that adult users == minor abusers. Certainly there are credible arguments that "It's illegal, you'll go to jail".
I don't smoke pot because I'm not really wild about it.
Not because the government tells me I can't, for two reasons:
1. They're not the boss of me, and
2. If I get caught by the kind of cops I've known, then I'm TOO FUCKING HIGH. Seriously.
:lulz:
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:04:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 06:53:13 PM
You drink. By your own model, that means you make it more likely that kids will drink.
Stop making kids drink, RWHN.
Oh, okay I understand now. Technically, you are correct. Though, my son hasn't quite figured out the bottle opener so I figure I'm good for a couple of years anyway.
Or, you know, you could teach him yourself that he's not allowed to open it until he's 21.
My son has all he can do to say the word "duck" at his very young age (less than 2 years old). You might understand why that's probably not going to be a very productive discussion right now. Oh, I suppose I could role play it with Thomas the Tank Engine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.
ETA: Yes, I know you have kids TGRR.
So, in summary:
Keeping Cannabis sativa illegal as opposed to EtOH is an arbitrary position.
and
The justification for this arbitrary position is a belief it will lower the incidence of use in people under the age of 18.
That's it. Now, whether it actually does lower the incidence of use in people under 18 (my thought is, yes, it probably does) and whether this justifies the criminalization of users is a completely new topic.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:18:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.
ETA: Yes, I know you have kids TGRR.
I'm childless.
I'm also the brother of a 15 year old.
And an uncle to a 6 and a 1 year old.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
Speaking as a Discordian, as I define it, I don't allow arbitrary, senseless laws to govern my behavior any more than I have to. Currently, I have to get groped at the airport (fuck their pervert machine, they can do it the old-fashioned way), and file my taxes. That's about it.
Right now, in my state, I could legally smoke pot if I wanted to. It would probably be better for me than the pills I take to go to sleep, which it turns out are probably spiked with something fucking awful.
But it seems that you'd rather people take atropine -
a strychnine related drug1,because smoking pot might lead kids to smoke pot. Somehow this doesn't apply to booze.
1 Whoops. Got confused with brucine, which is added to industrial alcohol to make it poisonous.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.
I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:18:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.
ETA: Yes, I know you have kids TGRR.
What? Who told you to leave?
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.
I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.
Arbitrary public policy has gotten us into quite a few messes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:18:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.
ETA: Yes, I know you have kids TGRR.
What? Who told you to leave?
Apparently you did.
Also, apparently my opinion doesn't count because I'm responsible enough to not reproduce when I don't have a proper job or a house.
Arguing purely from a potential harm to children perspective current policies cause children to lose their parents to the prison system, to have their education options curtailed, opens a gateway to hard drugs because if someone can get marijuana chances are they can get something else, and brings violence into children's neighborhoods through the influence of organized crime.
Seems like a pretty good reason to legalize. Do it for the children.
I'd much rather more kids smoke pot and less get shot.
I have a daughter, if I find out she's smoking weed I'll be less upset than if I find out she's drinking alcohol. She's only ten so I'll be pretty upset about either at the moment.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:18:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.
ETA: Yes, I know you have kids TGRR.
What? Who told you to leave?
Apparently you did.
Also, apparently my opinion doesn't count because I'm responsible enough to not reproduce when I don't have a proper job or a house.
I have NO idea where the hell THAT came from. :?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PMBecause doctors are saying it is okay, it must be okay. That's why kids abuse rx drugs.
Are you serious? :lulz:
If you are, you're an idiot. Kids abuse RX drugs because it gets them high. by your logic, no kids would ever do a line of cocaine because doctors aren't OK with that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:28:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:18:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:07:09 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PM
Unnnggg. You don't get it. The point of my comparison was to point out that government has a role in the realm of public safety and public health.
Specifically, that role seems to be putting atropine in peoples' pain killers.
As for the rest of your post, I fail to see why I should be sold on an arbitrary line in the sand that makes the LESS dangerous drug illegal as hell, while you drink the MORE dangerous drug while worrying about pot smokers being bad examples.
FACT: If you drink beer, you have ZERO credibility in telling other people why they can't use intoxicants. Period.
Okay, I'll leave if all of the childless posters leave too.
ETA: Yes, I know you have kids TGRR.
What? Who told you to leave?
Apparently you did.
Also, apparently my opinion doesn't count because I'm responsible enough to not reproduce when I don't have a proper job or a house.
I have NO idea where the hell THAT came from. :?
Yeah, I'm scratching my head with that one too.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
Ok, that makes more sense.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 06:58:49 PMBecause doctors are saying it is okay, it must be okay. That's why kids abuse rx drugs.
:lord:
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.
I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.
In a sense yes. My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective. Youth use is linked to access. Youth use is linked to perception of harm. Youth use is linked to community norms. Youth use is linked to family norms. This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
Yep. If all the kids stop smoking shit, you're out of work.
Makes sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:43:43 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
Yep. If all the kids stop smoking shit, you're out of work.
Makes sense.
I could think of worse ways to lose a job.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:43:43 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
Yep. If all the kids stop smoking shit, you're out of work.
Makes sense.
I could think of worse ways to lose a job.
Well, it's not likely, is it? We can keep tossing 17 year olds in prison indefinitely. Helps you AND the fine folks at Wackenhutt.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
Because you're better than they are.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.
I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.
In a sense yes. My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective. Youth use is linked to access. Youth use is linked to perception of harm. Youth use is linked to community norms. Youth use is linked to family norms. This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.
Responsible use is also tied in with this. Just saying.
It's culturally acceptable to drink. It's not culturally acceptable to be a wino.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
So then why aren't the people in your line of work focusing on how to get to the eventual endgame in the safest way possible? I think most of the groups trying to legalize for medical or recreational would welcome 'experts' in your field because most of them are likely to agree with your position on children usage being bad. If voters continue to pass legalization in one form or another, it seems better for the kids if the experts are providing as much guidance as possible. Just say "NOOOOO" doesn't seem likely to work, it seems likely to reduce credibility.
IMO.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:47:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:43:43 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
Yep. If all the kids stop smoking shit, you're out of work.
Makes sense.
I could think of worse ways to lose a job.
Well, it's not likely, is it? We can keep tossing 17 year olds in prison indefinitely. Helps you AND the fine folks at Wackenhutt.
Maybe if I were a prison guard.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:48:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:47:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:43:43 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
Yep. If all the kids stop smoking shit, you're out of work.
Makes sense.
I could think of worse ways to lose a job.
Well, it's not likely, is it? We can keep tossing 17 year olds in prison indefinitely. Helps you AND the fine folks at Wackenhutt.
Maybe if I were a prison guard.
Naw. You just support them.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
Because you're better than they are.
No, because reality shows there are some shitty parents in America who make shitty decisions. Which means government is going to have to step in at some point. I'd rather have them on the front end before the kids life is ruined.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.
He only drinks once in a while. Which is totally different than similar moderation with pot.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
So then why aren't the people in your line of work focusing on how to get to the eventual endgame in the safest way possible? I think most of the groups trying to legalize for medical or recreational would welcome 'experts' in your field because most of them are likely to agree with your position on children usage being bad. If voters continue to pass legalization in one form or another, it seems better for the kids if the experts are providing as much guidance as possible. Just say "NOOOOO" doesn't seem likely to work, it seems likely to reduce credibility.
IMO.
Well, we provide guidance to the legislators that first entertain the notion of passing medical marijuana. And in Maine it wasn't approved by the legislature, it went to the voters. So then there definitely were efforts to educate voters. But it's hard to argue with a dying grandma with cancer. I certainly wouldn't charge that windmill.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:50:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:47:20 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
Because you're better than they are.
No, because reality shows there are some shitty parents in America who make shitty decisions. Which means government is going to have to step in at some point. I'd rather have them on the front end before the kids life is ruined.
Sure. And the obvious solution is to spend money incarcerating those kids when they do fuck up, instead of using the same money on prevention years ahead of time. Because we must write laws for The Perfect State, and then make public examples of those who don't measure up. It's easier than education, right? Plus, it teaches the little bastards a little respect for The State.
Which is what the current system does, and it's the VERY THING that ruins the kids' lives. What fucks a teenager up more, RWHN? Smoking a joint or doing 5 years in the joint, and all the fun things that go along with a felony conviction?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.
It's my lazy-man definition of it so there. :p You wanna fight tough guy?!?!?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.
He only drinks once in a while. Which is totally different than similar moderation with pot.
Like I said, I smoke maybe twice a year. So far this year it's only been once.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:54:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.
He only drinks once in a while. Which is totally different than similar moderation with pot.
Like I said, I smoke maybe twice a year. So far this year it's only been once.
Apparently, that rates going to prison and getting hep/HIV, etc.
For the children.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
So then why aren't the people in your line of work focusing on how to get to the eventual endgame in the safest way possible? I think most of the groups trying to legalize for medical or recreational would welcome 'experts' in your field because most of them are likely to agree with your position on children usage being bad. If voters continue to pass legalization in one form or another, it seems better for the kids if the experts are providing as much guidance as possible. Just say "NOOOOO" doesn't seem likely to work, it seems likely to reduce credibility.
IMO.
Well, we provide guidance to the legislators that first entertain the notion of passing medical marijuana. And in Maine it wasn't approved by the legislature, it went to the voters. So then there definitely were efforts to educate voters. But it's hard to argue with a dying grandma with cancer. I certainly wouldn't charge that windmill.
But why argue with Grandma? Why not work with the people crafting the wording of whats getting voted on? Something like:
"We understand that this will help Grandma, however, to make sure we don't endanger Johnny and Lucy you might consider adding the following stuff Issue 420:"
followed by helpful guidance, based on experience about how to legalize while protecting children.
Don't charge the windmill, show it how to generate energy without killing birds. No windmill wants to kill birds
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Obviously, the only solution is to toss people in prison and ruin their lives.
So they'll be responsible.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:54:31 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
This is not the definition of a teetotaler, or otherwise known as being a straightedge kid in 1890.
It's my lazy-man definition of it so there. :p You wanna fight tough guy?!?!?
No, I'm not that sort of drunken Irishman. Plus, the drive would be inconvenient.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
How do you plan to do that? The law says they go to fucking prison.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.
Remember: Anecdotes = Evidence.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
And instead get mandatory help for their 'addiction' while being subjected to peeing in a cup for the State for the next five years?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
Violent potheads!
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
And instead get mandatory help for their 'addiction' while being subjected to peeing in a cup for the State for the next five years?
Do they get to keep their kids?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.
Excellent point. If it were legal, Mom could say "No, not until you're 21", just like many parents do on the topic of alcohol.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:53:56 PM
Sure. And the obvious solution is to spend money incarcerating those kids when they do fuck up, instead of using the same money on prevention years ahead of time. Because we must write laws for The Perfect State, and then make public examples of those who don't measure up. It's easier than education, right? Plus, it teaches the little bastards a little respect for The State.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Prevention is my job. And I've stated and others have re-itirated that I have very explicitly been AGAINST locking up kids for pot. That's what diversion programs are for, drug courts, treatment, education programs. I mean, just this fucking morning I was discussing this with local law enforcement officers. How to divert kids who get in trouble and keep them from having to go to jail. C'mon, use your head.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
Violent potheads!
I've seen potheads get violent on a bag of Doritos.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:02:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:00:55 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
Violent potheads!
I've seen potheads get violent on a bag of Doritos.
The drugs made them do that. Poor bag of Doritos.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
How do you plan to do that? The law says they go to fucking prison.
Maybe that's how it goes in your state. In Maine we have Drug Courts, we have diversion programs, we have an educational program called SIRP that kids might be eligible for. The judges here will look for anyway to keep a kid out of jail. Obviously, if they commit a violent crime, or there is another associated crime those chances go way down. But if it is simple possession, unless they tell the judge to fuck off, they won't be going to jail.
Will they have to sit through an educational program? Sure.
Will they have to have a substance abuse assessment? Yep. (not a bad thing)
If they are assessed to need treatment will they be required to get treatment? Yep. But again, not a bad thing and Maine only uses scientifically-validated assessment instruments.
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:53:26 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:42:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Let me get this straight-
You agree that marijuana policy is arbitrary.
That alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana.
That you personally disagree with the legalization of marijuana because of what it does to kids.
But yet, you're cool with alcohol because it is legal, despite what it does to kids.
That your opinion on points three and four are backed up by data that you see everyday.
Again, if we're talking something like heroin, I'm with you. I just can't make sense out of your position.
I understand the position. Despite the arbitrariness, it fits his interests for it to be illegal, and he will support that position as long as it continues to be illegal. Once it is legal (and it probably will be, eventually), his position will switch to that of heavy regulation. It makes perfect sense. And while I don't agree with him, I really don't see anything illogical about his position either; he has no stake in criminalization of adult users, only underage use.
BINGO!
So then why aren't the people in your line of work focusing on how to get to the eventual endgame in the safest way possible? I think most of the groups trying to legalize for medical or recreational would welcome 'experts' in your field because most of them are likely to agree with your position on children usage being bad. If voters continue to pass legalization in one form or another, it seems better for the kids if the experts are providing as much guidance as possible. Just say "NOOOOO" doesn't seem likely to work, it seems likely to reduce credibility.
IMO.
Well, we provide guidance to the legislators that first entertain the notion of passing medical marijuana. And in Maine it wasn't approved by the legislature, it went to the voters. So then there definitely were efforts to educate voters. But it's hard to argue with a dying grandma with cancer. I certainly wouldn't charge that windmill.
But personally, you're like "fuck that old lady". For the kids.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
And instead get mandatory help for their 'addiction' while being subjected to peeing in a cup for the State for the next five years?
Maybe. They will be administered a scientifically-validated assessment instrument. If they are assessed to need further evaluation and treatment, the judge will make that part of the plea arrangement. If the assessment comes out that they don't need evaluation and treatment, they would be referred to some kind of education program, and probably some community service as well.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
Depending on which philosophical position you take... that is how this government was originally set up.
As for implementation, it depends on the State.
In some cases, law enforcement has simply been told that marijuana use is the lowest crime to enforce. IE, arrest the jaywalker before you arrest the J-smoker.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:00:24 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.
Remember: Anecdotes = Evidence.
But only from the side of the argument that should have science to draw from. Anecdotal evidence from the side of the argument where scientific study is stifled by the government is, of course, not even worth considering.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:06:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:59:57 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
How do you plan to do that? The law says they go to fucking prison.
Maybe that's how it goes in your state. In Maine we have Drug Courts, we have diversion programs, we have an educational program called SIRP that kids might be eligible for. The judges here will look for anyway to keep a kid out of jail. Obviously, if they commit a violent crime, or there is another associated crime those chances go way down. But if it is simple possession, unless they tell the judge to fuck off, they won't be going to jail.
Will they have to sit through an educational program? Sure.
Will they have to have a substance abuse assessment? Yep. (not a bad thing)
If they are assessed to need treatment will they be required to get treatment? Yep. But again, not a bad thing and Maine only uses scientifically-validated assessment instruments.
Okay. Is it still a drug conviction?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:12:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:00:24 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.
Remember: Anecdotes = Evidence.
But only from the side of the argument that should have science to draw from. Anecdotal evidence from the side of the argument where scientific study is stifled by the government is, of course, not even worth considering.
Actually, anecdotes are never evidence. :lulz:
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:01:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:53:56 PM
Sure. And the obvious solution is to spend money incarcerating those kids when they do fuck up, instead of using the same money on prevention years ahead of time. Because we must write laws for The Perfect State, and then make public examples of those who don't measure up. It's easier than education, right? Plus, it teaches the little bastards a little respect for The State.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Prevention is my job. And I've stated and others have re-itirated that I have very explicitly been AGAINST locking up kids for pot. That's what diversion programs are for, drug courts, treatment, education programs. I mean, just this fucking morning I was discussing this with local law enforcement officers. How to divert kids who get in trouble and keep them from having to go to jail. C'mon, use your head.
I can think of one way to keep them from going to jail.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:09:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:00:34 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
And instead get mandatory help for their 'addiction' while being subjected to peeing in a cup for the State for the next five years?
Maybe. They will be administered a scientifically-validated assessment instrument. If they are assessed to need further evaluation and treatment, the judge will make that part of the plea arrangement. If the assessment comes out that they don't need evaluation and treatment, they would be referred to some kind of education program, and probably some community service as well.
And thankfully, unless their parents are financially well-off, we won't have to worry about them infesting our colleges with their drug-addled ways.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:11:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
Depending on which philosophical position you take... that is how this government was originally set up.
As for implementation, it depends on the State.
In some cases, law enforcement has simply been told that marijuana use is the lowest crime to enforce. IE, arrest the jaywalker before you arrest the J-smoker.
Seems like a good position. And then if you only smoke in private, and only keep small amounts, then you'd probably never get bothered about it. Which makes sense. We don't look highly on public drunkenness either.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:13:31 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:12:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:00:24 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 07:59:39 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 07:50:40 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:45:24 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
But you don't trust anyone else to do the same.
I don't trust EVERYONE else to do the same.
I have smoked with lots of parents... I have yet to smoke with any parent that did so with their child present. It's always been at adult parties or when the kids are not home/asleep. I can't say the same about parents that drink.
So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
There will be some responsible but there will also be some not responsible.
Well, yeah. As long as it remains illegal, she has that argument. A stupid argument, but one nontheless.
Remember: Anecdotes = Evidence.
But only from the side of the argument that should have science to draw from. Anecdotal evidence from the side of the argument where scientific study is stifled by the government is, of course, not even worth considering.
Actually, anecdotes are never evidence. :lulz:
No, they're perfectly valid as long as you're ignoring science in favor of them.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:15:47 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:11:13 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
Depending on which philosophical position you take... that is how this government was originally set up.
As for implementation, it depends on the State.
In some cases, law enforcement has simply been told that marijuana use is the lowest crime to enforce. IE, arrest the jaywalker before you arrest the J-smoker.
Seems like a good position. And then if you only smoke in private, and only keep small amounts, then you'd probably never get bothered about it. Which makes sense. We don't look highly on public drunkenness either.
It's decriminalized here. So basically you get a ticket if you get caught.
Which you probably won't because you'll be busy wondering why the pizza delivery guy hasn't arrived 5 minutes after you called.
ETA: This doesn't really do anything for usage by minors, unless it is legalized and restricted to adults.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
Maybe they could take those resources and go after rapists and shit.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.
I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid.
In anecdotal evidence, I think it would be more healthy for me to eat a small dose of cannabis every day than start drinking at noon and stop drinking when I fall asleep. But then, that's just anecdote.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:18:26 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.
I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid.
Actually, you've said before that they knew it was illegal when they did it and should have to live with the consequences of their actions, but I'll accept your seeming change of heart.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.
THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
Seems like the decriminalization is causing more problems for use by minors than legalization with age restriction would. In the former, there's little control over who can and cannot purchase or use. In the latter, there's significant control.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because the Federal Government has refused to allow Medical Marijuana to go through that process.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Yep. And we can't have a drug out there that people can grow for themselves.
Think of the poor folks at Bayer.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Uh... so there aren't studies for the potential medical benefits of smoking the ganja?
Main thing is, we certainly can't trust people to use their own judgement.
That only lets the terrorists win. So instead, we have a monstrous crime problem, Mexico has gone completely sideways, and we ruin our kids' lives.
But isn't that a small price to pay, to lessen the use of a drug that might have a harmful effect or two?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:20:20 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:18:26 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 07:52:28 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Youth use is linked to family norms.
Like watching old dad crack a beer. :)
Yep. Fortunately, the family norm in the WHN compound is that adult beverages are only consumed after the little WHNs are visiting the Sandman or at adult gatherings where children are not present.
Also, one might argue that drinking an occasional Rolling Rock isn't really drinking beer. (That's what beer snobs have told me anyway)
And when I say occassional I'm talking like once every other month.
RWHN,
Teetotaler extroardinaire
but if one argued that smoking a pinner of some schwaggy weed wasn't REALLY smoking pot, well, we'd still have to lock them up for the good of the children.
If they also committed a violent crime and/or were trafficking marijuana yes. If not, they should be diverted from the jail or prison system.
OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.
I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid.
Actually, you've said before that they knew it was illegal when they did it and should have to live with the consequences of their actions, but I'll accept your seeming change of heart.
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse. And certainly if there are guidelines with financial aid CURRENTLY IN PLACE that prohibit someone with a drug conviction from receiving financial aid, they should be aware of that. HOWEVER, I believe that those guidelines should be amended and that kids should get a second chance. If that means they have to write an essay, or some other condition so be it, but it shouldn't be a one strike and you're out policy.
BUT, kids still need to be educated and understand what is in place NOW. It's not going to change at the snap of a finger.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.
Violent ones that run over trespassing children.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.
Violent ones that run over trespassing children.
Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.
How many warnings do the little fuckers need?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
So, capital punishment is also a deterrent to murder?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.
Violent ones that run over trespassing children.
Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.
How many warnings do the little fuckers need?
:lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.
THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts
Well, and we are involved as per the current system. The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax. First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category. The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.
I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine. Maybe it's different in other states.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:31:30 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
So, capital punishment is also a deterrent to murder?
I have never met a teenager that made the decision to smoke or not smoke pot based on potential consequences.
I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never met one, and I was a teenager during the fucking REAGAN YEARS.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.
THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts
Well, and we are involved as per the current system. The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax. First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category. The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.
I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine. Maybe it's different in other states.
Well, we certainly can't let states or individuals decide for themselves.
That would be irresponsible as all hell.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.
THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts
Well, and we are involved as per the current system. The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax. First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category. The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.
I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine. Maybe it's different in other states.
Honestly, I think the medical marijuana argument should be a moot point.
Weed should be legal because it's a less harmful intoxicant than alcohol, and if people want to get high, fine.
Even better, if someone has cancer and they think that it's going to help, they can run down to the convenience store and buy a dime bag to keep them from puking after chemo.
Okay spags, it's been a real hoot, but Imma gonna go exercise my civic duty and vote.
Oh, and thank you for the warm gestures of flowers and honey in my PM box. I will cherish them always!
I'm still only on page 29, but I have to say this:
80 pages. By Friday.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:32:41 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
These are exactly the sort of things your peers seem in a position to positively contribute to legalization movements. The people that want to legalize in one form or another aren't evil, if a group said "Hey, we understand your position... here are some scenarios you'll need to account for in your legalization effort",you might be surprised at how much could be done to satisfy both sides of the debate.
THAT is exactly the sort of involvement government ought to have in this kind of debate. Education and guidance based on evidence and facts
Well, and we are involved as per the current system. The problem is that it isn't helping and it is getting more and more lax. First, the registry was eliminated, then the list of ailments expanded including some general catch-all category. The next step is they want to open it up to any and all ailments whether there is a proven link or not.
I'm sorry, but this is looking more and more like a back-door way to get marijuana legalized, at least in Maine. Maybe it's different in other states.
I'd be interested to see how that involvement is happening... from the people I know who have worked on legalization in one form or another, they seem pretty interested in constructive input.
Personally, I don't think expanded ailments or a back door to legalization would change the recommendations on how to legislate protection for kids. I would think that Cancer Granny and Migraine Mommy... or even Legal Recreational Dad would need to exercise the same protections for their kids. Same for a medical depot or a state liquor/weed store.
If legalization is inevitable, what would the top five rules be that you'd like to see included to protect kids?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:37:41 PM
Okay spags, it's been a real hoot, but Imma gonna go exercise my civic duty and vote.
Oh, and thank you for the warm gestures of flowers and honey in my PM box. I will cherish them always!
:lord:
TGRR,
Owes someone a nickle.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:33:16 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:31:30 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
So, capital punishment is also a deterrent to murder?
I have never met a teenager that made the decision to smoke or not smoke pot based on potential consequences.
I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never met one, and I was a teenager during the fucking REAGAN YEARS.
The first time I smoked was at a Type O Negative concert -in a club with security mind you- because I had recently broken up with a high school girlfriend, and the dude next to me had a joint, so I figured fuck it. And you know, that was one awesome fucking concert. Of course, I went into the mosh pit and literally killed everyone instead of grinning stupidly and enjoying 10 minute long songs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.
Violent ones that run over trespassing children.
Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.
How many warnings do the little fuckers need?
However, it has to be said, driving the car at five miles an hour isn't exactly a huge deterrent.
Especially when they stop every few minutes to go "woah" and inspect the cool interplay of light on the mirrors.
Quote from: Cain on November 08, 2011, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:31:18 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 08, 2011, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 08, 2011, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
I think you are confusing two different ideas. I've argued that consequences as related to substance abuse are a protective factor to prevent substance abuse.
I don't know what kind of pot heads you've met.
Violent ones that run over trespassing children.
Kids shoulda left their Doritos alone.
How many warnings do the little fuckers need?
However, it has to be said, driving the car at five miles an hour isn't exactly a huge deterrent.
Especially when they stop every few minutes to go "woah" and inspect the cool interplay of light on the mirrors.
Or to think how amazing it is is that the car is running on liquid dinosaur, man!
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.
I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.
In a sense yes. My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective. Youth use is linked to access. Youth use is linked to perception of harm. Youth use is linked to community norms. Youth use is linked to family norms. This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.
That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 07:25:01 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:13:21 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 06:50:56 PM
He's agreed that the position is arbitrary, therefore conceeding the flaws in his argument. Now I'm just interested in why he follows the illogic of an arbitrary double standard. Emotional impulse? Job requirement? I'm not saying those are good reasons (well, maybe the second is; jobs are hard to find right now), but they would explain the position in the same way that herd mentality, tabooed sexuality, tradition, and misogyny explain the fundamentalists position against abortion and birth control.
I don't really consider it a flaw because public policy by its nature is arbitrary and this is not solely restricted to laws around drugs. Political make-ups of the Congress and State Legislatures are shifting all the time. It isn't one constant set of minds and mind frames crafting and passing laws. I should think as Discordians this is something we all recognize in the state.
The other thing I need to point out is that I am under some pretty considerable restriction in my job as relates to my personal opinion on drugs and drug policy. Technically, I am not allowed to lobby in any shape, way, or form. I can provide data and information to legislators, but I cannot in my position attempt to persuade them one way or another on how they should vote or create laws.
