News:

Yes we're horrible toxic people, because this is 2020's Mental Illness Olympics, and the winners get a free pass on giving life-threatening advice with the bonus of having zero accountability for their shit behaviour.

Main Menu

REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

Started by Prince Glittersnatch III, September 18, 2010, 03:10:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 84
User actions

AFK

#300
April 04, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
No, I'm asking Laughing Jude to suggest, specifically, what I might find in my work that would get my funding cut off.  It's never happened to me and I've not heard of it happening to any colleagues.  I'm just curious as to what he/she thinks is being suppressed. 

No, usually our funding gets cut off when Tea Bag Governors or Senators decide that money should be used to fill budget holes. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

#301
April 04, 2011, 06:24:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
No, I'm asking Laughing Jude to suggest, specifically, what I might find in my work that would get my funding cut off.  It's never happened to me and I've not heard of it happening to any colleagues.  I'm just curious as to what he/she thinks is being suppressed. 

No, usually our funding gets cut off when Tea Bag Governors or Senators decide that money should be used to fill budget holes. 

Oh, I thought we were talking about pot research in general.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

#302
April 04, 2011, 06:32:05 PM
We were but LJ asked me about the chance of my funding getting cut off if I found something contrary to what the government "wanted to see."  Thus my specific question in response.  I just want to know what it is that I could possibly discover that would be contrary.  That marijuana isn't been abused by kids?  That it isn't bad for kids?  That it isn't the #1 reason for treatment admissions?

But yes, if someday it turns out that someone discovers it really isn't a big deal, yes, they will cut off the funding.  As they should.  Because we shouldn't be funding non-existent issues.

However, with adolescent marijuana abuse, it very much is a big deal.     
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

#303
April 04, 2011, 06:40:47 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:32:05 PM
We were but LJ asked me about the chance of my funding getting cut off if I found something contrary to what the government "wanted to see."  Thus my specific question in response.  I just want to know what it is that I could possibly discover that would be contrary.  That marijuana isn't been abused by kids?  That it isn't bad for kids?  That it isn't the #1 reason for treatment admissions?

But yes, if someday it turns out that someone discovers it really isn't a big deal, yes, they will cut off the funding.  As they should.  Because we shouldn't be funding non-existent issues.

However, with adolescent marijuana abuse, it very much is a big deal.     

The question I have for you is if - hypothetically - you WERE to report that most marijuana issues were overblown, with supporting data, you'd get your funding axed?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

#304
April 04, 2011, 06:48:23 PM
If there was specific funding for marijuana abuse prevention, and I demonstrated there wasn't a need, then yes, that funding would be axed, or, they wouldn't fund any programs to prevent marijuana abuse, because the need isn't there. 

But the kind of funding I get covers multiple substances.  So if we were to determine there was no need for programming around marijuana, we simply redirect funding into other substances.  They wouldn't shut us off just because we didn't have a problem with a particular substance.  But of course, we do have a problem with marijuana abuse amongst our youth.  One of the biggest problems being the permissive attitude of parents and other adults in the community. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

#305
April 04, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 06:48:23 PM
If there was specific funding for marijuana abuse prevention, and I demonstrated there wasn't a need, then yes, that funding would be axed, or, they wouldn't fund any programs to prevent marijuana abuse, because the need isn't there.  

But the kind of funding I get covers multiple substances.  So if we were to determine there was no need for programming around marijuana, we simply redirect funding into other substances.  They wouldn't shut us off just because we didn't have a problem with a particular substance.  But of course, we do have a problem with marijuana abuse amongst our youth.  One of the biggest problems being the permissive attitude of parents and other adults in the community.  

Please allow me to restate the question:  I understand that your data supports the government's position on Marijuana.  However, if it did not, and you reported your findings, do you believe that you would lose your funding across the board, regardless of the other substances still being reported as dangerous/undesireable, not because of necessity, but rather to get you out of the way?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

El Sjaako

#306
April 04, 2011, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
Please allow me to restate the question:  I understand that your data supports the government's position on Marijuana.  However, if it did not, and you reported your findings, do you believe that you would lose your funding across the board, regardless of the other substances still being reported as dangerous/undesireable, not because of necessity, but rather to get you out of the way?

