REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.

As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.

I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.

Hence my Fact #1.

The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.

Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.

That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.

Which?

That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.

I don't think that is accurate from my side of the fence.  On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged.  I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences.  However, where I have some agreement with the "other side" is in the area of sentencing.  I believe that we should have a more sensible approach when it comes to the sentencing of all non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders, no matter what the substance is.  A person who is addicted to crack needs help, not a prison cell.  Same with a person addicted to marijuana.  If you live in a state where they are locking up casual users, you should be hollering about that.  It is a misuse of resources.  I don't agree with that either.  So I think there is some overlap in that area. 

[AFK]

I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.

The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.

I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.

Heh, "soft science".  Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists. 

[Luna]

I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.

The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.

I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.

Heh, "soft science".  Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists. 

I wouldn't say soft sciences are any less a "real" science than hard sciences.  More difficult, actually... 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged.  I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences. 

So is letting monkeys run around with pistols, and that hasn't ended civilization.

[East Coast Hustle]

I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.

The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.

I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.

Heh, "soft science".  Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists. 

nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.

[BabylonHoruv]

Nah, only speaking for myself, I'm not upset or angry with anyone.  It is what it is with this particular issue.  Hell, we never really talk about it, but I'm pretty sure my wife is closer to most of you spags on this issue than she is with me.  We're very Carville & Matlin on this matter. 

That has to kind of suck if it ever erupts.  Disagreements on policy are one thing, but they're way harder if your significant other is actually working for the side you are opposed to.

[AFK]

On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged.  I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences. 

So is letting monkeys run around with pistols, and that hasn't ended civilization.

I don't think something has to end civilization to be awful. 

[AFK]

I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.

The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.

I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.

Heh, "soft science".  Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists. 

nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.

So, when we study elephants it is concrete science but when we study humans it isn't concrete science.  Or is the study of animals now a soft science too?  Just seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged.  I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences. 

So is letting monkeys run around with pistols, and that hasn't ended civilization.

I don't think something has to end civilization to be awful. 

Lots of awful things happen in a free society.

[Luna]

I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.

The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.

I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.

Heh, "soft science".  Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists. 

nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.

So, when we study elephants it is concrete science but when we study humans it isn't concrete science.  Or is the study of animals now a soft science too?  Just seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. 

If we're studying elephant anatomy, I'd consider it a "hard" science.  If we're studying elephant behavior, I'd consider it a "soft" science.

In my head, anyway, "soft" science means, "this should be measured, but damn me if we can figure out the fucking yardstick, yet."

[Laughin Jude]

The distinction between "hard" and "soft" sciences isn't some radical new concept; the terms have been floating around the scientific community for years. It mostly comes down to hard science being the study of physically existing phenomena where objective measurements can be taken (physics, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) vs. soft science being arenas of study involving subjective observation, often of emergent patterns within an individual or group's behavior, where your conclusions are generally more a matter of interpretation (sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, etc.).

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Eh, my FBF has a Masters in Public Health and dealt extensively with homeless youth prior to going into hospital administration, and she also disagrees with RWHN about legalization. So, even the experts don't all have the same viewpoint on it.

As long as everyone insists on having The One True and Only Right Way, we might as well be Atheists arguing with Christians, here.

I, too, disagree with RWHN on that.

Hence my Fact #1.

The official position of The First Church of the Wrath of Baby Jesus and Ribshack™ is that: Individual liberty trumps safety, health, and the concept of "doing it for the children", life is rough, wear a fucking hat or kill me.

Doesn't change the fact that this thread is a toolbox, for the reasons I listed, among others.

That's the One True and Only Right Way factor.

Which?

That's what makes it a toolbox. The fact that neither "side" will accept that there might be any validity to the opposing arguments. So it's as pointless as a religious argument.

I don't think that is accurate from my side of the fence.  On the basic issue of legalization, yeah, that is a gulf that is simply not going to be bridged.  I think it's an awful idea that will lead to awful consequences.  However, where I have some agreement with the "other side" is in the area of sentencing.  I believe that we should have a more sensible approach when it comes to the sentencing of all non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders, no matter what the substance is.  A person who is addicted to crack needs help, not a prison cell.  Same with a person addicted to marijuana.  If you live in a state where they are locking up casual users, you should be hollering about that.  It is a misuse of resources.  I don't agree with that either.  So I think there is some overlap in that area. 

Do you think rescheduling marijuana would help guide more sensible sentencing policies?

[East Coast Hustle]

I don't think you can really compare expertise and training in a "hard" science (engineering, for example) with the same in a "soft" science (particularly fields that involve monkeys studying the behavior of other monkeys). I'm not knocking RWHN's expertise at all, just saying that it's a bad comparison for the point you're trying to make.

The fact is, there's not a single study on the effects of marijuana in any context that can be cited by RWHN or any of these dirty hippies that is free of bias and/or was not undertaken as part of a larger agenda.

I still maintain that, regardless of anyone's view on whether or not it should be legalized recreationally, it should be IMMEDIATELY approved for medicinal use at the federal level (though I'm fine with restricting what it can be prescribed for), and anyone who says otherwise is, IMO, a first-class jackass. All that matters in that context is that it improves the quality of life for many terminally-ill patients.

Heh, "soft science".  Some day I'll get to sit at the Big Boy table with all of the Really Real Scientists. 

nah, dude, I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that there are important differences between sciences that are more concrete (mathematical and physical sciences) and those that are more interpretive (social, political, behavioral, etc.). And I know that those are just as "real" of a science as anything, you just have to account for the natural variances that occur in fields where human interpretation comes into play more. And that I thought it invalidated Roger's analogy.

So, when we study elephants it is concrete science but when we study humans it isn't concrete science.  Or is the study of animals now a soft science too?  Just seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. 

If you're studying human or elephant physiology, that's a hard science. If you're studying human or elephant behavior, that's a soft science. Surely you can see the distinction I'm trying to make? I get the feeling that you're kind of intent on taking that point as an insult it wasn't meant to be.

[AFK]

No, just demonstrating that the labels seem to be fairly arbitrarily applied. 

Not to mention that research in my field DOES tend to include very rigorous and quantitative research.  So I don't think the "soft" science label is very accurate at all. 

[Triple Zero]

Are you fucking retarded, or have you finally burned out your last cognitive braincell?

No I met him with Rumckle in Utrecht a few weeks ago and he's a pretty smart dude, lacking any evidence of retardation whatsoever.

What's your problem man? Is it impossible to have this discussion without people getting yelled at for asking simple questions?

The last three pages are more or less devoted to what a gateway drug "is".

There, I made those quotes a bit bigger in order to better reflect what those past three pages were actually talking about.

I believe he was asking for a definition. Which I can understand, because those same three pages used a very broad spectrum of meanings for "gateway drug", and a lot of moving goalposts between them.