So all of what I am sharing with you is my personal beliefs and has little to nothing to do with my day-to-day job. My day-to-day job, I can assure you, is much more boring. But of course the data and information I learn as a professional informs my personal beliefs.
I've said before, philosophically, I have no problems with adults using drugs. This isn't a moral crusade for me. But if you saw the data I see every goddamned day about what these drugs are doing to the kids in my community, you might, just might have a slightly different perspective. Reality just doesn't jive with that philosophy in my experience. For me, the reality on the ground warrants current policy. Is it perfect? Of course the fuck not.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Are you arguing then, that public policy /should/ be arbitrary? Because it shouldn't, it should be based on scientific understanding of the universe. The environmental protection acts of the 20th century certainly weren't arbitrary. Nor is the continued regulation of pesticides and herbicides.
I figured this position was also part of your job requirement. I don't hold that against you.
In a sense yes. My job requirement is to reduce youth substance abuse so it would run contrary to embrace policies that, based on current research, would run counter to that objective. Youth use is linked to access. Youth use is linked to perception of harm. Youth use is linked to community norms. Youth use is linked to family norms. This is all fundamental risk and protective factors which can be found in much of the work done by Hawkins and Catalano.
That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.
It makes sense... he's human. Humans have all sorts of contradictory positions in life ;-)
If we apply the BiP concept, I think RWHN's position is understandable. I disagree with it, but I don't think he intentionally being disingenuous. Maybe just imprisoned by a set of beliefs.
It's handy to work within minutes of the polling station.
What did I miss?
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.
But see, I don't think it makes much sense for me to waste much time thinking about whether or not alcohol being legal is OK. It is. It isn't ever going to change. It's a waste of my time to fret over it, so I work with the system as it actually exists. Additionally, I don't practice, nor preach, complete abstinence from alcohol where it concerns adults. I do talk about parental modeling in my work and the role that plays on adolescent substance abuse. And I practice it at home by not drinking in front of my children and not taking them to gathering where alcohol is being consumed. I also never drink to inebriation. For me it's one and done and I nurse that puppy for a solid hour.
Which usually leads to my wife laughing at me.
And the horrible, soul-crushing shame.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 08, 2011, 09:03:08 PM
It makes sense... he's human. Humans have all sorts of contradictory positions in life ;-)
If we apply the BiP concept, I think RWHN's position is understandable. I disagree with it, but I don't think he intentionally being disingenuous. Maybe just imprisoned by a set of beliefs.
But there's a motherfucking bar in my bars and the barmaids are impressive!
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.
But see, I don't think it makes much sense for me to waste much time thinking about whether or not alcohol being legal is OK. It is. It isn't ever going to change. It's a waste of my time to fret over it, so I work with the system as it actually exists. Additionally, I don't practice, nor preach, complete abstinence from alcohol where it concerns adults. I do talk about parental modeling in my work and the role that plays on adolescent substance abuse. And I practice it at home by not drinking in front of my children and not taking them to gathering where alcohol is being consumed. I also never drink to inebriation. For me it's one and done and I nurse that puppy for a solid hour.
Which usually leads to my wife laughing at me.
And the horrible, soul-crushing shame.
Bolded: don't want to waste time thinking about something?
Italicized: You deserve it. Not that I'm encouraging you to get wasted, but what's the point of drinking if you're not even going to work up a buzz? It's a waste of alcohol. Especially if you're drinking hour warm Rolling Rock, unless extreme penance is your thing.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 09:32:33 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 08, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are OK with alcohol being legal, and even use it in your own home.
But see, I don't think it makes much sense for me to waste much time thinking about whether or not alcohol being legal is OK. It is. It isn't ever going to change. It's a waste of my time to fret over it, so I work with the system as it actually exists. Additionally, I don't practice, nor preach, complete abstinence from alcohol where it concerns adults. I do talk about parental modeling in my work and the role that plays on adolescent substance abuse. And I practice it at home by not drinking in front of my children and not taking them to gathering where alcohol is being consumed. I also never drink to inebriation. For me it's one and done and I nurse that puppy for a solid hour.
Which usually leads to my wife laughing at me.
And the horrible, soul-crushing shame.
I think that I just have some sort of weird thing for intellectual and moral consistency or something.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
But you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
But law enforcement are in the trickiest position. When they stop someone they have to go through a process to verify whether or not a person who is in possession of marijuana is legally able to have that. The act initially required people to be on a registry and carry a card. so the officer just had to call a number and ask if John Doe was on the list. Now the registry is gone so it isn't just a simple call anymore. It's tasking what are already very thin, and thinning, local law enforcement resources.
Going after dispensaries means that grandma with glaucoma has to buy her weed from a dealer, unless she wants to risk being charged with manufacturing for growing her own.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
They're also raiding growers, and growers are people who have the medical marijuana license themselves and are legally allowed to grow extra to sell to dispensaries and other licensed people, which means that they are, in fact, raiding users of medicinal marijuana.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
I dunno, because we have some goddamn human compassion for people who are terminally ill and in alot of pain? And we think that if there's something that alleviates some of their discomfort and makes their quality of life vastly better that they should be allowed to have it right goddamn now instead of 5 or 10 years down the road when Pfizer has finally figured out a way to synthesize it in a lab?
So would it be appropriate for all prescription medicines to go through this new voter-approved process? Or is it just medical marijuana? If so, why?
RWHN,
Asking the questions for a little change of pace.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:18:36 AM
So would it be appropriate for all prescription medicines to go through this new voter-approved process? Or is it just medical marijuana? If so, why?
RWHN,
Asking the questions for a little change of pace.
Only the ones that the Feds have blocked legal research on.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
Not really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
Not really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
Marinol, the drug that costs a lot and according to the cancer patients I've talked to doesn't work nearly as well as the crude delivery system. Though most of them have gone to vaporizers and food... so there's not hot tar laden smoke, and better effects than the far more expensive Marinol.
Am I the only one that thinks its weird that a less effective legal drug costs more than a more effective black market one?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
Not really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
What negative health impacts?
That seems like a bit of specious argument. Many people eat it or use vaporizers, so smoke isn't necessarily an issue. People who smoke it generally take no more than one puff every few hours. It may indeed be crude, but it's also very very inexpensive and has an incredibly wide safety margin, unlike most prescription drugs. I wonder whether a synthetic form would have that safety margin narrowed significantly by adding other drugs with higher toxicity to "discourage abuse".
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:18:36 AM
So would it be appropriate for all prescription medicines to go through this new voter-approved process? Or is it just medical marijuana? If so, why?
RWHN,
Asking the questions for a little change of pace.
My personal opinion is that it would be fine for any substance that has absolutely zero possibility of a fatal overdose and thousands of years of history of being used to relieve pain and discomfort. I'm not aware of any others that fit that criteria, but that's probably due more to a lack of exposure on my part than to something similar not existing.
And as stated already, Marinol doesn't work for many patients. And I've known people who were prescribed it and stopped taking it because it made them MORE nauseous.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
Not really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
Actually you've been pretty clear that you'd rather keep it illegal, which means not developing anything. After all, if we're looking at better delivery systems that might send the wrong message to kids.
I've looked into this. Marinol won approval because it is a tightly controlled ratio of THC to CBD, which is dispensed at a specific amount each time you push the hypo-spray.
Federal studies have not been allowed, historically, because "we cannot guarantee the ratio of therapeutic chemicals in a grown plant, as it is very sensitive to environmental conditions".
The UK firm which won Marinol approval, did so because they could achieve this strict ratio consistently in their 'dosage mechanism'.
The process? Chemically vaporize the Cannabis, spectroscopically measure the THC/CBS ratio until you have what you want, then cool it all down and bind it all to some food grade Oil (include some Food-Grade Anti-Freeze as we're dispensing this with a pressurized spray canister which provides "Controlled dosages"...this is most probably the source of ECH's friend's nausea). I provided links to this in one of these other threads.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND GROWING YOUR OWN AND RENDERING IT INTO BUTTER/GHEE/OLIVE-OIL
except that a corporation is in control of the Dosage/use, not YOU.
NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE
When the LD50 level makes overdosing impossible, this should not be a factor. With Vicodin or Celexa (time-released methamphetamine), OH HELL YES IT'S A FACTOR.
I think the unspoken point that lurks around when it comes to Cannabis Porohibition discussions is that because "no Cannabis usage is currently authorized", then "any&all usage = abuse". Now, I'm not saying that RWHN is one of the people who holds this position, but some of the arguments in this thread seem to rely on it because it's a common sentiment in the pro-Prohibition community.
We don't think this way about alcohol, coffee, tea, or cigarettes (!!!!!! even though with cigarettes it's close to the damn truth) because they're legal/accepted.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 03:59:27 AM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
Not really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
Actually you've been pretty clear that you'd rather keep it illegal, which means not developing anything. After all, if we're looking at better delivery systems that might send the wrong message to kids.
That's kind of a nutty assumption. I mean, have you seen me go on any screeds to have prescription opiates taken off the market? C'mon! I have no issues at all with developing a medicine that incorporates the medically beneficial chemicals in medical marijuana. Every other prescription drug went through a scientifically rigorous development process and I see no reason why medical marijuana can't go through the same process. But I think the voters fucked up by short circuiting science.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 07, 2011, 09:28:51 PM
Please note, also, that the general welfare clause extends only to funding, not to criminal behavior.
That can easily be "cured" with the right precedent. Hell, if the Supreme's had been with the program from day one like the good little mouthpieces they were intended to be, they'd have the whole damn Constitution carved up one word at a time on one of those refrigerator magnet poetry sets. Be a hell of a lot easier to get the decision they wanted, that way. Wouldn't even need to refer back to the original text at all next time they had to voodoo a couple of plants in someone's living room into "interstate commerce" (under DoJ authority, of course).
Quote from: Telarus on November 09, 2011, 09:05:33 AM
I've looked into this. Marinol won approval because it is a tightly controlled ratio of THC to CBD, which is dispensed at a specific amount each time you push the hypo-spray.
Federal studies have not been allowed, historically, because "we cannot guarantee the ratio of therapeutic chemicals in a grown plant, as it is very sensitive to environmental conditions".
The UK firm which won Marinol approval, did so because they could achieve this strict ratio consistently in their 'dosage mechanism'.
The process? Chemically vaporize the Cannabis, spectroscopically measure the THC/CBS ratio until you have what you want, then cool it all down and bind it all to some food grade Oil (include some Food-Grade Anti-Freeze as we're dispensing this with a pressurized spray canister which provides "Controlled dosages"...this is most probably the source of ECH's friend's nausea). I provided links to this in one of these other threads.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND GROWING YOUR OWN AND RENDERING IT INTO BUTTER/GHEE/OLIVE-OIL
except that a corporation is in control of the Dosage/use, not YOU.
NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE
NO DIFFERENCE
When the LD50 level makes overdosing impossible, this should not be a factor. With Vicodin or Celexa (time-released methamphetamine), OH HELL YES IT'S A FACTOR.
I think the unspoken point that lurks around when it comes to Cannabis Porohibition discussions is that because "no Cannabis usage is currently authorized", then "any&all usage = abuse". Now, I'm not saying that RWHN is one of the people who holds this position, but some of the arguments in this thread seem to rely on it because it's a common sentiment in the pro-Prohibition community.
We don't think this way about alcohol, coffee, tea, or cigarettes (!!!!!! even though with cigarettes it's close to the damn truth) because they're legal/accepted.
Well, if it helps, I do believe that it should be easier for U.S. scientists to study medical marijuana so they can isolate the beneficial components and develop a drug that offers a better delivery system and would be less likely to be abused and diverted. It's not something I can advocate for in my current federally funded position.
I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.
It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.
Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.
The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.
Yeah, I was always under the impression that the entire POINT of democracy was so that people could have the ability to use their votes to enact/repeal/change things about the system that they didn't like.
RWHN, why do you hate the democratic process?
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 04:22:31 PM
I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.
It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.
Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.
The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.
When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment? I missed that memo.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 04:28:54 PM
Yeah, I was always under the impression that the entire POINT of democracy was so that people could have the ability to use their votes to enact/repeal/change things about the system that they didn't like.
Of course. That doesn't mean the voters don't make shitty decisions. I'm all for democracy. But you know, the voters are still monkeys that make hair-brained monkey decisions. Certainly you wouldn't argue otherwise.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 04:35:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 04:22:31 PM
I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.
It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.
Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.
The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.
When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment? I missed that memo.
Not exactly relevant to my post, but during Prohibition you could buy alcohol from the pharmacy with a prescription.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:05:01 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 03:59:27 AM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:22:00 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 08, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:21:50 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:18:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 08, 2011, 08:07:22 PM
I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?
From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana. It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so. But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws. I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell. But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.
No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.
Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage. Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through? Why does it get a pass? I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters.
Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.
Not really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
Actually you've been pretty clear that you'd rather keep it illegal, which means not developing anything. After all, if we're looking at better delivery systems that might send the wrong message to kids.
That's kind of a nutty assumption. I mean, have you seen me go on any screeds to have prescription opiates taken off the market? C'mon! I have no issues at all with developing a medicine that incorporates the medically beneficial chemicals in medical marijuana. Every other prescription drug went through a scientifically rigorous development process and I see no reason why medical marijuana can't go through the same process. But I think the voters fucked up by short circuiting science.
It's much harder to rally for support for "lets allow pharmaceutical companies to test marijuana for medical possibilities" for one thing, that isn't going to win over the pro-legalization people, while medical marijuana, in the form it has taken in many states, will.
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 04:35:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 04:22:31 PM
I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.
It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.
Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.
The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.
When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment? I missed that memo.
Not exactly relevant to my post, but during Prohibition you could buy alcohol from the pharmacy with a prescription.
So your post isn't exactly relevant to the present tense. Glad we sorted that out.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 05:05:29 PM
It's much harder to rally for support for "lets allow pharmaceutical companies to test marijuana for medical possibilities" for one thing, that isn't going to win over the pro-legalization people, while medical marijuana, in the form it has taken in many states, will.
That's very true. The Medical Marijuana folks are definitely very good at marketing. I won't argue that at all.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 04:35:13 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 04:22:31 PM
I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.
It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.
Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.
The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.
When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment? I missed that memo.
Not exactly relevant to my post, but during Prohibition you could buy alcohol from the pharmacy with a prescription.
So your post isn't exactly relevant to the present tense. Glad we sorted that out.
Just using that whole "history" thing against you
or
:?
Sorry, Nigel, since the history of corruption and incompetence by the DEA is, apparently, not valid then I wouldn't expect any other history to be accepted as valid either.
Context, how does it work?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 05:29:40 PM
Sorry, Nigel, since the history of corruption and incompetence by the DEA is, apparently, not valid then I wouldn't expect any other history to be accepted as valid either.
You just can't compare things that happened in the
past to things that are happening in the
present. It's apples and oranges!
the cynic in me says shit like "Oh, so we have the DEA go in and just collect a shit-ton of drugs from people and nobody thinks there's anything fishy about that?"
Of course, the cynic in me has all kinds of firsthand experience with the integrity of individual DEA agents, if not with the organization as a whole.
but, of course, first-hand accounts of things are worthless without studies and links. I'm probably just making them up, unlike, say, RWHN's degree.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 05:47:40 PM
the cynic in me says shit like "Oh, so we have the DEA go in and just collect a shit-ton of drugs from people and nobody thinks there's anything fishy about that?"
Of course, the cynic in me has all kinds of firsthand experience with the integrity of individual DEA agents, if not with the organization as a whole.
but, of course, first-hand accounts of things are worthless without studies and links. I'm probably just making them up, unlike, say, RWHN's degree.
Shhhh. Our government is doing what's best for us, we shouldn't question it.
Well, for starters, the actual collection of drugs is coordinated by local police agencies and coalitions. The DEA handles the disposal. In Maine, the drugs go to Massachusetts where they are incinerated.
Per DEP regulations, Maine doesn't have any facilities in-state where the incineration can happen. Though, currently Maine is doing an experiment where they are going to compost some medications in a few barrels and study how they break down. I'm skeptical that they will break down in a manner that will be acceptable for environmentally safe disposal in Maine, but if it works, it would save a shit ton of money. It costs something on the order of $2000 just to dispose of 350lbs of meds. When you are collecting 14,000 statewide, that becomes a hefty price tag.
Of course the ideal would be the pharmaceutical companies stepping up to the plate and chipping in to help fund the disposal.
Yes.
Technically, ECH was wrong because the DEA doesn't themselves collect the drugs from people, they just coordinate the collection and then they take the drugs and... dispose of them.
And, of course, RWHN has witnessed this supposed incineration for himself. And it doesn't matter if he hasn't because the DEA is infallible, just like all federal agencies, and we should stop with this insolent questioning of our betters.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:06:21 PMIn Maine we have Drug Courts, we have diversion programs, we have an educational program called SIRP that kids might be eligible for. The judges here will look for anyway to keep a kid out of jail. Obviously, if they commit a violent crime, or there is another associated crime those chances go way down. But if it is simple possession, unless they tell the judge to fuck off, they won't be going to jail.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PMSo, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
Did you explain her it's really not a fair comparison, because if her mom got caught she'd be in really big trouble and would go to jail, while the girl would just get a diversion?
That
is the message that system is sending currently. The exact opposite of the stated goal. It's completely messed up.
Kids aren't stupid. How in the hell are you going to convince them not to smoke pot at a young age if there's literally
less consequences for doing so than there is in adulthood?
Over here we got a sort of wishy-washy-sorta legal status for adults and a we-fine-you-to-bankruptcy-and-take-away-your-license status for letting a kid so much as lean over the doorstep of a coffee shop, plus all sorts of local ordinances of not letting them set up shop near schools etc, plus a bit of
honest education material treating kids like adults written from the viewpoint of "we know we can't stop you from doing what you want, but
know this" about dangers of (psychological) addiction and effect on brain development of pot and some other drugs.
And on top of that there's a bunch of special programs for problematic areas/demographics, but I'm not really familiar with those.
Now this seems to me very sensible, but I was actually a bit surprised when I looked up the hard data:
(http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/3020/cannabis.png)
(like that graph? made it myself! you can use it in a powerpoint if you want, data comes from here (http://www.drugsweb.nl/drugsweb664.asp), figured as I was translating, might as well plot it too)
It's the green line "used in the past month" that's really important. I wouldn't expect kids to get brain damage from just trying it once (they shouldn't do that of course, but it's not the end of the world either--except for them when their parents find out).
Addition: I forgot to ask, are these numbers higher or lower than Maine, or the US, ?
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 05:59:36 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:06:21 PMIn Maine we have Drug Courts, we have diversion programs, we have an educational program called SIRP that kids might be eligible for. The judges here will look for anyway to keep a kid out of jail. Obviously, if they commit a violent crime, or there is another associated crime those chances go way down. But if it is simple possession, unless they tell the judge to fuck off, they won't be going to jail.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 07:57:11 PMSo, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk. That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine. I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences. The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too. And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.
Did you explain her it's really not a fair comparison, because if her mom got caught she'd be in really big trouble and would go to jail, while the girl would just get a diversion?
That is the message that system is sending currently. The exact opposite of the stated goal. It's completely messed up.
Kids aren't stupid. How in the hell are you going to convince them not to smoke pot at a young age if there's literally less consequences for doing so than there is in adulthood?
Well that particular program wasn't really an educational program. I wasn't there to teach them, I was there as a neutral adult (as in not one of their teachers or principals) to facilitate a discussion amongst teens about youth substance abuse. I did tell her that I understand where she is coming from, and that seeing adults use and then tell kids not to use definitely sends a very mixed signal. We really didn't get into discussing the legal ramifications as the discussions focused largely around health issues.
Now, all that said, the same diversion systems that are in place for youth should definitely be in place for adults. I completely agree with that and would advocate for that. And indeed we do have adult drug courts here in Maine where that can happen. I'm pretty sure there is an adult version of the SIRP program too, though I could be wrong about that. Undoubtedly kids will tend to get more leniency than adults because that's just the nature of things. But again, I completely agree with you that the system should be more equitable.
Because of the web filter I can't see what you posted so I will address that at a later point, sorry.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 06:02:06 PM
Addition: I forgot to ask, are these numbers higher or lower than Maine, or the US, ?
I can't see that graph, but I can tell you that in Maine according to 2009 data Lifetime use was at 38.2% and Past 30 day use was 23.7%. That's high school students. I recently saw a report come across my e-mail that National data is suggesting the rates are starting to go back up. These rates had been falling fairly consistently over the past decade. Our state data for 2011 should be coming out this month so I will be eager to see which way it moved, especially given the new medical marijuana laws in Maine.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PMBut you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
Whaaaaaaat? That's completely insane?
But these certificates are written by a medical doctor, right? So how come he didn't take into account the scientifically proven fact that pot usage in adolescents causes brain damage?
You can see my pretty graph? :( Can't have that now, can we! Try this link instead:
http://devio.us/~tripzilch/cannabis.png
(unless your webfilter blocks links with "cannabis" in the URL, but that would probably be a bit counterproductive in your line of work :) )
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 06:02:06 PM
Addition: I forgot to ask, are these numbers higher or lower than Maine, or the US, ?
I can't see that graph, but I can tell you that in Maine according to 2009 data Lifetime use was at 38.2% and Past 30 day use was 23.7%. That's high school students. I recently saw a report come across my e-mail that National data is suggesting the rates are starting to go back up. These rates had been falling fairly consistently over the past decade. Our state data for 2011 should be coming out this month so I will be eager to see which way it moved, especially given the new medical marijuana laws in Maine.
The highest past 30 days rate on Trips chart, 17 year olds, is under 20%
That could be cultural, but it also looks like the Netherlands approach might be working.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PMBut you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
Whaaaaaaat? That's completely insane?
But these certificates are written by a medical doctor, right? So how come he didn't take into account the scientifically proven fact that pot usage in adolescents causes brain damage?
I dunno. And I was a little confused by that whole exchange because the guy who manages the Medical Marijuana program said that in the entire history of the program zero adolescents had been registered. Although the registry is now gone. Though, the more I think about it I may have misheard and it was actually a member of school staff the school person was talking about. People were pretty animated during the Q&A session and people were talking over one another.
QuoteYou can see my pretty graph? :( Can't have that now, can we! Try this link instead:
http://devio.us/~tripzilch/cannabis.png
(unless your webfilter blocks links with "cannabis" in the URL, but that would probably be a bit counterproductive in your line of work :) )
Yeah, sorry, no dice. Most of the time I have no problem accessing sites. Though, there are a lot of sites involving gambling and gambling addiction that I can't access which is completely annoying given the new casino that is about to open up just down the road. But I'll be able to see it on my home comp so I'll get back to you on that.
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 12:22:00 AMNot really. I mean, there is Marinol. Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit. And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke. I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.
How about if we'd say they put the poisonous tar in there to prevent abuse?
That would work, right? :)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 06:28:26 PMThe highest past 30 days rate on Trips chart, 17 year olds, is under 20%
That could be cultural, but it also looks like the Netherlands approach might be working.
I'm guessing it's a littlebit of both, also because the policy has been roughly like that for a very long time, so it's probably influenced the cultural aspect.
And, because I'm a STUBBORN one, I'm not giving up, there should be some place on the internet that you can see images on right? Try this one!!
http://ritz.home.fmf.nl/puppies.png (see I named it puppies, what horrible nasty webfilter would block puppies??)
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 05:29:40 PM
Sorry, Nigel, since the history of corruption and incompetence by the DEA is, apparently, not valid then I wouldn't expect any other history to be accepted as valid either.
You just can't compare things that happened in the past to things that are happening in the present. It's apples and oranges!
But SCIENCE can compare apples and oranges
just fine: Apples & Oranges: A comparison (http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html)
So there's that sorted out, too.
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 06:44:46 PM
And, because I'm a STUBBORN one, I'm not giving up, there should be some place on the internet that you can see images on right? Try this one!!
http://ritz.home.fmf.nl/puppies.png (see I named it puppies, what horrible nasty webfilter would block puppies??)
Success! Okay, so I'm going to use 2004 as a comparison because we do our surveys on even years. (Or used to, after they revamped the survey they started doing it on odd years, anyway....)
So in 2004 amongst our 12th graders, equivalent to your 17&18 group, past 30 day use was at 26.8% in Maine. The National numbers are likely statistically very close to that. Lifetime use was 50.6%. So it's definitely a notch higher than the rates in your country.
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development. As to why your rates are lower? That's a good question. I wouldn't pretend to know why.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
celexa is nothing like methamphetamine.
Well... the effects anyway i have no knowledge of the science.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 09, 2011, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
celexa is nothing like methamphetamine.
Well... the effects anyway i have no knowledge of the science.
I was on it for a while, and it did nothing like what meth is supposed to do. Also, the wiki articles (yeah, yeah...) don't classify them the same, and the PubMed webpage for Citalopram lists it as an SSRI prescribed for depression and other things, where methamphetamines are prescribed for ADHD and obesity related thing.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 08, 2011, 08:17:00 PMBut you are right. It is creating some interesting scenarios. The forum I was at last week featured a panel of speakers addressing that very issue. A good question came up from a school person who asked how to deal with a student who had certification to use medical marijuana. (Yes, in Maine there is no age restrictions for medical marijuana) The school person asked the lawyer on the panel how they should handle that and if they could allow the medical marijuana in their school. The lawyer suggested that they would be on solid ground denying it because the schools receive federal funding.
Whaaaaaaat? That's completely insane?
But these certificates are written by a medical doctor, right? So how come he didn't take into account the scientifically proven fact that pot usage in adolescents causes brain damage?
You can see my pretty graph? :( Can't have that now, can we! Try this link instead:
http://devio.us/~tripzilch/cannabis.png
(unless your webfilter blocks links with "cannabis" in the URL, but that would probably be a bit counterproductive in your line of work :) )
Well, according to this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175105.htm
It's associated with heavy use, 6+ joints smoked daily from 13 to 19. If a child had a condition that was serious (or specific; it seems that severe autism has been treated with marijuana, with some success) enough for a doctor and the child's parents to OK treatment with marijuana, it would probably either be cancer, in which case it's unlikely that treatment would last that long, or something like autism, which is treated with very small ingested doses.