Is that even necessary? If people showing that something isn't a problem get their funding cut off, then obviously reports indicating problems will be published more. You don't even have to assume malice.

And when you look for malice it's real easy to find. From way back when it was first made illegal: there was a study where they had monkeys breathe nothing but smoke for several minutes, and they found brain damage afterwards (this study was cited at least into the nineties by federally funded programmed); to right now: The Drug czar's job is to prevent legalization

I'm not saying all federally funded studies are bullshit, I'm just saying the government doesn't have a good track record and we should be very wary of bias.

The Good Reverend Roger

#307
April 04, 2011, 07:05:15 PM
Quote from: el sjaako on April 04, 2011, 07:03:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 04, 2011, 06:51:44 PM
Please allow me to restate the question:  I understand that your data supports the government's position on Marijuana.  However, if it did not, and you reported your findings, do you believe that you would lose your funding across the board, regardless of the other substances still being reported as dangerous/undesireable, not because of necessity, but rather to get you out of the way?

Is that even necessary? If people showing that something isn't a problem get their funding cut off, then obviously reports indicating problems will be published more. You don't even have to assume malice.

Read the question again.  He deals with more than marijuana addiction.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

#308
April 04, 2011, 07:05:48 PM
I know I wouldn't lose that funding.  And honestly, currently, marijuana is down on the list of priorities, behind alcohol (which always tops the list) and prescription drug abuse.  So it really isn't that big a deal if a community finds that marijuana isn't a problem.  That funding will just go towards underage drinking and Rx abuse prevention.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

The Good Reverend Roger

#309
April 04, 2011, 07:07:32 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 07:05:48 PM
I know I wouldn't lose that funding.

Whoo boy, I could tell you some stories.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

#310
April 04, 2011, 07:27:11 PM
As I say, with underage drinking and Rx abuse being such big problems, it isn't a big deal to the feds if a community doesn't identify it as a priority.  In fact, more and more communities are decreasing their focus on marijuana, because of reduced funding.  Underage drinking is always #1.  Rx because it is emerging has basically become #2.  MJ prevention and inhalant abuse prevention gets whatever scraps are left. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

BabylonHoruv

#311
April 04, 2011, 08:27:21 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 07:27:11 PM
As I say, with underage drinking and Rx abuse being such big problems, it isn't a big deal to the feds if a community doesn't identify it as a priority.  In fact, more and more communities are decreasing their focus on marijuana, because of reduced funding.  Underage drinking is always #1.  Rx because it is emerging has basically become #2.  MJ prevention and inhalant abuse prevention gets whatever scraps are left. 

I'd bet that perscription drug abuse, even if not as prevalent as marijuana use, leads to more physical problems and fatalities.
You're a special case, Babylon.  You are offensive even when you don't post.

Merely by being alive, you make everyone just a little more miserable

-Dok Howl

AFK

#312
April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes. 

So? 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

BabylonHoruv

#313
April 04, 2011, 09:57:11 PM
As far as Marinol vs medical use of actual marijuana I really only see two advantage to Marinol.  It's just THC, and it is easy to measure dosage which allows for easier control of dosing.

On the down side the other cannibanoids seem to have medical value as well, especcially when used together, also marijuana can be ingested by smoking or orally, marinol can only be ingested orally which can be a problem when it is being used to control nausea.  Marinol is also much more expensive to produce.

I think that Marinol is a good option to have out there, but I can't see it being used often if marijuana were available in a standard, by perscription sort of way.
You're a special case, Babylon.  You are offensive even when you don't post.

Merely by being alive, you make everyone just a little more miserable

-Dok Howl

The Good Reverend Roger

#314
April 05, 2011, 12:54:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 04, 2011, 09:34:03 PM
Yes. 

So? 


Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality.  At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 84
User actions