It seems kind of shitty that the schools would be looking for ways to keep a child with a serious condition from being able to be medicated at school. I don't see why they wouldn't be looking for ways to treat it like any other medication, and have the parents give it to the school nurse for dispensing at predetermined intervals.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
Relax. Celexa aka Citalopram is just your average run-of-the-mill SSRI. No meth.
Haven't used it myself (but do use similar meds), but what I've heard from friends is it works very well. An SSRI basically blocks the reuptake of serotonin (brain-happy-making chemical). This sort of means it doesn't give you fake-happy, it just makes your natural organic happy break down more slowly. A consequence of this sort of very indirect way of influence is that it takes at least 4-6 weeks before any noticeable difference in mood, which is when you'll realize "hey I've actually been feeling pretty okay lately, and things that would normally get me down a lot I seem to bounce back up from more easily". However, if you notice "hey things that should affect me really don't quite affect me as I rationally think I should", that might be an indication to discuss with your doctor lowering the dosage.
Trip,
not a psychiatrist, but has seen quite a few in his life :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:14:58 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
Relax. Celexa aka Citalopram is just your average run-of-the-mill SSRI. No meth.
Haven't used it myself (but do use similar meds), but what I've heard from friends is it works very well. An SSRI basically blocks the reuptake of serotonin (brain-happy-making chemical). This sort of means it doesn't give you fake-happy, it just makes your natural organic happy break down more slowly. A consequence of this sort of very indirect way of influence is that it takes at least 4-6 weeks before any noticeable difference in mood, which is when you'll realize "hey I've actually been feeling pretty okay lately, and things that would normally get me down a lot I seem to bounce back up from more easily". However, if you notice "hey things that should affect me really don't quite affect me as I rationally think I should", that might be an indication to discuss with your doctor lowering the dosage.
Trip,
not a psychiatrist, but has seen quite a few in his life :)
Yeah, that's how it works in theory. Otherwise, it makes you :emo: or :kingmeh: .
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why. If a school violates Federal Law, aside from some really bad press and probably a loss in Federal funding, they could potentially lose their accreditation. That will fuck pretty much every graduating senior in the school when they go to apply for scholarships. If I were the schools I'd be whipping out the 10 foot pole as well.
Now, that said, if a child had a legitimate certification for Medical MJ (even though I think that is fucked up beyond belief), as a principal I'd probably make sure that if a kid had to go off premise to take their "medicine", that it doesn't impact their studies or standing with teachers. I just wouldn't sanction the use of it on-premise where I would be exposed to major liabilities.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why.
Only in matters that the federal government has constitutional authority to legislate/regulate.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 07:09:36 PM
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 09, 2011, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
celexa is nothing like methamphetamine.
Well... the effects anyway i have no knowledge of the science.
I was on it for a while, and it did nothing like what meth is supposed to do. Also, the wiki articles (yeah, yeah...) don't classify them the same, and the PubMed webpage for Citalopram lists it as an SSRI prescribed for depression and other things, where methamphetamines are prescribed for ADHD and obesity related thing.
Methamphetamine is a specific type of amphetamine, in which the molecule has a methyl group attached to its nitrogen group. Amphetamine is be used to treat ADHD under the brand name Dexedrine. Methylphenidate, which acts similarly to amphetamine but is a phenidate molecule with a methyl group, is also used to treat ADHD under the brand name Ritalin. Methamphetamine is prescribed under the brand name Desoxyn, just much more rarely.
These are three different molecules, and although they are similar in some ways they do have different effects.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why. If a school violates Federal Law, aside from some really bad press and probably a loss in Federal funding, they could potentially lose their accreditation. That will fuck pretty much every graduating senior in the school when they go to apply for scholarships. If I were the schools I'd be whipping out the 10 foot pole as well.
Now, that said, if a child had a legitimate certification for Medical MJ (even though I think that is fucked up beyond belief), as a principal I'd probably make sure that if a kid had to go off premise to take their "medicine", that it doesn't impact their studies or standing with teachers. I just wouldn't sanction the use of it on-premise where I would be exposed to major liabilities.
The effects of marijuana are milder than the effects of Haldol, and if a kid needs haldol I sincerely hope that the principal makes sure he gets it.
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 07:09:36 PM
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 09, 2011, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
celexa is nothing like methamphetamine.
Well... the effects anyway i have no knowledge of the science.
I was on it for a while, and it did nothing like what meth is supposed to do. Also, the wiki articles (yeah, yeah...) don't classify them the same, and the PubMed webpage for Citalopram lists it as an SSRI prescribed for depression and other things, where methamphetamines are prescribed for ADHD and obesity related thing.
Methamphetamine is a specific type of amphetamine, in which the molecule has a methyl group attached to its nitrogen group. Amphetamine is be used to treat ADHD under the brand name Dexedrine. Methylphenidate, which acts similarly to amphetamine but is a phenidate molecule with a methyl group, is also used to treat ADHD under the brand name Ritalin. Methamphetamine is prescribed under the brand name Desoxyn, just much more rarely.
These are three different molecules, and although they are similar in some ways they do have different effects.
Ah. :themoreyouknow:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2011, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why.
Only in matters that the federal government has constitutional authority to legislate/regulate.
Yeah, I don't think your average school administrator is going to put too much stock into that. You'd be putting the school at a mighty big risk to think you are going to beat the Federal Government in court in that debate.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 05:36:27 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 05:29:40 PM
Sorry, Nigel, since the history of corruption and incompetence by the DEA is, apparently, not valid then I wouldn't expect any other history to be accepted as valid either.
You just can't compare things that happened in the past to things that are happening in the present. It's apples and oranges!
But SCIENCE can compare apples and oranges just fine: Apples & Oranges: A comparison (http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html)
So there's that sorted out, too.
WORLDVIEW... CRUSHED...
Next you'll be saying that we can compare other things that both happen to fall into the same general category! :argh!:
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2011, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why.
Only in matters that the federal government has constitutional authority to legislate/regulate.
Yeah, I don't think your average school administrator is going to put too much stock into that. You'd be putting the school at a mighty big risk to think you are going to beat the Federal Government in court in that debate.
LAND OF TEH BRAVE, HOME OF TEH FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why. If a school violates Federal Law, aside from some really bad press and probably a loss in Federal funding, they could potentially lose their accreditation. That will fuck pretty much every graduating senior in the school when they go to apply for scholarships. If I were the schools I'd be whipping out the 10 foot pole as well.
Now, that said, if a child had a legitimate certification for Medical MJ (even though I think that is fucked up beyond belief), as a principal I'd probably make sure that if a kid had to go off premise to take their "medicine", that it doesn't impact their studies or standing with teachers. I just wouldn't sanction the use of it on-premise where I would be exposed to major liabilities.
The effects of marijuana are milder than the effects of Haldol, and if a kid needs haldol I sincerely hope that the principal makes sure he gets it.
Uh, no. See, in this context, it's not about the effects of the drugs, it's about the legal status. One is an FDA approved medication, one is not. One is banned under Federal Law one is not. A principal is not going to get in trouble with the feds if a kid is taking Haldol in school, (unless of course the kid doesn't have a prescription for it), they probably WILL get in trouble with the Feds if the kids has medical MJ because it is a federally banned substance.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2011, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:26:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2011, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why.
Only in matters that the federal government has constitutional authority to legislate/regulate.
Yeah, I don't think your average school administrator is going to put too much stock into that. You'd be putting the school at a mighty big risk to think you are going to beat the Federal Government in court in that debate.
LAND OF TEH BRAVE, HOME OF TEH FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Putting bread on the table can be pretty important for people. Especially when they aren't exactly raking in the dough to begin with.
This is where people get all worked up and think that RWHN is endorsing folding like a cheap table in face of standing up for freedom, liberty, etc., etc.,
As opposed to, say, explaining the real world that many people live in and why that may make the choice a tiny bit difficult.
Yet another problem solved by lifting the Federal ban. Go figure!
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:29:12 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 07:23:08 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:17:24 PM
Because federal law trumps state law. That's why. If a school violates Federal Law, aside from some really bad press and probably a loss in Federal funding, they could potentially lose their accreditation. That will fuck pretty much every graduating senior in the school when they go to apply for scholarships. If I were the schools I'd be whipping out the 10 foot pole as well.
Now, that said, if a child had a legitimate certification for Medical MJ (even though I think that is fucked up beyond belief), as a principal I'd probably make sure that if a kid had to go off premise to take their "medicine", that it doesn't impact their studies or standing with teachers. I just wouldn't sanction the use of it on-premise where I would be exposed to major liabilities.
The effects of marijuana are milder than the effects of Haldol, and if a kid needs haldol I sincerely hope that the principal makes sure he gets it.
Uh, no. See, in this context, it's not about the effects of the drugs, it's about the legal status. One is an FDA approved medication, one is not. One is banned under Federal Law one is not. A principal is not going to get in trouble with the feds if a kid is taking Haldol in school, (unless of course the kid doesn't have a prescription for it), they probably WILL get in trouble with the Feds if the kids has medical MJ because it is a federally banned substance.
I was addressing the "fucked up beyond belief" part of the statement, but if my daughter was prescribed medical marijuana and the principal wouldn't let her have it, or even worse seized it, I'd sue the school district. Sure he's just covering his butt, but he's covering his butt by putting the health of a student at risk by denying that student doctor recomended medication.
I understand his position, that's WHY I'd sue, because there has to be pressure coming from both directions for a normal person to choose to do the right thing.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
QuoteAs to why your rates are lower? That's a good question. I wouldn't pretend to know why.
Maybe the site I got the numbers from has some data on that too. I'll have a look later.
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 07:17:12 PM
Yeah, that's how it works in theory. Otherwise, it makes you :emo: or :kingmeh: .
Did it do that for you? I suppose it's possible because these messing-with-your-brain-meds are always kind of tricky, because brains are quite unique.
That's too bad, though there are many different SSRI meds, and they might not all have that effect on you. From my own experience, I was on welbutrin for a while and it made me so extremely grumpy and short tempered I quit it very quickly (even before the 4-6 week period was over, as it was really badly affecting my relationship with good friends and girlfriend).
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 07:22:51 PM
Methamphetamine is a specific type of amphetamine, in which the molecule has a methyl group attached to its nitrogen group. Amphetamine is be used to treat ADHD under the brand name Dexedrine. Methylphenidate, which acts similarly to amphetamine but is a phenidate molecule with a methyl group, is also used to treat ADHD under the brand name Ritalin. Methamphetamine is prescribed under the brand name Desoxyn, just much more rarely.
These are three different molecules, and although they are similar in some ways they do have different effects.
As far as I understood (though I could be wrong), Ritalin/methylphenidate actually kind of works similar to an SSRI, in the sense that it lowers the reuptake of dopamine, while the amphetamines directly stimulate the production of it.
Dopamine (as you probably know) is the sort of activity/concentration stimulating brain chemical which helps ADHD people focus and filter impulses while it makes neurotypical people speedy and tweaky and studying really hard like awesome-coffee :) (I'm sure Nigel already knows this but I'm just stating it for the benefit of others).
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 07:17:12 PM
Yeah, that's how it works in theory. Otherwise, it makes you :emo: or :kingmeh: .
Did it do that for you? I suppose it's possible because these messing-with-your-brain-meds are always kind of tricky, because brains are quite unique.
That's too bad, though there are many different SSRI meds, and they might not all have that effect on you. From my own experience, I was on welbutrin for a while and it made me so extremely grumpy and short tempered I quit it very quickly (even before the 4-6 week period was over, as it was really badly affecting my relationship with good friends and girlfriend).
Yeah, Citalopram made me do the :kingmeh: . They had me on Lexapro before that, which I quit before the trial period was up because it made my head problems worse.
This thread is dildos.
In case anyone hasn't figured it out.
Well, yes. But I thought everyone loves a good dildo? Isn't that why all the boys scream when I get them alone? :?
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 07:44:32 PM
Well, yes. But I thought everyone loves a good dildo? Isn't that why all the boys scream when I get them alone? :?
It's the Knobby Bits™ that get them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 09, 2011, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 07:44:32 PM
Well, yes. But I thought everyone loves a good dildo? Isn't that why all the boys scream when I get them alone? :?
It's the Knobby Bits™ that get them.
And there was me spending all that extra time lovingly making them all serrated. You can't find them that way, you know, you have to do it yourself.
Yes, dopamine helps to "wake up" the depressed portions of the frontal lobe in people with ADHD so that it functions at a normal level. This is why they still have the same body reaction to these stimulants (suppressed appetite, sleeplessness, increased heart rate) but their mental reaction is so much different.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
We now return you to the Jay Z song already in progress.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
But if your view that legalization for adults would raise usage in kids, shouldn't Trips graph looks much different?
I mean if we just look at the data presented here, one would have to think that the legal status may not actually affect youth abuse. Or am I misreading something?
Quote from: nihilbilly on November 09, 2011, 07:07:08 PM
Quote from: Science me, babby on November 09, 2011, 06:52:12 PM
Quote from: TelarusCelexa (time-released methamphetamine)
Wait, what? :? Are you sure about that?
celexa is nothing like methamphetamine.
Well... the effects anyway i have no knowledge of the science.
You are correct. I was thinking Concerta, which is time-released methelphenidate.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 09, 2011, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
But if your view that legalization for adults would raise usage in kids, shouldn't Trips graph looks much different?
I mean if we just look at the data presented here, one would have to think that the legal status may not actually affect youth abuse. Or am I misreading something?
The data certainly would seem to indicate that fewer children use it in a place where it's legal for adults and controlled.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
YOUTH substance abuse.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
YOUTH substance abuse.
and allowing it for adults doesn't send the wrong message?
I mean, reducing substance abuse across the board is definitely desirable, but my actual cause is with youth. Besides, I know the caliber of law enforcement in this area and I know they'll be right on top of any shennanigans that crop up. People here need some jobs, this place needs an injection of economy.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
YOUTH substance abuse.
and allowing it for adults doesn't send the wrong message?
You think it's going to be a monumentous revelation to adolescents that adults consume alcohol?
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
YOUTH substance abuse.
and allowing it for adults doesn't send the wrong message?
You think it's going to be a monumentous revelation to adolescents that adults consume alcohol?
I meant gambling, which you've mentioned as an addiction of concern in the past.
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 09, 2011, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
But if your view that legalization for adults would raise usage in kids, shouldn't Trips graph looks much different?
I mean if we just look at the data presented here, one would have to think that the legal status may not actually affect youth abuse. Or am I misreading something?
The data certainly would seem to indicate that fewer children use it in a place where it's legal for adults and controlled.
It's probably just a fluke.
Portugal is just a double fluke.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
YOUTH substance abuse.
Yeah, and the scum and villainy that comes along with a casino TOTALLY respects the line between an 18 year old and a 17 year old.
As for the "quality" of local law enforcement...the casino won't be MSP's problem (they're by and large some of the best cops I've ever encountered anywhere), it will be the problem of the county mounties. And the county mounties in Maine are by and large a pack of half-drunk good ol' boys who aren't competent to do much more than arrest drivers who are drunker than they are and break up teenage parties in the gravel pits. Especially the ones in Oxford County, where if memory serves they intend to build the casino.
RWHN, have you ever lived anywhere with a large casino nearby?
I have. Most of the jobs created are of the below-subsistence-wage variety, most of the real money goes to out-of-state interests and/or indian tribes, and the money that gets earmarked to help the state pay for the needed infrastructure upgrades and the inevitable increases in crime, substance abuse, gambling addiction, etc. NEVER actually matches what the state will have to spend on those things.
The casino in Maine is even worse than most as it's not going to draw very many people from out-of-state. Nobody's gonna drive from Boston to bumfuck western Maine when Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are just as far away and have their own exits right off the interstate, as well as all the trappings of civilization that Massholes expect. The vast majority of casino patrons in Maine are going to be FROM Maine. I hope I don't have to explain to you why that's not a good thing.
In short, voting in favor of the casino makes you a bad person. Or at least a bad Mainer.
Re: the maine vs netherlands thing. While i do believe the discrepancy has a lot to do with the fact that its legalized, one must also not overlook the fact that theres probably not a whole hell of a lot to do if youre a teenager in a state that is 90% forest.
Rwhn's goals might be better met by making the state more entertaining to the average joe.
I mean like, when im visiting my family in ireland my day consists of eating toast drinking tea, sitting around in the kitchen drinking more tea, going up town to log on to the net for an hour, walking for about two hours, eating lunch, drinking beer, eating more toast and drinking more tea, soap operas in irish, eating dinner and then going to the pub.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:25:23 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 09, 2011, 11:24:25 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 06:40:17 PM
I imagine that, all snark and vitriol aside, the casino issue is one in which you and I find ourselves in complete agreement.
I'd like to find the people responsible for it and give them all the bastinado.
Heh, NOPE. I voted FOR the casino.
:lulz:
Oh, WOW. How the FUCK do you make that jibe with your desire to reduce substance abuse in communities?
That's some first-class hypocrisy there.
YOUTH substance abuse.
and allowing it for adults doesn't send the wrong message?
You think it's going to be a monumentous revelation to adolescents that adults consume alcohol?
I meant gambling, which you've mentioned as an addiction of concern in the past.
Maine actually has funding set up to deal with problem gambling. Part of the deal with these racinos and casinos that get set up in Maine is that, by law, 3% of proceeds from slot machines must go to a pot to help people pay for treatment. Because of course insurance won't cover gambling treatment. In fact, the old agency I used to work for used to manage that program, before Baldacci decided to get his grubby paws on the money and put it into the general fund.
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 09, 2011, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
But if your view that legalization for adults would raise usage in kids, shouldn't Trips graph looks much different?
I mean if we just look at the data presented here, one would have to think that the legal status may not actually affect youth abuse. Or am I misreading something?
The data certainly would seem to indicate that fewer children use it in a place where it's legal for adults and controlled.
Eh, it doesn't really work that way. The way to know for sure would be to look at rates when it wasn't legal. Did they go up or down? I've seen studies, which I've linked to in the past, where the rate of pot use amongst 18-20 year olds went up after coffee shops were able to sell it.
GOSH, it sure seems like that would be a more reasonable way of dealing with...
oh never mind.
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 10, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 09, 2011, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
But if your view that legalization for adults would raise usage in kids, shouldn't Trips graph looks much different?
I mean if we just look at the data presented here, one would have to think that the legal status may not actually affect youth abuse. Or am I misreading something?
The data certainly would seem to indicate that fewer children use it in a place where it's legal for adults and controlled.
Eh, it doesn't really work that way. The way to know for sure would be to look at rates when it wasn't legal. Did they go up or down? I've seen studies, which I've linked to in the past, where the rate of pot use amongst 18-20 year olds went up after coffee shops were able to sell it.
If those are the same studies I looked at, the rate when up as more people experimented with it,
initially. Then it went right back down.
Quote from: Net on November 10, 2011, 12:27:59 AM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 10, 2011, 12:21:53 AM
Quote from: Nigel on November 09, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 09, 2011, 08:03:27 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:40:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 09, 2011, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Not Really a Reverend What's-his-Name? on November 09, 2011, 07:03:53 PM
I will note that the pattern across ages looks to be pretty much the same. So I can roughly say that culture doesn't seem to be an impact in terms of substance abuse and development.
Huh, I don't quite see how that follows?
I mean, the pattern is, the numbers go up with age. Which for the blue line is logical because "have you ever used pot" is cumulative, it would indicate an error if it went down :) For the green line it's not necessarily cumulative, but I notice that the curve seems to flatten, I expect for older ages to go up a littlebit further, and then go down because (anecdotal, but probably supported by numbers somewhere) people tend to stop smoking pot as they near 30 (roughly, pulling that age anecdotally out of my ass).
No, I understand the pattern. What I'm saying is that the pattern here in the States is pretty much the same. The 30 day use is a little more pronounced here in the States because the numbers are higher, but they follow the same general trend. So I'm saying in terms of how use develops through this particular age span there doesn't seem to be a vast cultural difference between the two countries, other than the overall numbers being higher in the States.
Does that make any better sense?
But if your view that legalization for adults would raise usage in kids, shouldn't Trips graph looks much different?
I mean if we just look at the data presented here, one would have to think that the legal status may not actually affect youth abuse. Or am I misreading something?
The data certainly would seem to indicate that fewer children use it in a place where it's legal for adults and controlled.
Eh, it doesn't really work that way. The way to know for sure would be to look at rates when it wasn't legal. Did they go up or down? I've seen studies, which I've linked to in the past, where the rate of pot use amongst 18-20 year olds went up after coffee shops were able to sell it.
If those are the same studies I looked at, the rate when up as more people experimented with it, initially. Then it went right back down.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/4/369.2.full#ref-3 (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/4/369.2.full#ref-3)
(http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/123/F1.large.jpg)
South Australia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7626679?dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7626679?dopt=Abstract)
[post legalization abbreviated quote]
QuoteThe increase in South Australia was not significantly greater than the average increase (P = 0.1)... data indicate that there were increases in cannabis use in South Australia in 1985-1993, they cannot be attributed to the effects of partial decriminalisation, because similar increases occurred in other states.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376 (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376)
Quote"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999
Still looking for details on Netherlands pre-legalization numbers.
Ah, found one of the studiess I read before:
https://www.tlupress.com/files/arts/9117/Semind04285ff846b9e4048da727e6231a4d5.pdf (https://www.tlupress.com/files/arts/9117/Semind04285ff846b9e4048da727e6231a4d5.pdf)
Lots of interesting data there. The upshot of which is that the laws governing cannabis usage in the Netherlands appears to NOT correlate with usage.
In "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco" Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D. A. Cohen, PhD and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD, the abstract concludes:
QuoteResults. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.
Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.
(Th abstract is free, sadly the full document is not)
A new report from Sept 2011:
QuoteResults The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract) Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
A new report from Sept 2011:
QuoteResults The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract) Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)
:hammer:
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 12:23:17 AM
GOSH, it sure seems like that would be a more reasonable way of dealing with...
oh never mind.
I've got some agree on this.
A foregone conclusion is just where you...ah fuck it?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
A new report from Sept 2011:
QuoteResults The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract) Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)
Hmm, but my understanding is that marijuana is not sold in coffeeshops everywhere in the Netherlands, and that indeed there are localities in the Netherlands that were very adamant to NOT have it be allowed. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but I'm fairly certain I've read that in different reports.
So, the question I would have concerning this study, and one that cannot be answered unless one of y'all are going to pony up the dough so we can read the full report, the question would be, did they study the population solely in those localities where it is permitted or the whole population of the Netherlands?
If it is the whole population than I would suggest the study isn't very conclusive. I think a more rigorous and conclusive study would be to look at the Dutch in those towns where marijuana is being sold. I would also run a separate, parallel study with towns adjacent to those towns where it was sold. What did the pattern look like there? I mean, because I would expect little to no change in the pattern in those areas that were geographically removed from the localities where it is being sold.
So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on November 10, 2011, 12:11:20 AM
Re: the maine vs netherlands thing. While i do believe the discrepancy has a lot to do with the fact that its legalized, one must also not overlook the fact that theres probably not a whole hell of a lot to do if youre a teenager in a state that is 90% forest.
Rwhn's goals might be better met by making the state more entertaining to the average joe.
Actually, while in some cases the Maine numbers are higher, they aren't radically different than the average numbers for the entire U.S. We tend to be a lot higher in the department of prescription drug abuse, but everywhere else we're, statistically, within the national pattern.
I think part of our issue with prescription drug abuse is that we are an old state, and getting older. Our prescriptions-per-person numbers are really high compared to a lot of other states. So there are a lot of drugs in homes that are being stolen, diverted, etc.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
In "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco" Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D. A. Cohen, PhD and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD, the abstract concludes:
QuoteResults. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.
Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.
But when they are talking about the impact on cannabis use who are they talking about? What age range? (For the record, my nanny filter is blocking that link so I can't actually read the document)
If it is the entire population from 12 to grave, I'm not sure that is very conclusive, at least not for my interests, which of course are youth. Because we know from the work of Hawkins and Catalano that community norms (i.e. rules and laws and how they are enforced) do have a known influence on substance use as does perception of harm. There is no question that if marijuana is legalized the the perception of harm will go down amongst youth. When I see my state's new data for 2011, I guarantee you that we will see the perception of harm has decreased, thanks to medical marijuana. And I guarantee you we will be seeing a corresponding increase in use.
What population are they talking about in that study?
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.
Could you repeat that again in English?
You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions. :)
As far as the SA study goes, I'm not sure the point it's making is completely valid. I'm in QLD and there was a fuckton of press over the decriminalisation. Instead of suggesting decriminalisation had no impact, might not the suggestion also be made that the impact across the nation of a lowered perception of the dangers of cannabis was that usage rose in several states?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:39:37 PM
You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions. :)
If you have research that shows that community norms are NOT a protective factor and that perception of harm is NOT a risk factor, please share.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 10, 2011, 01:46:24 PM
As far as the SA study goes, I'm not sure the point it's making is completely valid. I'm in QLD and there was a fuckton of press over the decriminalisation. Instead of suggesting decriminalisation had no impact, might not the suggestion also be made that the impact across the nation of a lowered perception of the dangers of cannabis was that usage rose in several states?
I think that makes sense. I think with decriminilazation, as opposed to full out legalization, the social access piece probably wouldn't play
as powerful of a role as the perception of harm. It would be interesting to see, though, a more focused study on that particular question.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:37:57 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.
Could you repeat that again in English?
Without access to the full article we don't know the actual research protocol. We don't know the specifics of the demographics studied. If it includes populations of towns where they didn't allow the sale of marijuana, I think it muddies the results in terms of determining impact. I wouldn't expect to see much difference in useage patterns in those areas that are geographically removed form towns where it was sold. So their usage rates are going to confound the entire results. But they may well have controlled for that, but the abstract says nothing about that and we would need the full article to know for sure.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:50:19 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:39:37 PM
You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions. :)
If you have research that shows that community norms are NOT a protective factor and that perception of harm is NOT a risk factor, please share.
If YOU have a link to the one study that you keep citing as gospel, please share. :)
Oh, and I noticed you decided to completely ignore my point about the casino. :)
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:57:55 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:50:19 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:39:37 PM
You keep referencing Hawkins and Catalano, to the apparent exclusion of any other researchers. Makes me wonder if you've bothered with any other researchers. Because it gives the appearance that you've drawn these conclusions from a very narrow scope of the available material, and you know what they say about conclusions. :)
If you have research that shows that community norms are NOT a protective factor and that perception of harm is NOT a risk factor, please share.
If YOU have a link to the one study that you keep citing as gospel, please share. :)
Well, it's more of a body of work than just one, solitary study. But here is a link that provides a nice summary of the concepts.
http://www.missoulaforum.org/_risk_and_protective_factors.htm
And if you are actually interested in learning more about their work, Google will help you find more of their work. Somehow I get a feeling that might not be your motivation.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:36:31 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
In "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco" Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D. A. Cohen, PhD and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD, the abstract concludes:
QuoteResults. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.
Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought.
But when they are talking about the impact on cannabis use who are they talking about? What age range? (For the record, my nanny filter is blocking that link so I can't actually read the document)
If it is the entire population from 12 to grave, I'm not sure that is very conclusive, at least not for my interests, which of course are youth. Because we know from the work of Hawkins and Catalano that community norms (i.e. rules and laws and how they are enforced) do have a known influence on substance use as does perception of harm. There is no question that if marijuana is legalized the the perception of harm will go down amongst youth. When I see my state's new data for 2011, I guarantee you that we will see the perception of harm has decreased, thanks to medical marijuana. And I guarantee you we will be seeing a corresponding increase in use.
What population are they talking about in that study?
The perception of harm? A friend of my son's - well, his friend's brother, anyway - got busted for a teensy amount of pot a year back. He managed to avoid jail, but he is now utterly fucked. No college assistance, no option to join the military, etc.
He's doomed to the lower income brackets for the rest of his life, because he made a poor decision at 16 (and we all know that 16 year olds typically make great decisions).
That's harm. Not the "perception of harm", harm.
So explain to me why prohibition is a good thing? It ruins the lives of teenagers, and it keeps the cartels in business. I am waiting for an upside, here.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:58:22 PM
Oh, and I noticed you decided to completely ignore my point about the casino. :)
Sorry, I was more interested in addressing the studies that Rat presented.
A) I'm not sure the Oxford casino is going to qualify as a "large casino". Compared to casions I've been to and seen, this is going to be small potatoes. And let's be real, Oxford is a fairly isolated area. There is no Interstate exit for Oxford. You'll have to get off the highway in Auburn and then travel across 30-40 miles of roadway that could use some attention. I really don't see it being this huge magnet for a lot of out-of-state traffic. Certainly, it will draw the Canadians, and it will obviously draw from within state.
Are there going to be some unsavory elements to accompany the casino? I won't pretend that it won't happen. But, as I said somewhere else, perfect is the enemy of good. I live in this general area of Maine. It's a part of Maine that could do to have an injection of economy. And I know that we have some good systems in place with law enforcement. If shit really goes down, they will be calling in Auburn and Lewiston PDs and they are some good Joes. I would, myself, prefer if the casino was actually in Lewiston, but it didn't work out that way.
I'm not worried about the casino.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 02:17:43 PM
The perception of harm? A friend of my son's - well, his friend's brother, anyway - got busted for a teensy amount of pot a year back. He managed to avoid jail, but he is now utterly fucked. No college assistance, no option to join the military, etc.
He's doomed to the lower income brackets for the rest of his life, because he made a poor decision at 16 (and we all know that 16 year olds typically make great decisions).
That's harm. Not the "perception of harm", harm.
So explain to me why prohibition is a good thing? It ruins the lives of teenagers, and it keeps the cartels in business. I am waiting for an upside, here.
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. I would posit there are solutions within a framework where marijuana is still a banned substance, and I've talked about these before. Jail diversion programs, advocating for changes in policies around financial aid, better access to screening and treatment services.
You don't have to make it legal to fix the problems you are seeing. But, if you do make it legal, you will be creating new problems and exacerbating existing ones.
And even if you legalized it tomorrow, let's be real, the cartels will not go away. There is still money to be made in black market prescription drugs not to mention all of the other illicits. You might shut down some organizations that are on the edge anyway, but professional criminals are going to be professional criminals. They would just shift their business model.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization. I would posit there are solutions within a framework where marijuana is still a banned substance, and I've talked about these before. Jail diversion programs, advocating for changes in policies around financial aid, better access to screening and treatment services.
1. Currently, we live under the all or nothing model, at least in this neck of the woods - and at the federal level.
2. If it's illegal at all, it funds the cartels.
3. I can think of no constitutional basis for the ban.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 02:18:56 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 01:58:22 PM
Oh, and I noticed you decided to completely ignore my point about the casino. :)
Sorry, I was more interested in addressing the studies that Rat presented.
A) I'm not sure the Oxford casino is going to qualify as a "large casino". Compared to casions I've been to and seen, this is going to be small potatoes. And let's be real, Oxford is a fairly isolated area. There is no Interstate exit for Oxford. You'll have to get off the highway in Auburn and then travel across 30-40 miles of roadway that could use some attention. I really don't see it being this huge magnet for a lot of out-of-state traffic. Certainly, it will draw the Canadians, and it will obviously draw from within state.
Are there going to be some unsavory elements to accompany the casino? I won't pretend that it won't happen. But, as I said somewhere else, perfect is the enemy of good. I live in this general area of Maine. It's a part of Maine that could do to have an injection of economy. And I know that we have some good systems in place with law enforcement. If shit really goes down, they will be calling in Auburn and Lewiston PDs and they are some good Joes. I would, myself, prefer if the casino was actually in Lewiston, but it didn't work out that way.
I'm not worried about the casino.
you obviously didn't read what I posted because you basically just agreed with me only you tried to frame it as being a GOOD thing.
Jobs are good. Gambling is a legal, adult activity. (Oh and in anticipation)...casions are a legal, adult activity where it is a lot easier to limit access to youth. (Although, we already have legal forms of authorized youth gambling in America. It's called Chuck E. Cheese)
I see no reason to prohibit it. BUT, I do see reason to make sure that it is done right and in a way that very concertedly minimizes negative impacts to the surrounding communities. You can be sure this casino will be under a very large microscope.
This thread is fucking garbage. :evilmad:
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
A new report from Sept 2011:
QuoteResults The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract) Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)
Hmm, but my understanding is that marijuana is not sold in coffeeshops everywhere in the Netherlands, and that indeed there are localities in the Netherlands that were very adamant to NOT have it be allowed. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but I'm fairly certain I've read that in different reports.
So, the question I would have concerning this study, and one that cannot be answered unless one of y'all are going to pony up the dough so we can read the full report, the question would be, did they study the population solely in those localities where it is permitted or the whole population of the Netherlands?
If it is the whole population than I would suggest the study isn't very conclusive. I think a more rigorous and conclusive study would be to look at the Dutch in those towns where marijuana is being sold. I would also run a separate, parallel study with towns adjacent to those towns where it was sold. What did the pattern look like there? I mean, because I would expect little to no change in the pattern in those areas that were geographically removed from the localities where it is being sold.
So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.
You're sort of wrong and sort of right. It matches the sort of bias I've noticed in most of your sources.
Yes there's places in NL that don't have coffeeshops, but NL is very densely populated with busy population centers, conglomerates and tiny villages spotted in between. The tiny villages often don't have a high school either, so the kids have to ride their bike every morning to the nearest population center (usually 5 but no more than 20km away) that does have a high school. Physical exercise. Very good for them :P I was surprised that the real tiny villages sometimes don't even have a supermarket! Or maybe just a very small one that doesn't have certain products.
Anyway, it's very similar with coffeeshops, not every town has a coffeeshop, but if they don't, the next one probably does. The only sort of exception to this is a small "bible belt" type of region, but they do have drug problems (except "hard drugs" instead of cannabis/soft drugs) and, well, the sort of typical really creepy horrible abusive shit that goes on in tiny reclusive strongly religious communities .
The Netherlands is very densely populated and there aren't really any large regions without coffeeshops. And if you want to make a fair comparison, it should be between similar small town rural areas, not a small town without coffeeshop and a city.
Also it's not like not having a coffeeshop somewhere makes pot illegal. And if they have to get in the car once every week to do the big groceries shopping in the city, they can go get a gram, if they want. Also, the kids probably won't be spending their Saturday nights in smalltown nowhereville, but getting on their bikes to the nearest population center that has a bar or club or so (drinking age is 16 for beer, 18 for hard liquor, also 18 for pot) (though I personally wouldn't mind raising pot to 21, but, whatever), and there's probably also a coffeeshop.
By the way, you said something about ponying up the dough for that article? Cause I'm pretty sure that anyone with a university library internet connection can just download it and re-upload it somewhere. I don't no longer have that kind of access, but I'm sure some of the PDers do.
(btw in a fluke sense of consistence, alcohol and nicotine and even caffeine are often considered a "hard drug" that just happens to be legal, btw--the difference is made based upon how physically addictive it can be, and the health risks associated with heavy usage. Actually pot is the only commonly used drug that's considered "soft drugs", Dutch wikipedia also names certain kinds of mushrooms and benzodiazepines, except on another page it describes benzodiazepines as a controlled substance (makes more sense!), and I'm sure they outlawed mushrooms a couple of years ago thanks to tourists in Amsterdam getting themselves killed by jumping off a bridge or soemthing)
I don't have that access either but I would love to read the full article so if someone is able to do that, it would be fantastic.
Leaving out my personal opinion of the county mounties in Maine (since that's who will unfortunately be policing the area around the casino rather than the MSP who I consider to be possibly the best police force in the country), here's what I wrote:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 09, 2011, 11:46:03 PM
RWHN, have you ever lived anywhere with a large casino nearby?
I have. Most of the jobs created are of the below-subsistence-wage variety, most of the real money goes to out-of-state interests and/or indian tribes, and the money that gets earmarked to help the state pay for the needed infrastructure upgrades and the inevitable increases in crime, substance abuse, gambling addiction, etc. NEVER actually matches what the state will have to spend on those things.
The casino in Maine is even worse than most as it's not going to draw very many people from out-of-state. Nobody's gonna drive from Boston to bumfuck western Maine when Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are just as far away and have their own exits right off the interstate, as well as all the trappings of civilization that Massholes expect. The vast majority of casino patrons in Maine are going to be FROM Maine. I hope I don't have to explain to you why that's not a good thing.
If it fails it fails.
I can't speak to the other funding but the funding for treatment is mandated by law. The State will be getting 3% of slots proceeds for gambling treatment. They are already getting that money from the racino in Bangor. Now, nothing keeps LePage from doing what Baldacci did and raid that money for the General Fund, but the casino has no say, nor control over that.
my point is that the 3% is not going to be enough. And it doesn't even begin to address the extra wear on an already-failing infrastructure nor the increases in crime and substance abuse that the presence of a casino all but guarantees.
And regardless of whether or not the patrons become problem gamblers, they're still going to be Mainers spending money that's mostly going to go out-of-state instead of feeding their families.
But hey, at least a few dozen people will get minimum-wage jobs!
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 10:12:15 AM
A new report from Sept 2011:
QuoteResults The available evidence suggests that the prevalence of cannabis use among Dutch citizens rose and fell as the number of coffeeshops increased and later declined, but only modestly. The coffeeshops do not appear to encourage escalation into heavier use or lengthier using careers, although treatment rates for cannabis are higher than elsewhere in Europe. Scatterplot analyses suggest that Dutch patterns of use are very typical for Europe, and that the 'separation of markets' may indeed have somewhat weakened the link between cannabis use and the use of cocaine or amphetamines.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x/abstract) Robert J. MacCoun (Prof. Goldman School of Public Policy and Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley)
Hmm, but my understanding is that marijuana is not sold in coffeeshops everywhere in the Netherlands, and that indeed there are localities in the Netherlands that were very adamant to NOT have it be allowed. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that but I'm fairly certain I've read that in different reports.
So, the question I would have concerning this study, and one that cannot be answered unless one of y'all are going to pony up the dough so we can read the full report, the question would be, did they study the population solely in those localities where it is permitted or the whole population of the Netherlands?
If it is the whole population than I would suggest the study isn't very conclusive. I think a more rigorous and conclusive study would be to look at the Dutch in those towns where marijuana is being sold. I would also run a separate, parallel study with towns adjacent to those towns where it was sold. What did the pattern look like there? I mean, because I would expect little to no change in the pattern in those areas that were geographically removed from the localities where it is being sold.
So, in my opinion, this study, that is this abstract of the study is interesting but I'm not sure it is terribly conclusive, based on what we know about the study from the abstract.
True enough, but given that he's currently the instructor of this class: http://conium.org/~maccoun/pp279_f10.html
QuoteEmpirical arguments and counterarguments play a central role in policy debates, thus public policy analysis requires a sophisticated understanding of a variety of types and sources of data. Quantitative analysis courses teach you how to analyze data; this course will introduce you to strategies of data collection and principles for critically evaluating data collected by others. Topics include measurement reliability and validity, questionnaire design, sampling, experimental and quasi-experimental program evaluation designs, qualitative research methods, and the politics of data in public policy.
I'd guess he understands data collection and analysis pretty well
Now he could be using poor data collection intentionally, but I'd think his reputation would be at risk for such an obvious gaffe.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/13/lessons-from-dutch-cannabis-system/ (http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/13/lessons-from-dutch-cannabis-system/) Summary
And a link to what appears to be the full paper at Huffingtonpost:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x.pdf (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/j.1360-0443.2011.03572.x.pdf)
In the article he does appear to speak specifically about Amsterdam in several comparisons, as well as The Netherlands in other comparisons. Overall, he points out that the approach in The Netherlands is nuanced and not simply broad based legalization.
Which is important because it seems to me that the end goal here in the U.S. is broad based legalization. That's the flavor I'm getting from this thread anyway.
To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S.
But I think it is an important point to keep in mind when trying to use that data as a justification or support for broad-based legalization in the U.S.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 03:39:12 PM
Which is important because it seems to me that the end goal here in the U.S. is broad based legalization. That's the flavor I'm getting from this thread anyway.
To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S.
But I think it is an important point to keep in mind when trying to use that data as a justification or support for broad-based legalization in the U.S.
I think that most people interested in the topic consider 'broad based legalization' to be the most philosophically correct position, but are more concerned with decriminalization for personal use. The paper linked above basically shows that Amsterdam's experience has had some negative consequences and more recent changes have corrected many of those consequences (closing shops near schools, enforcement of non-compliance by coffee shops etc). That is, it seems that The Netherlands experiment could provide real world data for how to decriminalize while accounting for the problems they experienced in the past. That would include regulation and enforcement to protect children which I think almost all of us here would agree with.
In theory yes. But it's still too big of a gamble from where I'm sitting. I'm looking currently at a medical marijuana program in my state that is being weakened and that will make it easier for medical marijuana to be diverted, DESPITE, the information the government gets from folks in my field.
So you can understand my reluctance, given my professional duty, to sign on.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 03:57:09 PM
In theory yes. But it's still too big of a gamble from where I'm sitting. I'm looking currently at a medical marijuana program in my state that is being weakened and that will make it easier for medical marijuana to be diverted, DESPITE, the information the government gets from folks in my field.
So you can understand my reluctance, given my professional duty, to sign on.
So then no matter what data we discuss, that's gonna be your position? I'm not really sure that we can actually have a productive discussion then. I mean, honest debate is where both sides can give in based on the arguments and evidence of the other side. If thats something you can't do based on your job, then why enter the discussion? It seems as productive as Monty Python's argument clinic ;-)
What do you want me to give? That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization? Yeah, sure. I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.
But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans.
I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that. But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground.
So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in. Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation?
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
What do you want me to give? That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization? Yeah, sure. I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.
But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans.
People from the Netherlands, of course, not being humans.
Yep, that's exactly what I was driving at. Good observation!!!!
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:28:20 PM
Yep, that's exactly what I was driving at. Good observation!!!!
It's what you said.
Just to clarify MY position, I could give a shit if marijuana is legal for recreational purposes. But I adamantly oppose ANY attempts to restrict the ability of sick people to use it legally if it provides them a measure of relief and I think anyone who does try to restrict that or even agrees with trying to restrict that should be hung up by their toenails and switched with barbed wire.
Actually, I think they should be forced to take heavy doses of chemotherapy even if they're completely healthy. :)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 03:57:09 PM
In theory yes. But it's still too big of a gamble from where I'm sitting. I'm looking currently at a medical marijuana program in my state that is being weakened and that will make it easier for medical marijuana to be diverted, DESPITE, the information the government gets from folks in my field.
So you can understand my reluctance, given my professional duty, to sign on.
So then no matter what data we discuss, that's gonna be your position? I'm not really sure that we can actually have a productive discussion then. I mean, honest debate is where both sides can give in based on the arguments and evidence of the other side. If thats something you can't do based on your job, then why enter the discussion? It seems as productive as Monty Python's argument clinic ;-)
Yep.
(http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg)
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
What do you want me to give? That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization? Yeah, sure. I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.
But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans.
I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that. But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground.
So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in. Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation?
Except the data we've been linking to seems to support that legalization, nuanced or more broad based (Amsterdam, South Australia, Portugal etc) STILL has less impact on youth compared to countries where prohibition exists. However, your responses seem to be to question the data, question the nuance of the data and then dismiss it based on your job.
Actual implementation in The Netherlands has not resulted in the concerns you've raised. Actual implementation in Australia and Portugal have not resulted in the concerns you've raised. In fact, data in the report I just linked to included evidence that usage didn't explode, that enforcement of the laws surrounding legalization caused drops in teen usage, that usage among teens didn't result in progression to harder drugs, including ironically lower alcohol and tobacco usage than among teens in the US.
Arguing "BUT ITS HUMANS" doesn't seem all that useful here either. After all, its HUMANS that are manning the current prohibition. It's HUMANS that implemented various forms of decriminalization. Its HUMANS that are on the anti-drug and pro-drug side of the argument.
As for what's happening on the ground in Maine... its not germane to what most of us are discussing. It's still illegal for recreational usage, thus its only sold on the black market where the dealer doesn't care who buys it and is more than happy to sell whatever else the person may want.
Your argument was legalization = more usage by kids based on anecdote and scenarios that none of us have argued for. When provided data that indicates otherwise, you've dismissed it.
What do I want you to give? How about admitting that MAYBE the evidence disagrees with your previous assumptions. Hell, I don't expect you to join NORML... I don't expect you to quit your job (cause educating kids about the dangers of drugs is important IMO). However, a number of the arguments you've made don't seem to agree with the evidence from 'practice', if you can't give over on that, then why bother to be a part of the discussion?
Humans must be protected.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 04:33:07 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
What do you want me to give? That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization? Yeah, sure. I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.
But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans.
I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that. But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground.
So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in. Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation?
Except the data we've been linking to seems to support that legalization, nuanced or more broad based (Amsterdam, South Australia, Portugal etc) STILL has less impact on youth compared to countries where prohibition exists. However, your responses seem to be to question the data, question the nuance of the data and then dismiss it based on your job.
Actual implementation in The Netherlands has not resulted in the concerns you've raised. Actual implementation in Australia and Portugal have not resulted in the concerns you've raised. In fact, data in the report I just linked to included evidence that usage didn't explode, that enforcement of the laws surrounding legalization caused drops in teen usage, that usage among teens didn't result in progression to harder drugs, including ironically lower alcohol and tobacco usage than among teens in the US.
Arguing "BUT ITS HUMANS" doesn't seem all that useful here either. After all, its HUMANS that are manning the current prohibition. It's HUMANS that implemented various forms of decriminalization. Its HUMANS that are on the anti-drug and pro-drug side of the argument.
As for what's happening on the ground in Maine... its not germane to what most of us are discussing. It's still illegal for recreational usage, thus its only sold on the black market where the dealer doesn't care who buys it and is more than happy to sell whatever else the person may want.
Your argument was legalization = more usage by kids based on anecdote and scenarios that none of us have argued for. When provided data that indicates otherwise, you've dismissed it.
What do I want you to give? How about admitting that MAYBE the evidence disagrees with your previous assumptions. Hell, I don't expect you to join NORML... I don't expect you to quit your job (cause educating kids about the dangers of drugs is important IMO). However, a number of the arguments you've made don't seem to agree with the evidence from 'practice', if you can't give over on that, then why bother to be a part of the discussion?
Part of the problem is that there seems to be an attitude of, "well it goes up, but then it goes down, so that's okay". Or, "well it hasn't
exploded"
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Humans need to be controlled, stamped into a jello-mold. For their own good. It is not enough that we protect them from each other - or at least from the more violent members of society - we must protect them from themselves, for they are like toddlers and need guidance. Otherwise, they might make bad decisions, and then The Machine breaks down.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
l agree Kai. I'm trying to maintain a civil discussion, but if its not a discussion, I feel like I've been wasting my time. Might as well just sit back and laugh at the dogpile.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 10, 2011, 04:33:07 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
What do you want me to give? That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization? Yeah, sure. I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.
But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans.
I mean, if our discussion is pure theory and divorced from real world application, sure, I can do that. But if we are eventually going to be talking about actual implementation, I'm sorry but I can't ignore what is currently happening on the ground.
So you tell me the universe that this discussion is going to reside in. Is it pure theory or does it also include actual implementation?
Except the data we've been linking to seems to support that legalization, nuanced or more broad based (Amsterdam, South Australia, Portugal etc) STILL has less impact on youth compared to countries where prohibition exists. However, your responses seem to be to question the data, question the nuance of the data and then dismiss it based on your job.
Actual implementation in The Netherlands has not resulted in the concerns you've raised. Actual implementation in Australia and Portugal have not resulted in the concerns you've raised. In fact, data in the report I just linked to included evidence that usage didn't explode, that enforcement of the laws surrounding legalization caused drops in teen usage, that usage among teens didn't result in progression to harder drugs, including ironically lower alcohol and tobacco usage than among teens in the US.
Arguing "BUT ITS HUMANS" doesn't seem all that useful here either. After all, its HUMANS that are manning the current prohibition. It's HUMANS that implemented various forms of decriminalization. Its HUMANS that are on the anti-drug and pro-drug side of the argument.
As for what's happening on the ground in Maine... its not germane to what most of us are discussing. It's still illegal for recreational usage, thus its only sold on the black market where the dealer doesn't care who buys it and is more than happy to sell whatever else the person may want.
Your argument was legalization = more usage by kids based on anecdote and scenarios that none of us have argued for. When provided data that indicates otherwise, you've dismissed it.
What do I want you to give? How about admitting that MAYBE the evidence disagrees with your previous assumptions. Hell, I don't expect you to join NORML... I don't expect you to quit your job (cause educating kids about the dangers of drugs is important IMO). However, a number of the arguments you've made don't seem to agree with the evidence from 'practice', if you can't give over on that, then why bother to be a part of the discussion?
Part of the problem is that there seems to be an attitude of, "well it goes up, but then it goes down, so that's okay". Or, "well it hasn't exploded"
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
Someone, I'm not sure who, pointed out earlier that you seem to believe ALL use = Substance Abuse.
Personally, I've never felt the urge to use weed. But I do drink. I was introduced to alcohol, by my parents, at age 16, and by age 18 I knew enough to know roughly where my limits lay. I do not consider that kind of gradual experimentation before the legal age abuse; what I saw when I went to university, and kids who had never been allowed to drink before were suddenly away from the watchful eye of their parents and getting blitzed 24/7. That's abuse.
If you want to prevent substance abuse, I think a slight raise as people experiment with it, and then decide that actually they don't want to use it regularly (or do want to use it regularly but not to excess... you know
abuse), is precisely the sort of thing you should be going for.
(or in shorter terms)
The words you are using are not the same words people are reading. Define your terms and people will probably continue to disagree with you, but at least it'll make more sense.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment. I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue. I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 10, 2011, 05:25:02 PM
Someone, I'm not sure who, pointed out earlier that you seem to believe ALL use = Substance Abuse.
It's a different animal when it comes to youth vs. adults because of brain development. Substances impact a developing brain differently than they do a developed adult brain. So the progression of experimentation to abuse and dependence looks a bit different. Add in to that the inability of youth to make adult decisions, it generally isn't a good idea to promote or condone any use amongst youth.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 03:39:12 PM
To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S.
To be entirely fair, I'm not so sure if it would work that well either, with respect to abuse and such, in the US.
I mean, we don't have meth, pretty much not at all, in the Netherlands, and neither do we have much of a problem with Rx drugs. And while I do believe that might get a littlebit less if you'd just let people get high on pot without too much hassles, it wouldn't be significant let alone go away.
That seems to me a bit of a cultural thing. Really it astounds me what kids (and adults) in the US will do to get high. I had never even considered Rx drugs as an option--seemed to me to be just as bad/dangerous as any other kind of pill-based drugs (like XTC etc).
I do believe those problems would be significantly reduced if you guys got your healthcare a bit sorted out, however. Because, you see, if people could just go to their GP whenever they have a small ailment and get it treated for (nearly) free, they wouldn't have to wait until the very last moment when it gets
really bad. And then small ailments wouldn't grow into real big crappy ailments, people would possibly even care for their own health better (because they got it and it's worth preserving), and doctors wouldn't need to prescribe as much painkillers as they do now. Because if you'd have some big bad hurting in your joints or something, they'd prescribe painkillers just for the period before it got actually treated, and when it's treated you wouldn't need (as much) painkillers any more. Hey it would even reduce the need for medicinal pot, for that matter--though not for chronic pains and cancer and such, but those incidences would also get less if people were able to get it treated earlier.
I mean, that's the basic economic bonus of proper healthcare. Treat small ailments when they're small so they don't get big, and everybody's healthier, less of a strain on the economy, which would most probably even require less healthcare in total in the long run.
Try explaining that to the libertarians though. "Why should I pay for other people's healthcare?" because it would mean there's less healthcare necessary in total, that's why! Hell they might even end up paying less than they would if they only paid for their own shit like they do now, if they could just get over the idea of everybody chipping in for everyone.
Of course Big Pharma knows this too, they're perfectly aware of how they're unable to sell as much medicines in countries with proper universal health care.
I dunno, if you want to reduce Rx abuse, healthcare is probably the best way. Even moreso cause you'd not be catching and punishing (or re-educating) people, but actually giving them something they want to have, something that drives some of them to Rx abuse if they can't get it, even.
Is there numbers on that, too?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 04:21:05 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
What do you want me to give? That a nuanced decriminalization model like the Netherlands may be less impactful on youth compared to broad based legalization? Yeah, sure. I will stipulate that this would be likely the case, in theory.
But the problem is that theory has to be put into practice, by humans.
People from the Netherlands, of course, not being humans.
WE'RE A BUNCH OF FILTHY BELGIAN THEORETICAL NUANCED DECRIMINALIZED POT MUTANTS, THAT'S WHAT :lulz:
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
No, see, I actually did concede and fully acknowledged to Trip when he provided me data that the percentage of lifetime and 30-day use in the Netherlands is lower than it is in the United States. But that, in and of itself, doesn't tell you anything. It could be that, irrespective of drug laws, the culture in the Netherlands is such that youth aren't as prone to be using substances as they are in the United States. You cannot ignore the cultural piece.
So, from my perspective, what is more reliable is to see the reaction of that base-level data to changes in the policy. So yes, the levels in the Netherlands are lower, but when access was increased there was an initial rise and then an eventual decrease though I'm pretty sure one of those sources also said that the decline wasn't especially sharp, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong. One of the studies also said there were increased admissions for treatment.
So, that's what I'm talking about. I agree that a lower percentage of Dutch youth use marijuana compared to U.S. youth. Do you agree that this low percentages saw some increases in use after access became easier? What about that? What about the cultural piece? Do you acknowledge that culture could be a confounding factor? Is there something in these studies that I'm missing that controls for culture?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.
See, I find it absolutely hilarious that people are getting on my back for the quality of this discussion when people keep conflating and misrepresenting my actual stance on substance abuse policy. I don't know how many times in this thread I've stated that there needs to be policy changes to keep kids out of jail and to allow them access to financial aid. Can we please acknowledge that and move on so we can have this utopian awesome discussion everyone want to have?
Or is it just me who has to bend to the will of the larger collective?
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 10, 2011, 06:25:18 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 03:39:12 PM
To be clear, and probably unsurprisingly, I would not be a fan of the Netherland's model in the U.S.
To be entirely fair, I'm not so sure if it would work that well either, with respect to abuse and such, in the US.
I mean, we don't have meth, pretty much not at all, in the Netherlands, and neither do we have much of a problem with Rx drugs. And while I do believe that might get a littlebit less if you'd just let people get high on pot without too much hassles, it wouldn't be significant let alone go away.
That seems to me a bit of a cultural thing. Really it astounds me what kids (and adults) in the US will do to get high. I had never even considered Rx drugs as an option--seemed to me to be just as bad/dangerous as any other kind of pill-based drugs (like XTC etc).
I do believe those problems would be significantly reduced if you guys got your healthcare a bit sorted out, however. Because, you see, if people could just go to their GP whenever they have a small ailment and get it treated for (nearly) free, they wouldn't have to wait until the very last moment when it gets really bad. And then small ailments wouldn't grow into real big crappy ailments, people would possibly even care for their own health better (because they got it and it's worth preserving), and doctors wouldn't need to prescribe as much painkillers as they do now. Because if you'd have some big bad hurting in your joints or something, they'd prescribe painkillers just for the period before it got actually treated, and when it's treated you wouldn't need (as much) painkillers any more. Hey it would even reduce the need for medicinal pot, for that matter--though not for chronic pains and cancer and such, but those incidences would also get less if people were able to get it treated earlier.
I mean, that's the basic economic bonus of proper healthcare. Treat small ailments when they're small so they don't get big, and everybody's healthier, less of a strain on the economy, which would most probably even require less healthcare in total in the long run.
Try explaining that to the libertarians though. "Why should I pay for other people's healthcare?" because it would mean there's less healthcare necessary in total, that's why! Hell they might even end up paying less than they would if they only paid for their own shit like they do now, if they could just get over the idea of everybody chipping in for everyone.
Of course Big Pharma knows this too, they're perfectly aware of how they're unable to sell as much medicines in countries with proper universal health care.
I dunno, if you want to reduce Rx abuse, healthcare is probably the best way. Even moreso cause you'd not be catching and punishing (or re-educating) people, but actually giving them something they want to have, something that drives some of them to Rx abuse if they can't get it, even.
Is there numbers on that, too?
The other thing libertarians hate about socialized medicine is waiting in lines. Something that really pisses me off personally, people should not be able to buy their way to the front of the line just because they have money.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
No, see, I actually did concede and fully acknowledged to Trip when he provided me data that the percentage of lifetime and 30-day use in the Netherlands is lower than it is in the United States. But that, in and of itself, doesn't tell you anything. It could be that, irrespective of drug laws, the culture in the Netherlands is such that youth aren't as prone to be using substances as they are in the United States. You cannot ignore the cultural piece.
So, from my perspective, what is more reliable is to see the reaction of that base-level data to changes in the policy. So yes, the levels in the Netherlands are lower, but when access was increased there was an initial rise and then an eventual decrease though I'm pretty sure one of those sources also said that the decline wasn't especially sharp, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong. One of the studies also said there were increased admissions for treatment.
So, that's what I'm talking about. I agree that a lower percentage of Dutch youth use marijuana compared to U.S. youth. Do you agree that this low percentages saw some increases in use after access became easier? What about that? What about the cultural piece? Do you acknowledge that culture could be a confounding factor? Is there something in these studies that I'm missing that controls for culture?
You keep saying things about "culture" but I'm not even sure what you mean by the word. Because if you're going to make an argument that culture is a factor you have to be specific about what you mean.
RWHN also seems to be conveniently ignoring any data from any countries other than the Netherlands that have tried the decrim or legal-with-heavy-regulation model.
Of course, I wouldn't expect much from someone who works in the field of substance abuse prevention and votes FOR a casino in his backyard.
One aspect that seems cultural is the general level of acceptance WHN mentioned a few times. The idea that legal weed for grownups sends a cultural message that it is ok for kids. The same arguement has been made in reverse, that illegal weed makes it a cool rebellious thing to do.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
This. He's an evangelist.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment. I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue. I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.
An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?
Further, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.
Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.
Fuck this thread.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment. I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue. I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.
An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?
Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase? These surveys don't track them all of their lives. They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school. I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right? These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids. And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation. Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.
QuoteFurther, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.
Really? Do you watch movies? do you listen to current music? Do you watch TV? To suggest their isn't a "culture of permissiveness" NOW, with it being illegal, is crazy. There is clearly a culture of permissiveness in this country when it comes to marijuana. I will admit it is kind of shocking to me, in a way, that we haven't legalized it by now. Because I think by and large, Americans are largely uneducated as to the true costs of youth marijuana use. Or maybe they just don't care. I'm not sure which one it is.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 07:04:19 PM
You keep saying things about "culture" but I'm not even sure what you mean by the word. Because if you're going to make an argument that culture is a factor you have to be specific about what you mean.
Let me ask you this question. Do you think, if every country in the world all of a sudden enacted the exact same policies regarding marijuana, or even all illicit drugs. If every country made them legal tomorrow. Do you think that the rates of youth use of substances would be identical in every country, within a confidence interval?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 10, 2011, 07:12:58 PM
One aspect that seems cultural is the general level of acceptance WHN mentioned a few times. The idea that legal weed for grownups sends a cultural message that it is ok for kids. The same arguement has been made in reverse, that illegal weed makes it a cool rebellious thing to do.
That certainly happens with some kids. I won't deny that. But when you look at the overall trends, you will tend to see that as perception of harm goes up, use goes down, and vice versa. But it is a trend, there obviously will be outliers, but policy making according to trends will be more effective.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 06:43:03 PM
No, see, I actually did concede and fully acknowledged to Trip when he provided me data that the percentage of lifetime and 30-day use in the Netherlands is lower than it is in the United States. But that, in and of itself, doesn't tell you anything. It could be that, irrespective of drug laws, the culture in the Netherlands is such that youth aren't as prone to be using substances as they are in the United States. You cannot ignore the cultural piece.
So, wait. You're suggesting that teenagers are different in the two countries?
Quote from: Net on November 10, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.
Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.
Examples must be made of the disobedient.
Frankly, I think they should make them wear hair shirts for the duration of their sentences.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment. I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue. I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.
An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?
Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase? These surveys don't track them all of their lives. They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school. I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right? These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids. And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation. Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.
But studies that tracked adult use pre and post legalization show a similar spike, then decrease. You would have a better point if adult use didn't show the same pattern.
As for permissiveness in our culture, I'm really confused. First you say that legalizing it would create a culture of permissiveness, then you say that there is already a culture of permissiveness. Personally, what I see in the media is not so much social acceptance, but a glamorization of marijuana as a symbol of rebellion.
I have no idea why I'm continuing to respond, when he's already said that data won't change his position. It's a pointless as arguing with a Creationist, and frustrating for all the same reasons.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 09:44:45 PM
I have no idea why I'm continuing to respond, when he's already said that data won't change his position. It's a pointless as arguing with a Creationist, and frustrating for all the same reasons.
There's not much else going on.
I think my main point here is, I'm all about prevention. 169%. Prohibition, however, is a collosal waste of time and lives, and this was proven by the prohibition era last century. It gets harmless people put in prison, makes gangsters rich, and makes a joke of the law as a whole.
Here's a question, RWHN:
Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?
A kid who smokes pot?
Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?
This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 09:47:19 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 09:44:45 PM
I have no idea why I'm continuing to respond, when he's already said that data won't change his position. It's a pointless as arguing with a Creationist, and frustrating for all the same reasons.
There's not much else going on.
I think my main point here is, I'm all about prevention. 169%. Prohibition, however, is a collosal waste of time and lives, and this was proven by the prohibition era last century. It gets harmless people put in prison, makes gangsters rich, and makes a joke of the law as a whole.
Yeah, that's exactly what I think about it, based on all the existing evidence and statistics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 09:38:41 PM
Quote from: Net on November 10, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.
Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.
Examples must be made of the disobedient.
Frankly, I think they should make them wear hair shirts for the duration of their sentences.
Y'know, I expect this bullshit out of ECH and Nigel but I'm frankly quite disappointed that you continue to conflate and misrepresent my actual stance. I've said continuously that while I don't support legalization I also support policy change to keep kids out of prison and to keep them from losing access to financial aid.
I've had your back when trolls have come in and tried to twist your words and here you are doing it to me. I don't give a fuck that you disagree with me but misrepresenting what I actually believe is some lowdown bullshit.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 09:42:18 PM
But studies that tracked adult use pre and post legalization show a similar spike, then decrease. You would have a better point if adult use didn't show the same pattern.
Which study are you looking at where the pattern is the same? I've only been looking at the youth related ones since that is what my arguments have been focusing on.
QuoteAs for permissiveness in our culture, I'm really confused. First you say that legalizing it would create a culture of permissiveness, then you say that there is already a culture of permissiveness. Personally, what I see in the media is not so much social acceptance, but a glamorization of marijuana as a symbol of rebellion.
I disagree. It used to be portrayed that way but Hollywood and the media have definitely been mainstreaming it over the years. When you see it as a normal part of comedy and gags on sit-coms, it's definitely moved out of the realm of rebellion.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 10:21:56 PM
Here's a question, RWHN:
Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?
A kid who smokes pot?
Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?
This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.
I could answer your theoretical question, and it would probably be an answer you would agree with. However, your theoretical question is based on a bullshit premise and so I won't. Because I know exactly what you will do with my response which is what you've already done in this thread. Just cut out the part you like, delete the rest, and claim a hollow victory.
Sorry, RWHN, don't play that game. But, I think from this you should be able to infer what my answer to your question would be.
In the real world, the answer is that they are both awful and both need to be addressed.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 12:20:44 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 10:21:56 PM
Here's a question, RWHN:
Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?
A kid who smokes pot?
Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?
This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.
I could answer your theoretical question, and it would probably be an answer you would agree with. However, your theoretical question is based on a bullshit premise and so I won't. Because I know exactly what you will do with my response which is what you've already done in this thread. Just cut out the part you like, delete the rest, and claim a hollow victory.
Sorry, RWHN, don't play that game. But, I think from this you should be able to infer what my answer to your question would be.
In the real world, the answer is that they are both awful and both need to be addressed.
The issue is that you are trying to address the former with laws that cause the latter.
We don't need to infer because you've actually said that adults know they're breaking the law and therefore deserve whatever immoral shit the law proscribes. Because it's The Law™.
I would be embarrassed to have to repost that too.
What specifically about ECH's premise is false?
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 12:12:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 09:38:41 PM
Quote from: Net on November 10, 2011, 08:37:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 10, 2011, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm for reducing youth substance abuse. Not slight increases and THEN, hopefully, reductions in youth substance abuse. An increase is an increase and means real kids, who are also humans. I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided. You guys can feel free to characterize me in any way you wish given that statement but it is what I believe.
The above.
Despite evidence provided by posters on Portugal, Netherlands and others that show the youth substance abuse is actually lower in those countries, you refuse to concede your argument against legalization with intense regulation, and basically say in the above that no evidence will change your mind. Essentially, you came into the thread with a position and you are unwilling to yield that position for any evidence. Such an argument is called "preaching". Or sermonizing, or lecturing. Feel free to characterize it as any of those, but not as a discussion.
Well, the alleged initial uptick is way worse than trashing kids' futures with drug convictions.
Sacrificing the poor, uneducated, and unlucky based on a myopic fear for well-off children is a cost RWHN can afford.
Examples must be made of the disobedient.
Frankly, I think they should make them wear hair shirts for the duration of their sentences.
Y'know, I expect this bullshit out of ECH and Nigel but I'm frankly quite disappointed that you continue to conflate and misrepresent my actual stance. I've said continuously that while I don't support legalization I also support policy change to keep kids out of prison and to keep them from losing access to financial aid.
I've had your back when trolls have come in and tried to twist your words and here you are doing it to me. I don't give a fuck that you disagree with me but misrepresenting what I actually believe is some lowdown bullshit.
And I had your back when you first got here. And I still do.
Just not on this subject.
I get genuinely offended by prohibitionists. Carrie Nation should have been dropped down a fucking well in a sack full of cats.
That doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to me when you are making shit up about me. But whatever makes you feel better.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
That there is no federal standing, at least not as currently expressed. Here's the breakdown.
Federal standing as asserted under the CSA is that since drugs are often transported through international or interstate channels, the power to regulate them is granted to congress under the commerce clause of the Constitution, as amplified by the "necessary and proper" clause.
That regulate = ban is open for discussion, but let's just assume it to be true in this case.
The question then is, is the control of a substance produced in one state, unless explicitly intended for distribution across state lines, within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government? To the extent that jurisdictional authority is exercised in ways that are "necessary and proper" to preventing interstate traffic in that substance, yes. Well, under the 10th any power that's not been delegated to the federal government "is reserved to the states or the people respectively". The constitution does not grant the Federal government the power to ban the production, possession, distribution or consumption of anything, therefore that power belongs to the states. The CSA's constitutionality is based on the proposition that violation of the 10th amendment is "necessary and proper" to enforce it's jurisdictional authority over interstate drug traffic. IOW, the ban on production is constitutional because it's constitutional to violate the constitution (which it is within a certain scope and I believe only under executive authority, though I could be wrong on this).
So unless it's constitutional to violate the constitution, or another logical breakdown can be presented, the CSA has no standing.
If you're interested in how it's held up under Supreme Court scrutiny, I'm pretty familiar with most of the relevant decisions (which makes me a BLAST at parties) but I have a really hard time discussing them without gratuitous caps-lock abuse and many, many a dirty swear word. Think, citation of precedent with loosely similar facts to find various ways of concluding that the 10th amendment doesn't apply...SWEAR...
---
That having been said, the constitutionality question doesn't address any opinion on legalization or criminalization, just the way it's approached on a strictly federal level.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
Oh, and I haven't been on the dog-pile but I'm with you that the unaccounted for influence of cultural factors makes a straight examination of data from places that have legalized, very difficult to apply to the question of what the effects may be here.
Someone can call me on apples and oranges here, but looking at the effects of alcohol prohibition on use, it's clear that it did severely cut down on abuse. Most of the research I have looked at suggests that the problems that came along with it, coupled with the fact that people really just didn't care enough about keeping it illegal to deal with the loss of freedoms is really what led to the repeal, despite it actually being effective at addressing abuse. Despite the obvious apples and oranges, I have a really tough time trying to assert that top to bottom legalization of pot wouldn't lead to a fairly substantial increase on use, especially in states that currently have very restrictive laws--so I won't. But the detrimental effects of such a scenario wouldn't, in any way, touch the current shit-storm that's stirred up by prohibition.
If I find the time or ganas, I'll look into some relevant data and examine this proposition a little further, but I'm suspicious that the effect drug prohibition has had on limiting the supply is fairly negligible compared to the effects it's had on cultural perception. But then, considering that it's highly unlikely that Superbowl Bud-Bowl commercials aren't likely to be replaced by Superbowl 'Bud'-Bowl commercials, that effect wouldn't be nearly as pronounced as it could be.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment. I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue. I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.
An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?
Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase? These surveys don't track them all of their lives. They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school. I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right? These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids. And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation. Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.
Well the kids that represent the increase will become homeless pot whores sucking dick and putting out for one hit of a bong. That's why I'm for legalization, I want more little sluts on the street so I can get my rocks off for a dime bag.
Quote
QuoteFurther, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.
Really? Do you watch movies? do you listen to current music? Do you watch TV? To suggest their isn't a "culture of permissiveness" NOW, with it being illegal, is crazy. There is clearly a culture of permissiveness in this country when it comes to marijuana. I will admit it is kind of shocking to me, in a way, that we haven't legalized it by now. Because I think by and large, Americans are largely uneducated as to the true costs of youth marijuana use. Or maybe they just don't care. I'm not sure which one it is.
So we have a culture of permissiveness now, where the view of harm is minimal... but we don't want to legalize it because it might engender a culture of permissiveness and minimize the view of harm. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 09:24:37 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 07:04:19 PM
You keep saying things about "culture" but I'm not even sure what you mean by the word. Because if you're going to make an argument that culture is a factor you have to be specific about what you mean.
Let me ask you this question. Do you think, if every country in the world all of a sudden enacted the exact same policies regarding marijuana, or even all illicit drugs. If every country made them legal tomorrow. Do you think that the rates of youth use of substances would be identical in every country, within a confidence interval?
Okay. What the fuck, dude? I've been mostly staying out of this, because I can give a fuck harder in my sleep. But I've been reading it. And I have to say, when you are being evasive when you are asked to DEFINE A FUCKING TERM YOU HAVE USED MORE THAN ONCE, you are not at all debating in good faith. Of course the rates are going to be different, due to a variety of factors that may or may not be "cultural". So, that, and this:
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 12:20:44 AM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 10, 2011, 10:21:56 PM
Here's a question, RWHN:
Who do you think is worse off, in the long-run?
A kid who smokes pot?
Or a kid whose parent (or parents) end up in prison or losing custody of their children because they violated the federal prohibition against marijuana?
This is a simple either/or question, so spare us the doublespeak and evasion tactics.
I could answer your theoretical question, and it would probably be an answer you would agree with. However, your theoretical question is based on a bullshit premise and so I won't. Because I know exactly what you will do with my response which is what you've already done in this thread. Just cut out the part you like, delete the rest, and claim a hollow victory.
Sorry, RWHN, don't play that game. But, I think from this you should be able to infer what my answer to your question would be.
In the real world, the answer is that they are both awful and both need to be addressed.
go to show that I've been wasting my time looking at your sources and taking what you say in good faith. So, ya know, your opinion ain't worth two shits to me. I mean, I was willing to give you a shot, even after you blew me off when I was legitimately trying to help you out. As Roger often says, I gotta be me, and right now that means I gotta tell you to fuck off. Seriously, I'm starting to think you should have stayed flounced. Please kindly remove yourself from my planet with all due speed. Thanks in advance. :)
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Maybe we should try and interject a second strand of idiot jabbering...
Not only do I think marijuana should be legalized, I think it should be used as the new standard for currencies. The Weed Standard would enable us to grow our way to economic prosperity, and would back our money with something of great practical use but without the supply problems of gold!
Kids will be fine because they don't get that much pocket money anyway, and parents can ration their access to weed by adjusting their income so that they can't get hold of enough to abuse it.
Plus, if your reserves degrade over time, you like, have to spend the money rather than hoarding it, which totally means that the economy will get an immediate kickstart and everything will be great.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 11, 2011, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.
Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity. That whole atropine melee? That began with TGRR posting a link and a quote he
thought showed codeine being combined with atropine when it was actually an anti-diahhreal drug called Lomotil, which others in this thread, including ECH, conceded was an acceptable medical use of atropine. Has TGRR copped to that? Nope. That whole bullshit discussion was based on a bullshit link, but neither he nor any of you other chikcen-shits would cop to it because, why? Don't talke to me about intellectual integrity.
And then some assclowns decide that I'm a phony and that I don't really do the job I've said I do for the past 5 years. But then when someone they like says, "no, he's real", then they change their mind. Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.
And then TGRR making shit up about what I actually believe. That I SUPPORT kids going to jail for possession, that I support families being busted up because of possession convictions, that I support kids not being able to get financial aid, when I have repeatedly said I DON'T support any of that shit and that the shit should be changed. Yet, people continue to post that I do support all of that. Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.
Look, I'm not going to submit to stupid games. The question ECH posed was a game. Do I think, on paper that a kid experimenting with pot is better off than a kid who just lost his family because of drug confictions. Well, Jesus, of fucking course. Who the fuck would say otherwise? But the real world doesn't work that way. It isn't an either/or. Both of those can be adressed and I believe they can be addressed without legalizing marijuana. You don't agree? Fine, I don't give a fuck and I really don't expect anyone to agree with that position. But that has shit all to do with my intellectual integrity.
Indeed, if I were to bend my actual beliefs in this area in a way to satisfy you spags, what the fuck does that say about my intellectual integrity? That I stray from the constructs of how I think around this subject just so you all can agree. Don't fucking talk to me about intellectual integrity.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 11, 2011, 09:20:32 AM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 09:21:45 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2011, 07:30:33 PM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on November 10, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
So, you can't think of any evidence that would cause you to concede your argument...
I guess that means this isn't a discussion. It never was a discussion. It never will be a discussion. You're basically preaching.
Let's be specific. What argument do you want me to concede?
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
And I definitely take issue with the "preaching" comment. I've not asked anyone and will not ask anyone to change their opinions or stances on this issue. I'm not going to pretend to believe something or agree with something just to make you guys happy.
An increase followed by a decrease means that initially, more kids tried it, but then decided they didn't really like it, so stopped. I fail to see how this is a problem. In what way are those kids harmed by having tried pot? Especially if, having tried it, even fewer kids went on to use it regularly than before?
Yeah, but what happened to those kids who represented the increase? These surveys don't track them all of their lives. They certainly don't track them after they graduate high school. I mean, you do realize that every 4 years you have an entirely new crop of students in high schools, right? These rises and falls aren't based on the same exact group of kids. And the fact that you see data that shows increases in treatment, to me, signals that this is more than simple experimentation. Kids who are just experimenting and then quitting don't go into treatment.
Well the kids that represent the increase will become homeless pot whores sucking dick and putting out for one hit of a bong. That's why I'm for legalization, I want more little sluts on the street so I can get my rocks off for a dime bag.
Quote
QuoteFurther, you speak of a "culture of permissiveness". In a culture where normal use is permitted and abuse is frowned on, wouldn't the cultural norm foster moderation? Much as Demolition Squid pointed out, kids who are exposed to moderate alcohol consumption at home are less likely to binge drink when they're out of the house. I don't think there is anything wrong with a cultural norm of permissiveness in moderation, whereas I see a lot of problems with a cultural norm of making marijuana a forbidden fruit. IMO it actually fosters heavy/binge use among kids who are looking to rebel.
Really? Do you watch movies? do you listen to current music? Do you watch TV? To suggest their isn't a "culture of permissiveness" NOW, with it being illegal, is crazy. There is clearly a culture of permissiveness in this country when it comes to marijuana. I will admit it is kind of shocking to me, in a way, that we haven't legalized it by now. Because I think by and large, Americans are largely uneducated as to the true costs of youth marijuana use. Or maybe they just don't care. I'm not sure which one it is.
So we have a culture of permissiveness now, where the view of harm is minimal... but we don't want to legalize it because it might engender a culture of permissiveness and minimize the view of harm. That makes a lot of sense to me.
Over here in the Netherlands, one of those kids grew up to become ... DE MOSSELMAN
Which we counted as a win.
All the other kids, we revoked their citizenship and dumped them in the ocean, like surplus kittens. And that's how we got the decrease in pot usage after legalisation.
True story. Though of course the potheads will tell you it's a cover up propaganda scare fabricated by the powerful seafood-lobby.
It just depends on what side you want to believe.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 10:01:54 AM
Not only do I think marijuana should be legalized, I think it should be used as the new standard for currencies. The Weed Standard would enable us to grow our way to economic prosperity, and would back our money with something of great practical use but without the supply problems of gold!
Kids will be fine because they don't get that much pocket money anyway, and parents can ration their access to weed by adjusting their income so that they can't get hold of enough to abuse it.
Plus, if your reserves degrade over time, you like, have to spend the money rather than hoarding it, which totally means that the economy will get an immediate kickstart and everything will be great.
Wall Street kids will try to block it though, because you can't roll up cannabis buds to snort coke with.
It'll never pass unless we genetically modify pot to grow hollow stems.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 11:05:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 11, 2011, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.
Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity. That whole atropine melee? That began with TGRR posting a link and a quote he thought showed codeine being combined with atropine when it was actually an anti-diahhreal drug called Lomotil, which others in this thread, including ECH, conceded was an acceptable medical use of atropine. Has TGRR copped to that? Nope. That whole bullshit discussion was based on a bullshit link, but neither he nor any of you other chikcen-shits would cop to it because, why? Don't talke to me about intellectual integrity.
And then some assclowns decide that I'm a phony and that I don't really do the job I've said I do for the past 5 years. But then when someone they like says, "no, he's real", then they change their mind. Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.
And then TGRR making shit up about what I actually believe. That I SUPPORT kids going to jail for possession, that I support families being busted up because of possession convictions, that I support kids not being able to get financial aid, when I have repeatedly said I DON'T support any of that shit and that the shit should be changed. Yet, people continue to post that I do support all of that. Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.
Look, I'm not going to submit to stupid games. The question ECH posed was a game. Do I think, on paper that a kid experimenting with pot is better off than a kid who just lost his family because of drug confictions. Well, Jesus, of fucking course. Who the fuck would say otherwise? But the real world doesn't work that way. It isn't an either/or. Both of those can be adressed and I believe they can be addressed without legalizing marijuana. You don't agree? Fine, I don't give a fuck and I really don't expect anyone to agree with that position. But that has shit all to do with my intellectual integrity.
Indeed, if I were to bend my actual beliefs in this area in a way to satisfy you spags, what the fuck does that say about my intellectual integrity? That I stray from the constructs of how I think around this subject just so you all can agree. Don't fucking talk to me about intellectual integrity.
That's exactly what you've been doing all week. Well, submitting to them, and playing them.
There's a difference between intellectual integrity and dogmatism, by the way. If you haven't noticed, what pretty much every other person on the site has been saying is that you've been crossed that line. Potentially because you're making yourself look like an ass playing stupid games.
Quote from: Triple ZeroWall Street kids will try to block it though, because you can't roll up cannabis buds to snort coke with.
It'll never pass unless we genetically modify pot to grow hollow stems.
Those elitist bastards.
But I suppose that is a compromise we might have to live with. The 1% who use cocaine might be able to force some measures to make it more palatable to them, but mark my words, the 99% won't just let this go without a fight! Real reform for real people!
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 11:30:28 AM
There's a difference between intellectual integrity and dogmatism, by the way. If you haven't noticed, what pretty much every other person on the site has been saying is that you've been crossed that line. Potentially because you're making yourself look like an ass playing stupid games.
Because I'm making counter arguments?
How are my counter arguments dogmatic while the counter arguments from the pro-marijuana side NOT dogmatic?
I've provided evidence to support my argument concerning the impact that community norms and perception of harm have on marijuana use. That is peer-reviewed science. If that makes me dogmatic then fuck me.
I've also raised questions about some of the research submitted concerning what has been happening in Europe. I have fully acknowledged that usage rates are lower in Europe, but they were lower in a lot of places BEFORE any legalization or decriminalization. That is an important point. If you guys don't like that, then fuck me, because that is based in fundamental evaluation. When doing any kind of assessment you do have ton consider confounding variables. And in the cases where we have only been presented abstracts and not full research articles, it is impossible to know whether or not that variable has been controlled for. That isn't dogmatism that is science. Blindly accepting the results of research without considering the protocol and confounding variables is dogmatism.
You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but from where I'm sitting, this is pretty clear group dynamics. THere are a couple of individuals here using their heads while questioning me but many others have been caught up in a game and aren't really thinking things through.
And yet, oddly enough, you keep avoiding the questions from one of the people whose intellectual integrity has been consistent throughout this entire thread because, according to you, those questions are just "playing games". :)
I mean, I've conceded the Lomotil point, I'm still not convinced you have the academic credentials necessary for your field of employment no matter what you've told anyone else privately, every question I've asked you ITT has had a legitimate scientific, cultural, or philosophical point behind it, and to top it off I'm not even arguing from a standpoint of being pro-legalization. I'm just arguing from a standpoint of being pro-logic and pro-ideological consistency.
And what do I get in return? I get accused of fishing for your PI because I asked what degree you hold and all of my questions get dodged or evaded because you seem to think that the fact that you can't come up with a logical answer that's consistent with your beliefs means that
I'm out to get you. Couldn't mean that I've consistently been able to expose flaws in your thought process that you're unwilling to confront. No, I'm just
playing games.
Quote from: RWHNIf that makes me dogmatic then fuck me.
Indeed. Fuck you. :)
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
The servers boiler pressure has dropped to half of what we need, at this rate we'll be stuck on the Mississippi until January.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 11:51:57 AM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 11:30:28 AM
There's a difference between intellectual integrity and dogmatism, by the way. If you haven't noticed, what pretty much every other person on the site has been saying is that you've been crossed that line. Potentially because you're making yourself look like an ass playing stupid games.
Because I'm making counter arguments?
How are my counter arguments dogmatic while the counter arguments from the pro-marijuana side NOT dogmatic?
I've provided evidence to support my argument concerning the impact that community norms and perception of harm have on marijuana use. That is peer-reviewed science. If that makes me dogmatic then fuck me.
I've also raised questions about some of the research submitted concerning what has been happening in Europe. I have fully acknowledged that usage rates are lower in Europe, but they were lower in a lot of places BEFORE any legalization or decriminalization. That is an important point. If you guys don't like that, then fuck me, because that is based in fundamental evaluation. When doing any kind of assessment you do have ton consider confounding variables. And in the cases where we have only been presented abstracts and not full research articles, it is impossible to know whether or not that variable has been controlled for. That isn't dogmatism that is science. Blindly accepting the results of research without considering the protocol and confounding variables is dogmatism.
You can chalk it up to whatever you want, but from where I'm sitting, this is pretty clear group dynamics. THere are a couple of individuals here using their heads while questioning me but many others have been caught up in a game and aren't really thinking things through.
I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think I will. Got a quota to fill after all.
Basically: I haven't seen the pro-marijuana people change their argument at all. The basic thrust remains the same. They have refuted your points against them, coherently and with evidence, but their argument has not been a counter one in any way.
You have constantly shifted and evaded. You've admitted that you aren't interested in fulfilling the basic criteria necessary to have an actual discussion. But mostly, it is your attitude which pisses me off. You may feel otherwise, but the one who started treating other members of the board like tools is you.
You started this discussion. Despite saying in the past that you wanted to avoid it. YOU were also the first one to start dragging this shit out across other threads. You are the one who turned the discussion toxic. You are responsible for making this week's content largely revolve around your ridiculously incoherent argument, your blind refusal to step back and look at how you are appearing to others, and your apparent insistence that no, it is everyone ELSE who has their head up their ass.
Until this week, I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. After this week, though, it is difficult not to put you in the troll category. The fact you
might not be there deliberately doesn't change the fact that this week's board content would have been far more enjoyable if you had never posted at all.
You wanted me to post information about myself that would make it easy for my employer or state partner to link me to this site. And even Kai mentioned that is something he would be reluctant to do for the same reasons. That should be an easy concept for you to understand and why that creeps me out a bit.
And no, I've been answering Rat and Trip's questions. Because after you got your dander up, which didn't take very long, your "questions" were very clearly rooted in an emotional vendetta. I mean, if you are going to ask me questions AND insult me in those questions, why the fuck should I bother with that nonsense? You and Nigel have had no interests in this thread other than trolling, baiting, etc., etc., so I've been playing with that, I've been giving you what you want, which was a fight. You guys have no interest in anything other than that as your behavior has demonstrated. So, no, I'm not going to engage the two of you the same way I will engage others. You want a troll so you two are getting a troll.
For others, I am answering questions the way I see the answers from my perspective. I'm not going to make shit up. I'm not going to pretend to believe something just to make people happy. I believe that legalizing marijuana has many consequences for our youth. Yes, I will stipulate that, at best, evidence in Europe suggests that some kind of nuanced decriminalization might not have a huge impact on youth. But that has exactly been the crux of my argument. I'm not willing to gamble on might. Others in this thread are. Great. Fine. I don't agree. But might isn't iron-clad science. So don't give me shit about intellectual integrity or evidence. Might is not evidence. Might tells you that there are more questions to answer.
So let me ask all of you this, what have you been doing, what WILL you do to see things change more to your liking? What have you done to advocate for changes that would keep kids out of jail for possession? What have you done to advocate for second chances for kids who get in trouble so they can get financial aid? What have you done in any of this shit you keep throwing at me?
Me, I fought tooth and nail to save the youth drug court program here in my state when the state legislature put it on the chopping block. I fought hard to keep that shit going precisely because I want to keep kids out of jail. Ultimately, we failed, and the state cut it anyway despite the data I provided that showed it was working. I walk my talk. Do you guys? If you haven't, what will you do now?
Bickering over the internet is fun but if you actually want shit to change, get out there and do something about it.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 01:37:28 PM
I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think I will. Got a quota to fill after all.
Basically: I haven't seen the pro-marijuana people change their argument at all. The basic thrust remains the same. They have refuted your points against them, coherently and with evidence, but their argument has not been a counter one in any way.
And I've countered with evidence and reasoning. Point out where I've done otherwise.
QuoteYou have constantly shifted and evaded. You've admitted that you aren't interested in fulfilling the basic criteria necessary to have an actual discussion. But mostly, it is your attitude which pisses me off. You may feel otherwise, but the one who started treating other members of the board like tools is you.
Prove it. I see a lot of generalization but nothing to back it up. TGRR has been misrepresenting me. ECH and Nigel and others have accused me of being a fraud. I've not insulted anyone. I've not called anyone a fraud. I've not called anyone an "intellectually dishonest bastard". I can't help that you guys don't like my arguments. And I didn't ask for half of the board to come in here and start a melee. This thread started with a very even-keeled commentary on the shift in policy by the Obama administration. It went to shit when someone posted a bogus link to codeine being mixed with atropine. And I still haven't seen anyone acknowledge that. So spare me your "evasion" bullshit.
QuoteYou started this discussion
But it was escalated by others who admitted they were being overly aggressive.
QuoteDespite saying in the past that you wanted to avoid it.
Yeah, I did. But people couldn't resist poking. I've been the nice guy on this board for the past 5 or 6 years. I've normally stayed out of the dog-pile threads because I find it to be rather pointless. I even stood up for AKK when he was getting pounded, until I realized he had no interest in being civil. I think I've been perfectly civil. I fuck with ECH and Nigel because it's what they want.
QuoteYOU were also the first one to start dragging this shit out across other threads.
Actually, it was ECH when he started that thread about people posting their shoe color or eye color or whatever. So I'm afraid you are wrong. He's also the one who threatened to ruin every single thread I started. And then I started a thread with a piece of writing that I wanted to share, you know, like what a lot of people tend to do in Apple Talk these days. It was ECH and Nigel who decided to turn that thread into a hate fest. And then I bump something I wrote in Or Kill Me because I saw that someone was reading it. It was a good piece of writing, one LMNO turned into a POEEcast, I have some fond memories of that piece. So I wanted to share it again. And then Nigel starts shitting on me in THAT thread. You might want to reconsider who is actually spreading this shit to multiple threads, because it isn't me.
QuoteYou are the one who turned the discussion toxic.
Nope. Those would be the people who started accusing me of being a fraud and trying to pin me down on a hypothetical that was based on the bogus link TGRR provided.
QuoteYou are responsible for making this week's content largely revolve around your ridiculously incoherent argument, your blind refusal to step back and look at how you are appearing to others, and your apparent insistence that no, it is everyone ELSE who has their head up their ass.
I can assure you that not everyone is on the same page as you. But out of respect I will say no more about that.
QuoteUntil this week, I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. After this week, though, it is difficult not to put you in the troll category. The fact you might not be there deliberately doesn't change the fact that this week's board content would have been far more enjoyable if you had never posted at all.
Given the bias in your observations to this point I will give what you said all of the considerations it merits.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 02:02:41 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 01:37:28 PM
I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think I will. Got a quota to fill after all.
Basically: I haven't seen the pro-marijuana people change their argument at all. The basic thrust remains the same. They have refuted your points against them, coherently and with evidence, but their argument has not been a counter one in any way.
And I've countered with evidence and reasoning. Point out where I've done otherwise.
QuoteYou have constantly shifted and evaded. You've admitted that you aren't interested in fulfilling the basic criteria necessary to have an actual discussion. But mostly, it is your attitude which pisses me off. You may feel otherwise, but the one who started treating other members of the board like tools is you.
Prove it. I see a lot of generalization but nothing to back it up. TGRR has been misrepresenting me. ECH and Nigel and others have accused me of being a fraud. I've not insulted anyone. I've not called anyone a fraud. I've not called anyone an "intellectually dishonest bastard". I can't help that you guys don't like my arguments. And I didn't ask for half of the board to come in here and start a melee. This thread started with a very even-keeled commentary on the shift in policy by the Obama administration. It went to shit when someone posted a bogus link to codeine being mixed with atropine. And I still haven't seen anyone acknowledge that. So spare me your "evasion" bullshit.
QuoteYou started this discussion
But it was escalated by others who admitted they were being overly aggressive.
QuoteDespite saying in the past that you wanted to avoid it.
Yeah, I did. But people couldn't resist poking. I've been the nice guy on this board for the past 5 or 6 years. I've normally stayed out of the dog-pile threads because I find it to be rather pointless. I even stood up for AKK when he was getting pounded, until I realized he had no interest in being civil. I think I've been perfectly civil. I fuck with ECH and Nigel because it's what they want.
QuoteYOU were also the first one to start dragging this shit out across other threads.
Actually, it was ECH when he started that thread about people posting their shoe color or eye color or whatever. So I'm afraid you are wrong. He's also the one who threatened to ruin every single thread I started. And then I started a thread with a piece of writing that I wanted to share, you know, like what a lot of people tend to do in Apple Talk these days. It was ECH and Nigel who decided to turn that thread into a hate fest. And then I bump something I wrote in Or Kill Me because I saw that someone was reading it. It was a good piece of writing, one LMNO turned into a POEEcast, I have some fond memories of that piece. So I wanted to share it again. And then Nigel starts shitting on me in THAT thread. You might want to reconsider who is actually spreading this shit to multiple threads, because it isn't me.
QuoteYou are the one who turned the discussion toxic.
Nope. Those would be the people who started accusing me of being a fraud and trying to pin me down on a hypothetical that was based on the bogus link TGRR provided.
QuoteYou are responsible for making this week's content largely revolve around your ridiculously incoherent argument, your blind refusal to step back and look at how you are appearing to others, and your apparent insistence that no, it is everyone ELSE who has their head up their ass.
I can assure you that not everyone is on the same page as you. But out of respect I will say no more about that.
QuoteUntil this week, I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. After this week, though, it is difficult not to put you in the troll category. The fact you might not be there deliberately doesn't change the fact that this week's board content would have been far more enjoyable if you had never posted at all.
Given the bias in your observations to this point I will give what you said all of the considerations it merits.
I'm not going to do your introspection for you. God knows enough other people have tried.
As to what I'm going to do about it, though, I think I'm mostly going to smile at your holier than thou attitude. Although I can think of several steps I
could take to effect the change I'd like to see in the world, I think it would probably, all things considered, be a touch extreme.
I'll probably keep posting in this thread though.
Wait, so I just provided you some evidence that runs contrary to your belief as to what's been going on in this thread and you aren't even going to consider it?
And I'm the dogmatic one?
Did you see the bogus link that TGRR provided that set off the atropine nonsense?
Have you seen where I've been accused of being for youth imprisonment and losing access to financial aid when I've said the opposite?
Have you seen where I've been accused of being a fraud?
have you seen the one thread I created and the one thread that I bumped that OTHERS turned into shit stirring?
Your view on this is very one-sided and the fact that you won't consider evidence to the contrary suggests to me that perhaps you aren't the best person to judge intellectual integrity and dogma.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 11, 2011, 02:19:37 PM
Wait, so I just provided you some evidence that runs contrary to your belief as to what's been going on in this thread and you aren't even going to consider it?
And I'm the dogmatic one?
Did you see the bogus link that TGRR provided that set off the atropine nonsense?
Have you seen where I've been accused of being for youth imprisonment and losing access to financial aid when I've said the opposite?
Have you seen where I've been accused of being a fraud?
have you seen the one thread I created and the one thread that I bumped that OTHERS turned into shit stirring?
Your view on this is very one-sided and the fact that you won't consider evidence to the contrary suggests to me that perhaps you aren't the best person to judge intellectual integrity and dogma.
I've read the thread. I've come to my own conclusions regarding your behaviour in it.
I've given your opinion on my opinion all the consideration it merits. :)
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3I5J14pPxf9HfbdlAjYSH74d8VYuJfbefj2ZKOhAiiEA64Zs-VQ)
Look at how unreasonable I am in this post!
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
Uh, no, I'm like voicing my opinion from my perspective man. I mean, this is a discussion board right? We're here to discuss, share opinions, right? I'm not sure I said anywhere that I expected everyone to take my opinion as fact. And you may have noticed that Jenne and I had a healthy, but friendly sort-of disagreement on the issue. But, it's why I've made it very clear by using words like suspect. I don't work for the Obama administration nor do I have any direct ties to them, so I have no way to know why they are doing this. But I have a hunch, a gut feeling (therefore not based on facts), and so I shared it. I could be wrong, I may very well be wrong. Does that make you happy?
Let me make this clear, I am not out there actively advocating against medical marijuana. Its' not part of my job. Hell, it CAN'T be a part of my job. I can't advocate for anything because of my funding. My day to day job hardly involves marijuana at all. My main focus is on alcohol, Rx drug abuse, inhalants, and now bath salts. But, as an individual, I do have opinions on the matter. I think there is probably a better model for medical marijuana and hope that someone out there is working on that.
But I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how aggressive you are being. I mean, I've not done anything or said anything personal against you or anyone else. I'm just voicing my opinion based upon my perspective. I don't understand the aggression. Especially given how long I've been a part of this community. But hopefully it is helping you vent whatever it is you've got going on there.
Lookie, RWHN conceded on a point. This was like on page 4 or 5? I was using the wrong language because others have been using this language as well, so I was a bit confused, but had it cleared up when I did a little more research. That's pretty darn evasive there, isn't it?
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 04:54:31 PM
And if it makes everyone happy I will concede on the "prescription" thing. Though, I will stipulate that state officials, I work with, very regularly use "prescription" as short hand and interchangeably when they talk about medical marijuana. So it isn't officially in the language of the laws but it is the language being used by people who have authority or impact on the law.
Can we all hug now?
OFUK! RWHN making supportive comments that incriminates the gov't. How unreasonable!!!
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on October 28, 2011, 05:37:19 PM
Quote from: deadfong on October 28, 2011, 05:27:31 PM
Regarding why the crackdown is happening now when public opinion does seem to be shifting in favor of some sort of decriminalization/legalization, I wonder if part of it is simple bureaucracy. I might not be reading this report right:
http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2010justification/pdf/fy10-dea.pdf)
but if I am, it looks like the annual budget for marijuana enforcement related activities is roughly $250 million. From my experience, once there's a line item for something in your budget, the tendency is to want to maintain and defend that item, as that money might just disappear from your department altogether if the reason for it is gone.
Not saying this is the whole reason, or even a major part of the reason, but that is a significant amount of money, and cracking down on medical marijuana distributors might help pad out the annual statistics in order to justify that money to Congress.
That is certainly possible.
This is where the whole gov't poisoning drug abusers things started. Look at this unreasonably worded request for more information showing the U.S. gov't made a concerted effort to poison drug abusers.
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 03, 2011, 05:25:15 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 03, 2011, 04:58:26 PM
I want to point out that ECH and RWHN are saying two different things.
RWHN is saying they will produce drugs that are less prone to abuse
ECH is suggesting they might produce drugs that are less deadly
Putting Aceteminophen in the opiates was an attempt to produce drugs that are less prone to abuse, after all, a rational person is less likely to abuse a drug that is more likely to kill him.
(yes, I know drug users are not rational, no I am not defending the tactic. I'm pointing out that I read RWHN's news as likely to lead to more aceteminophen type tricks, not less)
Eh, acetaminophen is also a medicine that treats pain, which is why it is included in prescription medicines. I think the theory that the U.S. Government intentionally added it for scheduling purposes is interesting and I'd be interested in reading some information on that. Recently, the FDA recommended that amounts of acetaminophen be limited in drugs, but it had nothing to do with addiction. It was about the fact that too much acetaminophen can really fuck up your liver.
I don't think the current attempts to create addiction resistant medications is strictly limited to acetaminophen levels. Again, he didn't lay out the specifics of what is happening now, and as in many research ventures of this kind, I would expect multiple methods are being tested.
Here's that link again that TGRR provided. Again, the quote is referring to the anti-diarrhea drug Lomotil (diphenoxylate+atropine = Lomotil) which ECH just recently again conceded was an appropriate use of atropine.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 03, 2011, 05:18:57 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 03, 2011, 05:06:27 PM
Oh please :lulz:
There's no "if" about it. The reason codeine is mixed with acetaminophen is to "prevent abuse".
No.
Codeine is mixed with acetaminophen for analgesic purposes.
The bastards mix it with fucking ATROPINE to "prevent abuse". ATROPINE.
QuoteOther drugs that are present in Schedule V narcotic preparations like the codeine syrups are ethylmorphine and dihydrocodeine. Paregoric and hydrocodone were transferred to Schedule III from Schedule V even if the preparation contains two or more other active ingredients, and diphenoxylate is usually covered by state prescription laws even though this relative of pethidine is a Schedule V substance when adulterated with atropine to prevent abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine
The fucking filth. This is fucking VILE. The government should not be allowed to have a fucking thing to do with drugs, beyond ensuring that the contents of the drug are as advertised, as with food, etc.
Please explain to me how telling us what degree you hold would link your employer to this place?
That's just asinine.
"OH, RWHN HAS A MASTERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. SINCE THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON IN AMERICA WHO HAS THAT DEGREE WE ALL TOTALLY KNOW WHO HE IS NOW AND SINCE HIS EMPLOYERS SCOUR THE ENTIRE INTERNET FOR THE KEYWORDS MASTERS DEGREE IN PUBLIC HEALTH THIS WILL TOTALLY GET HIM FIRED!"
I mean, really, DERP much?
As for the rest of your screeching, well, Demo Squid said it just as well as I could have and with far less "personal vendetta". :lulz:
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 11, 2011, 03:34:35 PM
Please explain to me how telling us what degree you hold would link your employer to this place?
You also asked where I got my degree. There are a limited number of people in my field that received a degree from where I received my degree. It would be pretty obvious to anyone who has worked with me who RWHN is if they had that information. That is why I said I was taken aback that you would "crack that door open". Is it the same as asking me for my address? No, but it can identify me which is what I want to avoid. I would hope you could understand why I take that very seriously.
Yep, and that's why within minutes of you accusing me of fishing for your PI (not saying "hey, that could inadvertently reveal my PI, but actually accusing me of intentionally fishing for it) I amended my request to just asking you what your degree is. And that's what I've asked you several times since. And you refuse to answer the question. And no amount of pointing out that you don't want to give information I'm NOT asking for changes that.
Perhaps if you and Nigel hadn't gone into full-on troll mode I would have been more forthcoming. I shared the information with who I shared it with because they were reasonable and respectful. It didn't appear to me that either of you two were in a place where sharing that information was going to be of any benefit. You already seemed pretty convinced I was a fraud based on nothing more than your disagreement with my positions and opinions. So it seemed fairly useless for me to give you that information. It still seems fairly useless.
:lulz:
Yep, Nigel and I are the ones who went into troll mode.
Because we started this thread. With no intention of having an actual debate about the subject.
:winner:
I started the thread with a reasoned discussion about why Obama was changing course. And I made very clear at the beginning that my opinions were based on suspicions and gut instincts. I even underlined the word suspect to make it clear. I did mention that the DEA guy I work with had mentioned stuff about medical marijuana being diverted. Obviously I could not provide a link to that kind of source. That's about when you guys started going into "RWHN is making stuff up" mode. Then it really spun out of control after TGRR posted that link that he thought was about codeine and atropine but was really about Lomotil. And I reposted stuff from near the beginning of the thread that made it clear that as far as the OP I was speculating, and that I could be wrong.
But you guys, for whatever reason, decided to ignore that and go into shit-flinging mode.
This isn't my first rodeo. I know how the dynamics go. After awhile momentum goes a certain direction and there is no reasoning with people. So yeah, at that point I fed it. I admit it. I've been admitting it. But only with you two. I've been trying to stay straight with everyone else, though it was disappointing when others started questioning my credentials for specious reasons.
And still no one has acknowledged the atropine thing was based on a bullshit link. You guys want me to own up to shit when none of you will do the same.
I'm fixin to get all ghetto up in here if this doesn't stop real quick......
Just sayin....
Meh, you're right. I'm done with this shit.
No, I'm not leaving. You can't get rid of me that easily.
You're stuck with this Freedom-Hating Spag!
:D
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 11, 2011, 06:43:34 AM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
Oh, and I haven't been on the dog-pile but I'm with you that the unaccounted for influence of cultural factors makes a straight examination of data from places that have legalized, very difficult to apply to the question of what the effects may be here.
Someone can call me on apples and oranges here, but looking at the effects of alcohol prohibition on use, it's clear that it did severely cut down on abuse. Most of the research I have looked at suggests that the problems that came along with it, coupled with the fact that people really just didn't care enough about keeping it illegal to deal with the loss of freedoms is really what led to the repeal, despite it actually being effective at addressing abuse. Despite the obvious apples and oranges, I have a really tough time trying to assert that top to bottom legalization of pot wouldn't lead to a fairly substantial increase on use, especially in states that currently have very restrictive laws--so I won't. But the detrimental effects of such a scenario wouldn't, in any way, touch the current shit-storm that's stirred up by prohibition.
If I find the time or ganas, I'll look into some relevant data and examine this proposition a little further, but I'm suspicious that the effect drug prohibition has had on limiting the supply is fairly negligible compared to the effects it's had on cultural perception. But then, considering that it's highly unlikely that Superbowl Bud-Bowl commercials aren't likely to be replaced by Superbowl 'Bud'-Bowl commercials, that effect wouldn't be nearly as pronounced as it could be.
Prohibition did not lead to a reduction in alcohol abuse. It did lead to an increase in alcohol related fatalities.
It led to a decrease in overall use, but that was, judging by the death and hospitalization rates, mostly among responsible users rather than abusers.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3675.html
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 10:01:54 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Maybe we should try and interject a second strand of idiot jabbering...
Not only do I think marijuana should be legalized, I think it should be used as the new standard for currencies. The Weed Standard would enable us to grow our way to economic prosperity, and would back our money with something of great practical use but without the supply problems of gold!
Kids will be fine because they don't get that much pocket money anyway, and parents can ration their access to weed by adjusting their income so that they can't get hold of enough to abuse it.
Plus, if your reserves degrade over time, you like, have to spend the money rather than hoarding it, which totally means that the economy will get an immediate kickstart and everything will be great.
I think weed would make an excellent currency, without backing. There are significant differences in quality of course, but it's valuable at a weight that is perfect for easy exchange, it degrades slowly enough that it can be stored up in a large enough quantity to buy a car, which is about as much wealth as any one person needs to have on hand at one time. It wouldn't work for high finance or government level finances, but it would work well for the middle class.
Oh hell, I can't help myself. But this just came across my e-mail:
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/addiction/marijuana-use-and-adolescents-what-clinicians-need-to-know
QuoteAs marijuana use among teenagers increases and its perceived danger among this age group decreases, clinicians need to know the latest science about the harmful effects of the drug on the adolescent brain, according to a researcher at the University of Colorado, Denver.
Paula Riggs, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, notes the most recent Monitoring the Future Survey shows a significant increase in marijuana use, including daily marijuana use among U. S. high school students and a decrease in perceived risk of use. "There are a number of indicators, including the increasing number of states that have passed 'medical marijuana' legislation, and that society as a whole tends to view marijuana as a relatively benign, recreational drug. However, scientific research does not support this."
A growing body of research shows that adolescent marijuana use can be detrimental to the brain development and may produce long-lasting neurocognitive deficits and increased risk of mental health problems including psychosis, said Dr. Riggs, who spoke about this topic at the recent California Society of Addiction Medicine meeting.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. Although some have questioned whether marijuana is an addictive drug, scientific research shows that one in 10 people overall, and one in six adolescents, who use marijuana develop dependence or addiction, Dr. Riggs says. Research shows that marijuana can cause structural damage, neuronal loss and impair brain function on a number of levels, from basic motor coordination to more complex tasks, such as the ability to plan, organize, solve problems, remember, make decisions and control behavior and emotions.
Dr. Riggs also cited recent studies indicating that adolescents may be more vulnerable to addiction, in part due to rapid brain development. "Emerging research suggests that individuals who start using marijuana during their teenage years may have longer-lasting cognitive impairments in executive functioning than those who start later," she says. "Animal studies also suggest that exposure to marijuana during adolescence compared to adulthood may increase the vulnerability or risk of developing addiction to other substances of abuse such as cocaine and methamphetamine."
She adds, "It is important for pediatricians, psychiatrists and other mental health clinicians to be aware of current research because they are on the front line to identify teens when they first start to experiment. They need to be able to effectively screen adolescents for marijuana use, and be armed with the scientific facts to educate teens and families about associated risks."
ETA: http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/heavy-methamphetamine-marijuana-users-at-increased-risk-of-schizophrenia
QuotePeople hospitalized for methamphetamine or marijuana use are more likely than those being treated as inpatients for other substance use disorders to develop schizophrenia, according to a new study.
Researchers examined medical records of patients admitted to California hospitals over a 10-year period with a diagnosis of dependence or abuse for methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine, opioids or alcohol, HealthDay reports. The study included 42,412 people in the methamphetamine group, and 23,335 in the marijuana (cannabis) group.
Patients hospitalized for dependence on methamphetamine and who had never been diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychotic symptoms at the beginning of the study were 1.5 to three times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia over the course of the study, than patients who used cocaine, alcohol or opioids. The risk of schizophrenia in methamphetamine users was similar to the risk seen in heavy marijuana users, the researchers report in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
"We really do not understand how these drugs might increase schizophrenia risk," researcher Dr. Stephen Kish said in a news release. "Perhaps repeated use of methamphetamine and cannabis in some susceptible individuals can trigger latent schizophrenia by sensitizing the brain to dopamine, a brain chemical thought to be associated with psychosis."
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 11:05:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on November 11, 2011, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 09:48:48 AM
Not good enough, guys.
I wanted an extra 29 pages by the end of tonight. We're falling well short of expected rates of posting.
Well, I could post in reply to every post RWHN has made just to call him a bitch, but that seems petty and mean. I, so far, have no real issue with him, aside from his apparent lack of intellectual integrity, so I am not at that stage just yet. But there may be hope yet, depending on if and how RWHN responds to some of the posts ITT.
Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity. That whole atropine melee? That began with TGRR posting a link and a quote he thought showed codeine being combined with atropine when it was actually an anti-diahhreal drug called Lomotil, which others in this thread, including ECH, conceded was an acceptable medical use of atropine. Has TGRR copped to that? Nope. That whole bullshit discussion was based on a bullshit link, but neither he nor any of you other chikcen-shits would cop to it because, why? Don't talke to me about intellectual integrity.
And then some assclowns decide that I'm a phony and that I don't really do the job I've said I do for the past 5 years. But then when someone they like says, "no, he's real", then they change their mind. Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.
And then TGRR making shit up about what I actually believe. That I SUPPORT kids going to jail for possession, that I support families being busted up because of possession convictions, that I support kids not being able to get financial aid, when I have repeatedly said I DON'T support any of that shit and that the shit should be changed. Yet, people continue to post that I do support all of that. Don't talk to me about intellectual integrity.
Look, I'm not going to submit to stupid games. The question ECH posed was a game. Do I think, on paper that a kid experimenting with pot is better off than a kid who just lost his family because of drug confictions. Well, Jesus, of fucking course. Who the fuck would say otherwise? But the real world doesn't work that way. It isn't an either/or. Both of those can be adressed and I believe they can be addressed without legalizing marijuana. You don't agree? Fine, I don't give a fuck and I really don't expect anyone to agree with that position. But that has shit all to do with my intellectual integrity.
Indeed, if I were to bend my actual beliefs in this area in a way to satisfy you spags, what the fuck does that say about my intellectual integrity? That I stray from the constructs of how I think around this subject just so you all can agree. Don't fucking talk to me about intellectual integrity.
Okay, so when did it become okay to be a slippery fuck and not answer direct questions from people who haven't been arguing with you? And do not fucking throw me in with anyone else, because I didn't say a goddamn thing about atropine in codeine, legalization, or anything like that. I asked you a direct question. "Do you agree or disagree with the practice of placing toxic substances in medicines to prevent abuse?" That is only tenuously related to atropine in codeine, but it is a general question which was worded in a specific way so that you didn't have to specifically address the atropine/codeine thing, but you could answer directly, the people accusing you of supporting "poisoning drug abusers". And yet, you refused to answer that question, you fuck.
I never questioned your credentials, and personally, I don't necessarily blame ECH and Nigel for not accepting your word when you refused to divulge them. It's not hard to think that when a neutral party supports you, that people will be like, "okay, well, if he told them, then I'll believe them." Sorry dude, but your personal credibility got shot to hell ITT. And you certainly aren't helping it by doing this shit. You start a thread that you know will start this discussion, and yet, you try to duck out immediately. But then instead of staying out of it, you come back later and well, we have 50+ pages of bullshit.
You know what, RWHN, I respected your position on this until now. But you keep saying that ECH and Nigel's position are misinformed and not based in reality. But guess what? I live in reality thank you, and I observed the drug culture for many years. And the funny thing is, my experiences tend to validate what ECH and Nigel are saying. And of course, now you're going to tell me that I'm misinformed and everything you say is how Reality
TM actually works. Except, ya know, it isn't actually. But that's okay. At this point, the fact that you cannot accept that people's experiences differ from your data tells me that you are not worth talking to in a meaningful way.
And no, you're intellectual integrity went out the fucking window when you started evading questions and proselytizing. Which was fairly early on, so you know at this point, compromising your beliefs won't do shit about it. So fuck you, you're a bitch with no intellectual integrity, no credibility, and no redeeming qualities to speak of. Enjoy your "debate", bitch. :)
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 01:48:19 PM
And no, I've been answering Rat and Trip's questions.
Well yeah but also because I've given up on going around in circles with the more difficult questions.
And apart from questioning your credentials, as I said, ECH and Nigel asked a lot of things I'm also wondering about. And so did Dok.
And in Nigel's case the questioning credentials was a response to you not taking seriously the credentials of her friend. And with ECH, similarly with respect to his first-hand experiences in a former lifetime.
And the atropine thing ... I think it got rolled up in the shitstorm, plus some righteous indignation if it were true. I didn't completely follow that, so there is no citations for codeine laced with atropine? That was just a rumour, doesn't exist?
But there's still codeine with acetaminophen? Which is less strange because it's both a painkiller. But if it's being done so it can be sold on a less restrictive schedule, because it prevents abuse, where the mechanism to prevent abuse is "irreversible liver damage from acetaminophen", then it's still somewhat questionable. I wouldn't necessarily attribute it to explicit malice, it seems more likely to be the unintended consequences of fucked up bureaucratic regulations.
Reading up on codeine, Dutch Wikipedia provides an interesting citation (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine#cite_note-0) that addition of codeine to acetaminophen (paracetamol) only minimally increases the therapeutic effect (analgesic). So with incidental usage the advantage is minimal, while in the case of long-term usage the disadvantages are probably worse than the advantages; tolerance and abuse/addiction.
So that
does kind of put a damper on the reasoning that it's excusable because they're both analgesics, if it doesn't actually significantly improve the effect.
And, about the atropine/diarrhoea medication confusion: codeine has anti-diarrhoeic properties and is indeed added to anti-diarrhoeal medicines. I have no idea whether this proves anyone's point about anything, but I just thought I'd mention it.
This info is from the Farmacotherapeutic Compass (http://www.fk.cvz.nl/default.asp?soort=preparaattekst&naam=atropine%20%28systemisch%29), which is the main drug reference used by doctors and pharmacists In the Netherlands
1: atropine is a rational choice for the following indications: decreasing secretion of fluids (saliva, bronchial, vaginal) prior to anesthesia, some sort of heart condition and as an antidote for a specific type of poison. It warns to take extra care when administering it in presence of diarrhea because of the effect it has on the intestines, though it is not contra-indicated.
While on English Wikipedia the anti-secretion effect of atropine is argued to benefit diarrhoea treatment, Dutch doctors will not prescribe it as such, and if you ask me it seems like a dangerous substance that is--similar to acetaminophen--of little benefit when added to a drug, except for pushing it to a different controlled substances Schedule.
1 Short article on English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmacotherapeutisch_Kompas
On a sidenote, the English Wikipedia has an interesting tidbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codeine#Pharmacokinetics) that SSRIs inhibit the effect of codeine. I don't know if the effect is strong enough, but I wonder if that could be used to treat physical dependence? One could slowly build down their codeine dosage (as is required to avoid dangerous withdrawal symptoms) but they would be less tempted to start using it again, not feeling the effects. Plus, if their descent into substance abuse is somehow based in depression-like circumstances (not unlikely), an SSRI wouldn't be a half bad to get up to speed with improving their lifestyle, too. This is just a completely wild theory of course, I'm not a doctor :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 11, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 01:48:19 PM
And no, I've been answering Rat and Trip's questions.
Well yeah but also because I've given up on going around in circles with the more difficult questions.
And apart from questioning your credentials, as I said, ECH and Nigel asked a lot of things I'm also wondering about. And so did Dok.
Yeah, a lot of people asked me a lot of things. I would like to remind people that this is, what, 10 against 1? I don't know, I lost count. And so yeah, I decided to not take seriously those who decided to act like asshats because it seemed clear to me they did not have an intellectual curiosity for my answers and instead were looking for cannon fodder. A feeling validated by how ECH, Nigel, and especially Dok decided to continuously misrepresent me by accusing me of being for putting kids in jail and cutting them off from financial aid when I've expressed the exact opposite on multiple occasions. You'll excuse me if I don't give into that shit.
QuoteAnd in Nigel's case the questioning credentials was a response to you not taking seriously the credentials of her friend. And with ECH, similarly with respect to his first-hand experiences in a former lifetime.
The Nigel friend thing happened months ago in a different thread so I don't recall the context nor the specific comments I made. If someone wants to link me up I will revisit what I said and why. As for ECH, you've got the cart before the horse. ECH pretty early on in the discussion started to paint me as an uninformed idiot, and I'll be glad to provide the quotes.
Look, at this point, it is clear to me that everyone has made up their mind and the facts be damned. (which is funny since that is what everyone is accusing me of) Y'all have come to the conclusions you've come to. So if you think I'm a fake dogmatic fool, so be it. I'm still going to stick around. I'm still going to assault y'all with puns. I've put a lot of time into this place, I still have a couple of good e-friendships amongst the community that I don't totally want to lose, so I'm still gonna be here. It's unfortunate that some have had to go by the wayside, but such is life eh?
Maybe just really really avoid drug related topics in the future, then. Cause this thread is actually a degree worse than the ones we had before, IMO.
I love you RWHN and I have the utmost respect for you and I appreciate what you do and the kids you are helping. While I personally don't agree with your opinions on drugs, I have no issues with you about anything everyone has a right to their own thoughts and opinions. As they say, opinions are like assholes, we all have one. I do however, think you have some hidden desire to have your asshole ripped wide open for a barbed wire enema. Because this happens EVERY SINGLE TIME.
As for every one else, y'all don't get off any easier, did you see what I said up there ^^^ EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Seems like none of you will ever learn. This is not the first, second, third, fourth, hell it isn't even the fifth time this has happened. THIS HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME!!!
I'm ashamed of all of you. Ashamed because for all of the intelligence on this board (can you imagine a combined IQ) monkey behavior is dominant in these fucking drug threads. Thing is, there is no excuse because, as I said above, IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME, so what are you going to say? This time was different because what? The planets are better aligned? Why do you think half of us don't even post in these threads? Why do you think I warned RWHN in the second post in this thread? Did he listen? NOOOOOO.
I am willing to bet 3 or 4 months from now when RWHN cannot help himself and starts yet another thread about drugs, this shit will happen all over again. I called it! Just remember that when I quote this then!!
OOK OOK
Well, there aren't any real trolls going at the moment, we tend to fling poo at one another whenever that is the case.
I know, you were right. I'm a stubborn mule sometimes. It's hard. Because it's my job and it's a passion. And it's weird because I went to under-grad for a completely different field, Environmental Policy. I think seeing some real close college buddies get completely lost in drugs started my interest in this area. So yeah, I get passionate, but I keep my feet planted firmly in research and evidence. I have to. I don't get funded if I deviate from that.
But yes Khara, you were right. I need to listen to you more often. Next time just slap me around a bit before I get too carried away.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 11, 2011, 06:58:08 PM
Maybe just really really avoid drug related topics in the future, then. Cause this thread is actually a degree worse than the ones we had before, IMO.
Maybe. But I ain't staying away from a good piracy debate! ;)
it just occurred to me that there's no such thing as free will
what do you guys think?
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2011, 07:41:20 PM
it just occurred to me that there's no such thing as free will
what do you guys think?
As a libertarian, I am forced to disagree.
Furthermore, I can prove my point with chaos magic.
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2011, 07:41:20 PM
it just occurred to me that there's no such thing as free will
what do you guys think?
As a libertarian, I am forced to disagree.
Furthermore, I can prove my point with chaos magic.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2011, 07:41:20 PM
it just occurred to me that there's no such thing as free will
what do you guys think?
As a libertarian, I am forced to disagree.
Furthermore, I can prove my point with chaos magic.
Can you rip me a copy?
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 07:08:19 PM
I know, you were right. I'm a stubborn mule sometimes. It's hard. Because it's my job and it's a passion. And it's weird because I went to under-grad for a completely different field, Environmental Policy. I think seeing some real close college buddies get completely lost in drugs started my interest in this area. So yeah, I get passionate, but I keep my feet planted firmly in research and evidence. I have to. I don't get funded if I deviate from that.
But yes Khara, you were right. I need to listen to you more often. Next time just slap me around a bit before I get too carried away.
I would try but it would end up being foreplay for the..... :oops:
Nevermind, I'll shoot my bazooka at you!!!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 11, 2011, 07:50:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 11, 2011, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2011, 07:41:20 PM
it just occurred to me that there's no such thing as free will
what do you guys think?
As a libertarian, I am forced to disagree.
Furthermore, I can prove my point with chaos magic.
Can you rip me a copy?
I'm not sure my pagan buddies will let me...
Quote from: Cramulus on November 11, 2011, 07:41:20 PM
it just occurred to me that there's no such thing as free will
what do you guys think?
There is in E-Democracy!
Well, for what it's worth I did learn a thing or two about all sorts of things, looking up solid references for whatnot etc.
Also, but that was already from previous threads, I did refine my opinion from "just legalize it" to take into account the many other factors surrounding this debate. And this time it did do that for a couple of new peeps on PD.
So it's not entirely like Khara said, intelligence gone to waste.
But it's also not pretty.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 11, 2011, 08:13:16 PM
Well, for what it's worth I did learn a thing or two about all sorts of things, looking up solid references for whatnot etc.
Also, but that was already from previous threads, I did refine my opinion from "just legalize it" to take into account the many other factors surrounding this debate. And this time it did do that for a couple of new peeps on PD.
So it's not entirely like Khara said, intelligence gone to waste.
But it's also not pretty.
I went the other way. I went from viewing prevention as benign and prohibition as bad, to assuming that prevention is just another tool for control, a method of implimenting prohibition.
See? We all learned something! :lulz:
I won't say that I've refined my opinion at all. And that's not a knock, but a lot of the arguments here are ones I've been exposed to in my professional work. But if you think about it that makes sense because I think it is pretty clear what the predominant attitude for marijuana legalization is amongst Discordians. I recognize that, at least in this topic, I'm a bit of an anomaly.
Although, I have been thinking about that the past couple of days. And I actually came up with a theory/rationalization for how my view actually falls in line with Discordianism. I actually thought about starting a thread on it in the PD subforum but I was afraid that would have been interpreted as me trying to fan the flames or whatever. Maybe awhile from now I'll take a crack at it. Or maybe post it at a different location and link to it. But I'll do something with it sometime.
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 11, 2011, 06:30:58 PM
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 01:48:19 PM
And no, I've been answering Rat and Trip's questions.
Well yeah but also because I've given up on going around in circles with the more difficult questions.
And apart from questioning your credentials, as I said, ECH and Nigel asked a lot of things I'm also wondering about. And so did Dok.
Yeah, a lot of people asked me a lot of things. I would like to remind people that this is, what, 10 against 1? I don't know, I lost count. And so yeah, I decided to not take seriously those who decided to act like asshats because it seemed clear to me they did not have an intellectual curiosity for my answers and instead were looking for cannon fodder. A feeling validated by how ECH, Nigel, and especially Dok decided to continuously misrepresent me by accusing me of being for putting kids in jail and cutting them off from financial aid when I've expressed the exact opposite on multiple occasions. You'll excuse me if I don't give into that shit.
QuoteAnd in Nigel's case the questioning credentials was a response to you not taking seriously the credentials of her friend. And with ECH, similarly with respect to his first-hand experiences in a former lifetime.
The Nigel friend thing happened months ago in a different thread so I don't recall the context nor the specific comments I made. If someone wants to link me up I will revisit what I said and why. As for ECH, you've got the cart before the horse. ECH pretty early on in the discussion started to paint me as an uninformed idiot, and I'll be glad to provide the quotes.
Look, at this point, it is clear to me that everyone has made up their mind and the facts be damned. (which is funny since that is what everyone is accusing me of) Y'all have come to the conclusions you've come to. So if you think I'm a fake dogmatic fool, so be it. I'm still going to stick around. I'm still going to assault y'all with puns. I've put a lot of time into this place, I still have a couple of good e-friendships amongst the community that I don't totally want to lose, so I'm still gonna be here. It's unfortunate that some have had to go by the wayside, but such is life eh?
1) In other words, it's not YOU, it's ALL OF US.
2)In other words, I haven't been asking because I actually want logically consistent straight answers to my questions from someone who (in theory) actually works in the field being discussed, I wasted my time and yours to the tune of a 54-page thread because I'm just out to get you.
3) your expressed opinions about that stand in direct opposition to your expressed support for the laws and policies that create that situation in the first place.
4) I call it how I see it. And please do provide some links, but don't bother if they're from this thread and don't precede the countless other crapflood threads you've started about this shit over the last couple years in which I have been a very model of patience and tolerance for your continuously escalating evangelism and stubborn denial of the reality of drug culture.
Quote from: RWHN on November 11, 2011, 02:02:41 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on November 11, 2011, 01:37:28 PM
I wasn't going to respond to this, but I think I will. Got a quota to fill after all.
Basically: I haven't seen the pro-marijuana people change their argument at all. The basic thrust remains the same. They have refuted your points against them, coherently and with evidence, but their argument has not been a counter one in any way.
And I've countered with evidence and reasoning. Point out where I've done otherwise.
You have chosen to engage far more with the people you have described as not interested in civil discussion and ignored many points made by people you feel are being respectful. It seems you're more interested in crucifying yourself as a victim by soliciting anger from the most aggressive posters which buries the posts that respectfully expose the flawed foundations of your argument. Is that your intent?
It's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender. You don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law. This outrage at Roger is rooted in hypocrisy: other people have to be excessively precise with their words, yet you wouldn't answer a simple request to clarify a key word you used repeatedly. Can you see how above undermines your credibility as a poster claiming to stick to "evidence and reason"?
In regards to your signature:
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.
The difference is that there aren't draconian laws that deliver long-lasting harm to people for deep-throating a cactus or mouth-fucking a rattlesnake. I'm well within my rights (for good reason) to go mountain climbing, whitewater rafting, and riding motorcycles on giant ramps. It's not the government's place to prevent me from risking my life for shits and giggles, and furthermore it would be depraved to punish people for doing so.
I wonder how many children have been seriously injured or killed imitating things they see on the X-Games?
Clearly, we SHOULD make participation in extreme sports illegal.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 11, 2011, 10:34:12 PM
I wonder how many children have been seriously injured or killed imitating things they see on the X-Games?
Clearly, we SHOULD make participation in extreme sports illegal.
Anything less would create a culture of permissiveness. Those athletes make it look easy and safe.
If we save one child from breaking his neck, incarcerating thousands of adults would be worth it.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 11, 2011, 05:54:58 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on November 11, 2011, 06:43:34 AM
Quote from: The Ever Endearing What's-His-Name? on November 10, 2011, 05:29:16 PM
I mean, I'm not getting any concessions either here. Like that some of the successes in Europe first came with some initial increases, which are real kids with real lives. Is anyone going to concede to that?
Oh, and I haven't been on the dog-pile but I'm with you that the unaccounted for influence of cultural factors makes a straight examination of data from places that have legalized, very difficult to apply to the question of what the effects may be here.
Someone can call me on apples and oranges here, but looking at the effects of alcohol prohibition on use, it's clear that it did severely cut down on abuse. Most of the research I have looked at suggests that the problems that came along with it, coupled with the fact that people really just didn't care enough about keeping it illegal to deal with the loss of freedoms is really what led to the repeal, despite it actually being effective at addressing abuse. Despite the obvious apples and oranges, I have a really tough time trying to assert that top to bottom legalization of pot wouldn't lead to a fairly substantial increase on use, especially in states that currently have very restrictive laws--so I won't. But the detrimental effects of such a scenario wouldn't, in any way, touch the current shit-storm that's stirred up by prohibition.
If I find the time or ganas, I'll look into some relevant data and examine this proposition a little further, but I'm suspicious that the effect drug prohibition has had on limiting the supply is fairly negligible compared to the effects it's had on cultural perception. But then, considering that it's highly unlikely that Superbowl Bud-Bowl commercials aren't likely to be replaced by Superbowl 'Bud'-Bowl commercials, that effect wouldn't be nearly as pronounced as it could be.
Prohibition did not lead to a reduction in alcohol abuse. It did lead to an increase in alcohol related fatalities.
It led to a decrease in overall use, but that was, judging by the death and hospitalization rates, mostly among responsible users rather than abusers.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/3675.html
I stand corrected. This study has a much more sound presentation than where I got my information so, sorry RWHN, I got nothing for you.
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2011, 10:19:19 PM
You have chosen to engage far more with the people you have described as not interested in civil discussion and ignored many points made by people you feel are being respectful. It seems you're more interested in crucifying yourself as a victim by soliciting anger from the most aggressive posters which buries the posts that respectfully expose the flawed foundations of your argument. Is that your intent?
Geesh, damned if I do damned if I don't. Trip was just saying how many of the questions ECH and Nigel had he had too. And now you are suggesting I engaged them too much and should've been engaging you guys more. Fuck. What difference does it make? And I'm not sure what points were made that I didn't address in some way, even if it wasn't to the specific poster. A lot of you guys have been covering the same ground if with slightly different questions.
QuoteIt's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender.
Hmm, cause I actually was just going through that Reefer Madness thread again, looking for something else, and saw where I clearly said I wasn't for kids losing access to financial aid. I'll be glad to go through the thread again to grab that quote if you don't believe me. So yeah, I will continue to take issue with that misrepresentation.
QuoteYou don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law.
Well I do think adults have to employ some responsibility when it comes to their actions. I mean, yeah, knowingly breaking the law should come with acknowledgement of those outcomes. But I wouldn't say they deserve to have their lives ruined. I believe in second, third, etc. chances. You have to in the substance abuse treatment model.
An unjust law is no law at all.
And, in the context of marijuana, any incarceration or financial penalties for anything other than providing to minors or driving under the influence are not just laws. And not only are they unjust, they're immoral.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 12, 2011, 12:46:24 AM
An unjust law is no law at all.
And, in the context of marijuana, any incarceration or financial penalties for anything other than providing to minors or driving under the influence are not just laws. And not only are they unjust, they're immoral.
...and if they're enacted on a Federal level they also happen to be illegal. (Kind of the choke-point of this whole issue, really)
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 12:25:58 AM
QuoteIt's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender.
Hmm, cause I actually was just going through that Reefer Madness thread again, looking for something else, and saw where I clearly said I wasn't for kids losing access to financial aid. I'll be glad to go through the thread again to grab that quote if you don't believe me. So yeah, I will continue to take issue with that misrepresentation.
You implied that kids would get one second chance before they're barred from financial aid here:
Quote from: RWHN on November 08, 2011, 08:18:26 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:10:49 PM
OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.
I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid.
Did you mean a second chance in terms of incarceration AND as a separate issue that under no case should kids be barred from financial aid?
It sounds like you've changed your mind since earlier in the thread, or you weren't very clear about it to begin with.
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 12:25:58 AM
QuoteYou don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law.
Well I do think adults have to employ some responsibility when it comes to their actions. I mean, yeah, knowingly breaking the law should come with acknowledgement of those outcomes. But I wouldn't say they deserve to have their lives ruined. I believe in second, third, etc. chances. You have to in the substance abuse treatment model.
Knowingly repeating the Prohibition (this time with marijuana) should come with acknowledgment of that outcome.
The current marijuana laws cause the legal issues to obscure and compound the health issues. Marijuana addicts that grow a lot of pot to support their habit do not benefit from their land being seized and getting locked up for years and years. Neither do their families. Trying to force people into treatment with incarceration clearly has not worked.
Portugal, Netherlands and South Australia have a model that doesn't incur that kind of damage to society which you can't dismiss by picking at imagined flaws in a study published by a professor who teaches "Research design and data collection for public policy analysis." It would be one thing if you could show he has a track record for juking the stats, but no, you tried to poison the well without even a shred of evidence. You tried to paint some of the most damning evidence against your argument as inconclusive before you even looked at the study.
I appreciate scientific rigor, but that includes giving the benefit of the doubt when it's reasonable to do so.
Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.
Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2011, 01:32:46 AM
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 12:25:58 AM
QuoteIt's also absurd to criticize Roger for portraying you as FOR the revoking of financial aid when you clearly said you are. You stated that you want to reserve that weapon to hit people with if they are either an adult or repeat youth offender.
Hmm, cause I actually was just going through that Reefer Madness thread again, looking for something else, and saw where I clearly said I wasn't for kids losing access to financial aid. I'll be glad to go through the thread again to grab that quote if you don't believe me. So yeah, I will continue to take issue with that misrepresentation.
You implied that kids would get one second chance before they're barred from financial aid here:
Quote from: RWHN on November 08, 2011, 08:18:26 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 08, 2011, 08:10:49 PM
OK, but we still shouldn't ever give them any money for college and we should still charge them with a crime in order to limit their future employment prospects.
I've said before I believe that kids should get a second chance and should not be barred from financial aid.
Did you mean a second chance in terms of incarceration AND as a separate issue that under no case should kids be barred from financial aid?
It sounds like you've changed your mind since earlier in the thread, or you weren't very clear about it to begin with.
No, I said the same things in the Reefer madness thread. Kids should not be barred from financial aid because of a drug offense.
What about adults? I got popped for a pot charge when I was 20.
It is the only incident on my criminal record other than the "carrying concealed" charge that came about that same night as a result of having a knife on me when I was searched afterward.
I'd love to go back to school. I could afford to pay for it OR stop working full-time, but not both and there's no way I could do it WHILE working full time. And I can never, for the rest of my life, get federal financial aid.
Does the fact that I was 20 and not 17 at the time of the arrest somehow justify that?
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 12, 2011, 02:56:38 AM
Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.
Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?
Not at all. Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education. Though it's not a direct one to one. The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated. For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely. So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on November 12, 2011, 12:34:45 PM
What about adults? I got popped for a pot charge when I was 20.
It is the only incident on my criminal record other than the "carrying concealed" charge that came about that same night as a result of having a knife on me when I was searched afterward.
I'd love to go back to school. I could afford to pay for it OR stop working full-time, but not both and there's no way I could do it WHILE working full time. And I can never, for the rest of my life, get federal financial aid.
Does the fact that I was 20 and not 17 at the time of the arrest somehow justify that?
I can't speak to the "carrying concealed" charge because that is out of my area of expertise. But certainly for the pot possession charge, that should not automatically disqualify you from financial aid for life, assuming that indeed is what has happened. Now, of course, financial aid resources are limited and there is a competetive nature to it, so there is that reality. But you should not be banned or barred from that process.
Fair enough. And the carrying concealed charge (while in my case it was only a pocket knife and the cop obviously just felt like being a dick given I told him I had a pocket knife before he started the search) seems like a much more serious crime and yet it has carried literally no repercussions whatsoever on the rest of my life.
On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 12, 2011, 02:56:38 AM
Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.
Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?
Not at all. Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education. Though it's not a direct one to one. The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated. For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely. So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth.
It becomes hypocritical when mom or dad get charged with corruption of a minor or some other fun crime if it is discovered that the kid called for a ride and mom or dad didn't refer the child for drug counseling. I'm not saying you advocate this but I am saying that there are plenty of places in which if a parent knows their child is using drugs and does not seek intervention they are considered an unfit parent.
Harm reduction is way bigger for IV drugs than pot as far as education is concerned (at least from what I have seen) largely just because the decision to use a clean needle and basic needle safety can reduce a lot of health harm while most of the harm surrounding marijuana is legal, rather than health harm and an educator receiving government funds can't exactly go and tell kids the best way to minimize legal penalties.
Quote from: Doktor Murderbitch Deezy Mac C on November 12, 2011, 03:42:34 PM
On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf
:lulz:
I have an armed burglary felony conviction and had no trouble getting FAFSA. But had I been caught with an oz of pot, goddamn better not let me become educated!
Quote from: trix on November 12, 2011, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Murderbitch Deezy Mac C on November 12, 2011, 03:42:34 PM
On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf
:lulz:
I have an armed burglary felony conviction and had no trouble getting FAFSA. But had I been caught with an oz of pot, goddamn better not let me become educated!
Well, technically, (not stating I condone or endorse this), it just means the government isn't going to help you pay for that education. It doesn't keep you from applying. (Again, I'm not supporting that but it isn't precisely the same thing as being completely shut out of further education) Though, I'm sure many colleges would look at that as a black mark, whether or not you are going to apply for financial aid. Though, if you can slam dunk a basketball I bet they'd look the other way AND find a way for your education to be paid.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 12, 2011, 05:34:54 PM
It becomes hypocritical when mom or dad get charged with corruption of a minor or some other fun crime if it is discovered that the kid called for a ride and mom or dad didn't refer the child for drug counseling.
How often does that happen? Mom and Dad will get the book thrown at them if they host a party where drugs are involved, but if they are going to pick up a child because they've been smoking marijuana, drinking, they aren't going to get arrested for that. Indeed, the police should be thanking them for keeping them off the road and out of trouble.
QuoteI'm not saying you advocate this but I am saying that there are plenty of places in which if a parent knows their child is using drugs and does not seek intervention they are considered an unfit parent.
Can you cite some examples? I can see parents who are actively using in front of their children and neglecting their children being deemed unfit but I'd like to see some examples of where regualr parents were deemed unfit parents simply because a child was using drugs. Kids can be very difficult to get into treatment, so I really don't see how anyone is going to deem them unfit just because a kid won't go to treatment.
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
Quote from: trix on November 12, 2011, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Murderbitch Deezy Mac C on November 12, 2011, 03:42:34 PM
On the FAFSA form, there is a question about drug convictions, but no questions about general or weapon convictions. Funny that.
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw1112/pdf/PdfFafsa11-12.pdf
:lulz:
I have an armed burglary felony conviction and had no trouble getting FAFSA. But had I been caught with an oz of pot, goddamn better not let me become educated!
Well, technically, (not stating I condone or endorse this), it just means the government isn't going to help you pay for that education. It doesn't keep you from applying. (Again, I'm not supporting that but it isn't precisely the same thing as being completely shut out of further education) Though, I'm sure many colleges would look at that as a black mark, whether or not you are going to apply for financial aid. Though, if you can slam dunk a basketball I bet they'd look the other way AND find a way for your education to be paid.
For the most part, rich kids aren't the ones getting drug convictions. So, sure, if you're wealthy enough you can pay for your own education. That doesn't really address the problem, which is that functionally speaking, drug convictions are preventing people from reasonable, practical, affordable access to education and betterment.
The entire argument of pot being so harmful on a developing brain bit leaves me scratching my head. I remember when I was in school they used to show us movies about the side effects of pot on the unborn. The old "making their faces slide off" bit.
Some pretty intelligent and highly functional people inhabit this board and my guess is that more than a few have and still do smoke pot. I wonder how often when experts are looking for a "reason" for a mental disorder they simply stop thinking when they discover drug use. I wonder how many times early childhood environment, (drinking water, blunt head trauma, etc) are ignored because drug use was discovered.
Experts are commonly proven to be wrong in practically all fields. I am certainly no expert, but I can think, and I was thinking about this topic last night as I was drinking myself silly enough to go to bed and sleep. See, my alcohol use has been described by my doctor as self medicating, it is better for me than the Ambien, which I had to take myself off of. It also masks the side effects of my other meds to allow me to sleep, and it's even much cheaper than many of my other drugs.
Of course, if pot were legal here, even medically, one or two hits would even allow me to stop drinking so heavily. But to some it is far better for me to have to do it the way that I am, simply because some kid may look at me and think, well, he can do it, why can't I? Gods forbid their parents be expected to explain the difference or to educate their spoiled brats. No, we must create a "system" designed to correct the "problem". We must ignore the facts, the real world facts, that kids experiment. They experiment with sex, adventure, mind altering substances, so many things. We must ignore that this is nothing new in the history of mankind.
As humans we need, in the opinion of some, to be taken care of because we have no idea of what is best for us, and we certainly do not have the ability to learn and grow from experiences. Therefore we must not have experiences, we should meekly accept what we are told and how we are told to act. We should at all costs be normal, fit in. We should never make ripples or question the experts, after all, they really do know what's best for all of us. A lot like religion.
Pot is often called a gateway drug. Now there's a real catchy phrase, isn't it? I smoked pot as a kid, a lot of it. I never tried cocaine, heroine or so many other drugs. Neither did most of my friends, in fact we often did our best to keep others from that poison. I suspect that cocaine is abused with alcohol far more often than it is with pot. At least in my real world experiences. I did try LSD 4 times, oddly I found that I hated it, being so badly out of control of myself like that.
Yes, having no child harmed by any of this is desirable, not very realistic though, and cruelly enforced laws to create that Utopia simply do not work. They have never worked, they will never work. At the foundation of every Utopia is a large pile of bones from the sacrificial lambs used to try to create that false illusion of the Utopia. A kid that smokes pot a couple of times a week doesn't need a "program", they need to be allowed to grow up.
A lot of the so called research from both sides of this issue is begun from a biased or emotional or both standpoint that leaves much of it suspect.
Horses, cats, dogs and cars hurt kids. Falling off of bicycles hurts kids, hell, falling off of the damn doorstep hurts kids. The food pyramid outline hurts kids. People cannot be protected from life, not even kids. I do not want to be drugged to the point of stupidity and kept in a nice soft room so I will be safe, in their heart of hearts, neither do the vast majority of people.
Sure, some kids (and adults as well) do need help for substance abuse, go help them. What we have to be careful of is not labeling a kid who looks at a joint or a bottle of booze as a substance abuser. Abusers normally exhibit plenty of signs and can be helped early on.
Back to your regularly scheduled dogpiling.
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 14, 2011, 05:19:38 PM
Some pretty intelligent and highly functional people inhabit this board and my guess is that more than a few have and still do smoke pot.
They all probably cut down to a very reasonable level as they got older though.
QuoteI wonder how often when experts are looking for a "reason" for a mental disorder they simply stop thinking when they discover drug use. I wonder how many times early childhood environment, (drinking water, blunt head trauma, etc) are ignored because drug use was discovered.
Woww, what's with your drinking water then?
QuoteI was thinking about this topic last night as I was drinking myself silly enough to go to bed and sleep. See, my alcohol use has been described by my doctor as self medicating, it is better for me than the Ambien, which I had to take myself off of. It also masks the side effects of my other meds to allow me to sleep, and it's even much cheaper than many of my other drugs.
Of course, if pot were legal here, even medically, one or two hits would even allow me to stop drinking so heavily.
See that's just fucked up right there. Knowing about what you (and probably many others like you) must be going through, it almost makes me wonder whether it's worth the possible
potential risk to children, maybe. Of course, children are the future and all, but still?
But to some it is far better for me to have to do it the way that I am, simply because some kid may look at me and think, well, he can do it, why can't I? Gods forbid their parents be expected to explain the difference or to educate their spoiled brats. No, we must create a "system" designed to correct the "problem". We must ignore the facts, the real world facts, that kids experiment. They experiment with sex, adventure, mind altering substances, so many things. We must ignore that this is nothing new in the history of mankind.
As humans we need, in the opinion of some, to be taken care of because we have no idea of what is best for us, and we certainly do not have the ability to learn and grow from experiences. Therefore we must not have experiences, we should meekly accept what we are told and how we are told to act. We should at all costs be normal, fit in. We should never make ripples or question the experts, after all, they really do know what's best for all of us. A lot like religion.
QuoteI suspect that cocaine is abused with alcohol far more often than it is with pot.
Which is weird, because it basically undoes the effect of alcohol, the one (single) time I tried it (ever--especially after Roger's story).
One thing though, I'm agreeing with you but saying things like:
QuoteExperts are commonly proven to be wrong in practically all fields.
Isn't going to score you much points. Especially when a bunch of people here
are experts that have to deal with non-experts being wrong in very painful ways. Just sayin' as a friend :)
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 14, 2011, 05:53:51 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on November 14, 2011, 05:19:38 PM
Some pretty intelligent and highly functional people inhabit this board and my guess is that more than a few have and still do smoke pot.
They all probably cut down to a very reasonable level as they got older though.
QuoteI wonder how often when experts are looking for a "reason" for a mental disorder they simply stop thinking when they discover drug use. I wonder how many times early childhood environment, (drinking water, blunt head trauma, etc) are ignored because drug use was discovered.
Woww, what's with your drinking water then?
QuoteI was thinking about this topic last night as I was drinking myself silly enough to go to bed and sleep. See, my alcohol use has been described by my doctor as self medicating, it is better for me than the Ambien, which I had to take myself off of. It also masks the side effects of my other meds to allow me to sleep, and it's even much cheaper than many of my other drugs.
Of course, if pot were legal here, even medically, one or two hits would even allow me to stop drinking so heavily.
See that's just fucked up right there. Knowing about what you (and probably many others like you) must be going through, it almost makes me wonder whether it's worth the possible potential risk to children, maybe. Of course, children are the future and all, but still?
But to some it is far better for me to have to do it the way that I am, simply because some kid may look at me and think, well, he can do it, why can't I? Gods forbid their parents be expected to explain the difference or to educate their spoiled brats. No, we must create a "system" designed to correct the "problem". We must ignore the facts, the real world facts, that kids experiment. They experiment with sex, adventure, mind altering substances, so many things. We must ignore that this is nothing new in the history of mankind.
As humans we need, in the opinion of some, to be taken care of because we have no idea of what is best for us, and we certainly do not have the ability to learn and grow from experiences. Therefore we must not have experiences, we should meekly accept what we are told and how we are told to act. We should at all costs be normal, fit in. We should never make ripples or question the experts, after all, they really do know what's best for all of us. A lot like religion.
QuoteI suspect that cocaine is abused with alcohol far more often than it is with pot.
Which is weird, because it basically undoes the effect of alcohol, the one (single) time I tried it (ever--especially after Roger's story).
One thing though, I'm agreeing with you but saying things like:
QuoteExperts are commonly proven to be wrong in practically all fields.
Isn't going to score you much points. Especially when a bunch of people here are experts that have to deal with non-experts being wrong in very painful ways. Just sayin' as a friend :)
I would certainly agree that they have cut down to reasonable levels in most cases.
We have brain eating bugs in warm water in places out here. Signs warn against putting your head in the water, so swimming is advised against.
I suppose that children are indeed the future. I worry about the future if those children are so protected that they gain no real life experience to go along with a formal education.
I did not know that about cocaine.
Yeah, I suspect some experts will call me out on that, but the simple fact is they are just people, taught by other people, and so on. They collectively teach from others research, which if faulty only makes things worse.
Hmm, that's a rather general statement that you can apply to pretty much any area of science. Global warming scientists teach other up and coming global warming scientists from research. Same with astrophysicists, geneticists, doctors learn from evidence-based practices, etc., etc,.
So in the end where does that leave us? I think there is merit in having a healthy skepticism in any body of information, but it would seem to me that it is more useful to offer specific refutations to that which we think may be wrong, otherwise, we don't really go anywhere do we?
It's like the climate change deniers who say that's all a big fraud. Okay, so you think it's wrong. How do you know? What is the counter evidence that climate change isn't real. Or maybe they say it isn't man-made despite the science that suggests it is. Okay, so what is the evidence that suggests it is just a natural cycle?
Obviously, from my perspective, I think there is a healthy body of science behind substance abuse prevention and substance abuse treatment. The DSM criteria for diagnosing mental health and other behavioral health disorders is all based on research. The ASAM criteria for determining needed levels of treatment are science based. The risk and protective ideas for preventing substance abuse are based on peer-reviewed science.
It is certainly possible, nay likely, as the years go on and we do more research that science will be refined and modified. But the science, thus far, has allowed us to implement strategies that have produced results. The environmental work that is done in substance abuse prevention is science based and those strategies have lead to, until just recently, steady declines in youth substance abuse across the country. It's hard for me to chalk that up to pure coincidence. Indeed, we are now seeing upticks in use as the funding for substance abuse prevention has taken a nose-dive. Programs have gone by the wayside. Professionals have had jobs eliminated and forced to move into different fields. It's getting tougher and tougher to make an impact because of the funding reality and I have no doubts whatsoever that is why, along with the shitty economy, why we are seeing rates start to go up again.
So I think the science is there and the science works. But it can only work as well as we allow it to work. We need more funding. To quote some guy form Star Wars, "We need more men."
Quote from: RWHN on November 15, 2011, 01:48:39 PM
Hmm, that's a rather general statement that you can apply to pretty much any area of science. Global warming scientists teach other up and coming global warming scientists from research. Same with astrophysicists, geneticists, doctors learn from evidence-based practices, etc., etc,.
So in the end where does that leave us? I think there is merit in having a healthy skepticism in any body of information, but it would seem to me that it is more useful to offer specific refutations to that which we think may be wrong, otherwise, we don't really go anywhere do we?
It's like the climate change deniers who say that's all a big fraud. Okay, so you think it's wrong. How do you know? What is the counter evidence that climate change isn't real. Or maybe they say it isn't man-made despite the science that suggests it is. Okay, so what is the evidence that suggests it is just a natural cycle?
Obviously, from my perspective, I think there is a healthy body of science behind substance abuse prevention and substance abuse treatment. The DSM criteria for diagnosing mental health and other behavioral health disorders is all based on research. The ASAM criteria for determining needed levels of treatment are science based. The risk and protective ideas for preventing substance abuse are based on peer-reviewed science.
It is certainly possible, nay likely, as the years go on and we do more research that science will be refined and modified. But the science, thus far, has allowed us to implement strategies that have produced results. The environmental work that is done in substance abuse prevention is science based and those strategies have lead to, until just recently, steady declines in youth substance abuse across the country. It's hard for me to chalk that up to pure coincidence. Indeed, we are now seeing upticks in use as the funding for substance abuse prevention has taken a nose-dive. Programs have gone by the wayside. Professionals have had jobs eliminated and forced to move into different fields. It's getting tougher and tougher to make an impact because of the funding reality and I have no doubts whatsoever that is why, along with the shitty economy, why we are seeing rates start to go up again.
So I think the science is there and the science works. But it can only work as well as we allow it to work. We need more funding. To quote some guy form Star Wars, "We need more men."
Never said all research was wrong.
Care to address any of the other points I tried to make?
Everybody needs more funding. The money isn't there because all the kids you save from drugs are being fed to the Middle East.
The "Just Say No" generation was often told by parents and teachers that intelligent people didn't use drugs. Turns out, the adults may have been wrong.
A new British study finds children with high IQs are more likely to use drugs as adults than people who score low on IQ tests as children. The data come from the 1970 British Cohort Study, which has been following thousands of people over decades. The kids' IQs were tested at the ages of 5, 10 and 16. The study also asked about drug use and looked at education and other socioeconomic factors. Then when participants turned 30, they were asked whether they had used drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin in the past year.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/14/high-iq-linked-to-drug-use/?hpt=hp_t2
Yes, that has been a long and pervasive myth that only stupid poor people do drugs. And of course it is patently false and one I certainly try to combat whenever I get a chance. In fact, I did this focus group with some county jail inmates regarding substance abuse issues. One of the questions I asked them was about the difference in drug use between poor and the rich. Their response was essentially is that the rich kids will party just as hard but can afford better quality stuff.
So yes, I definitely agree that there is no link between drug use and IQ. More often than not I think it is linked to emotional qualities rather than intelligent qualities. But the notion of EQ, is a bit newer and a harder thing to measure.
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 12, 2011, 02:56:38 AM
Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.
Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?
Not at all. Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education. Though it's not a direct one to one. The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated. For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely. So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth.
Again, you evaded the question. I'll make your hypocrisy a little more clear, since you seem to have trouble noticing it:
Roger argued that encroaching on
all adults' personal freedom is not justified merely because a
minority of bad parents do not prevent their marijuana from ending up in their kids hands. You criticized him for holding an "all or nothing" model. But when it comes to your reasoning, you stated that, "I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse." You don't see this as deeply hypocritical?
Why is it unacceptable for your opponent to hold an "all or nothing" point of view in terms of violating the majority of responsible adults' personal freedom, but it is somehow perfectly fine for you to maintain a "zero-tolerance" model in terms of increases in pot use amongst youth?
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 15, 2011, 06:35:42 PM
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 02:55:31 PM
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 12, 2011, 02:56:38 AM
Look what I found, while digging up those quotes:
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
Except you are using an "all or nothing" model here. That the only acceptable solution you see to the problem as you see it is complete legalization.
Quote from: RWHN on November 10, 2011, 04:42:35 PM
I'm sorry, I can work with harm reduction models when it comes to education but I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse, particularly when they can be avoided.
Does that sound hypocritical or even the slightest bit irrational to you, RWHN?
Not at all. Harm reduction is kind of like safe sex education. Though it's not a direct one to one. The idea is that despite knowing that the best choice for kids to make is to not engage in substance abuse, like early sexual activity, we recognize it is going to happen so you craft the education accordingly so that the bad choices they make can be mitigated. For example, teaching kids that if they do go to a party and drink or smoke marijuana (even though that is a decision fraught with risks) they should call Mom and Dad and make sure they get home safely. So it isn't hypocritial at all because while we employ those education methods we still seek to reduce substance abuse amongst youth.
Again, you evaded the question. I'll make your hypocrisy a little more clear, since you seem to have trouble noticing it:
Roger argued that encroaching on all adults' personal freedom is not justified merely because a minority of bad parents do not prevent their marijuana from ending up in their kids hands. You criticized him for holding an "all or nothing" model. But when it comes to your reasoning, you stated that, "I am strictly zero tolerance when it comes to increases, ANY increases in youth substance abuse." You don't see this as deeply hypocritical?
Why is it unacceptable for your opponent to hold an "all or nothing" point of view in terms of violating the majority of responsible adults' personal freedom, but it is somehow perfectly fine for you to maintain a "zero-tolerance" model in terms of increases in pot use amongst youth?
Because, according to his stated moral compass, thousands of broken homes, thousands of people killed in drug violence, millions of nonviolent people in prison, billions of dollars in the pockets of criminals, the capture of the Mexican government by criminal enterprises, and thousands of kids who no longer have the option of a government funded education is better than one more kid smoking weed.
it's not hypocritical, it's just really weird.
RWHN, you also completely avoided addressing this post:
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 12, 2011, 02:55:40 AM
Quote from: RWHN on November 12, 2011, 12:25:58 AM
QuoteYou don't want youth to go to jail for pot, but you've said adults deserve to have their lives ruined because they should know the law.
Well I do think adults have to employ some responsibility when it comes to their actions. I mean, yeah, knowingly breaking the law should come with acknowledgement of those outcomes. But I wouldn't say they deserve to have their lives ruined. I believe in second, third, etc. chances. You have to in the substance abuse treatment model.
Knowingly repeating the Prohibition (this time with marijuana) should come with acknowledgment of that outcome.
The current marijuana laws cause the legal issues to obscure and compound the health issues. Marijuana addicts that grow a lot of pot to support their habit do not benefit from their land being seized and getting locked up for years and years. Neither do their families. Trying to force people into treatment with incarceration clearly has not worked.
Portugal, Netherlands and South Australia have a model that doesn't incur that kind of damage to society which you can't dismiss by picking at imagined flaws in a study published by a professor who teaches "Research design and data collection for public policy analysis." It would be one thing if you could show he has a track record for juking the stats, but no, you tried to poison the well without even a shred of evidence. You tried to paint some of the most damning evidence against your argument as inconclusive before you even looked at the study.
I appreciate scientific rigor, but that includes giving the benefit of the doubt when it's reasonable to do so.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on November 15, 2011, 06:39:39 PM
Quote from: Agent Buttchug on November 15, 2011, 06:35:42 PM
Why is it unacceptable for your opponent to hold an "all or nothing" point of view in terms of violating the majority of responsible adults' personal freedom, but it is somehow perfectly fine for you to maintain a "zero-tolerance" model in terms of increases in pot use amongst youth?
Because, according to his stated moral compass, thousands of broken homes, thousands of people killed in drug violence, millions of nonviolent people in prison, billions of dollars in the pockets of criminals, the capture of the Mexican government by criminal enterprises, and thousands of kids who no longer have the option of a government funded education is better than one more kid smoking weed.
it's not hypocritical, it's just really weird.
How is that not hypocritical?
He clearly stated that it's not okay for Roger to use an "all or nothing model" for adults' personal freedom, but then 2 hours later used the same all or nothing model in regards to temporary increases in youth marijuana use.