REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap. 

[BabylonHoruv]

God fucking dammit just let this thread full of fascist prohibitionist bullshit die, I'm tired of seeing it show up in my "new posts" feed.

It's a debate that is going to keep on happening, probably indefinitely.  Having it in this thread keeps it from spilling over everywhere.

If RWHN alone makes you feel the thread is filled with prohibitionist sentiment then I have to say he's done an impressive job, since he is the lone voice for prohibition arguing against a crowd in favor of legalization.

Also, this being a democratic nation, if we want legalization to happen we have to convince people that i8t is the right way for the country )or at least for our individual states)  I don't think anyone is going to convince RWHN of this, but seeing his arguements lets us realize the sort of thoughts people we debate with have, and lets us address those thoughts.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It only makes it obvious that you don't actually read anything I post with any kind of detail or attention.  I mean if you can't, you can't but do you really have to go with the lazy cop-out?

Actually, I do. Or at least I did in the beginning... I don't waste my time with religion anymore.

Another cop out.  I mean, if you think my arguments are that bad, misinformed, whatever, you should be able to easily take me to town.  I mean really, put up or shut up.  

It's a religion with you, and it just goes in circles. Plus, when I (or anyone) have called you out on bad information in the past, and provided credible sources, you've simply resorted to a hissy fit. It's a no-win, non-productive conversation; that's why I generally avoid it now. But I got sucked into this completely retarded thread by the absolutely laughable "pot could might be laced with harder stuffs!" claim.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap. 

Yes, the fact that ECH doesn't have kids negates his experience with the black market in drugs, and thereby proves that marijuana is frequently laced with crack.

Excellent argument!

[AFK]

It's a religion with you

Prove it. 

Plus, when I (or anyone) have called you out on bad information in the past, and provided credible sources, you've simply resorted to a hissy fit.

Prove it.  Post some evidence of this.  Put up or shut up.

I do go toe to toe with anyone who decides they are going to insult me instead of debate me, but I think pretty much everyone else in this thread would attest that when I'm presented with an argument, I counter it with counter evidence.   

It's a no-win, non-productive conversation; that's why I generally avoid it now. But I got sucked into this completely retarded thread by the absolutely laughable "pot could might be laced with harder stuffs!" claim.

And this just goes to show how much you aren't paying attention.  It does happen, whether it is widespread or not.  But if you actually paid attention to anything I posted you would know it has never been central to my argument against legalization.  But you don't pay attention.  Which is why you must resuort to lazy ad hominem attacks. 

[AFK]

But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap.  

Yes, the fact that ECH doesn't have kids negates his experience with the black market in drugs, and thereby proves that marijuana is frequently laced with crack.

Excellent argument!

Must I lead you to the water?  I would think it is obvious to anyone who pays more than 2 seconds thinking about it that my comment was aimed to show how futile the experiential argument is.  The argument being that since I've not dealt drugs I can't understand the black market.  Well, then since ECH has no experience as a parent he obviously cannot understand legalization as relates to youth substance abuse.  

I happen to think the experiential argument is bullshit which was why I posted what I posted.  

[AFK]

I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism.  It's another hallow and lazy argument.  I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices.  If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong. 

[East Coast Hustle]

You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.

I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.

I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention.

As you should, since it's not at all what I was saying nor am I even certain how you managed to interpret it like that. but just because you're already effective (and more than plenty smart) doesn't mean you couldn't be even MORE effective, and balancing out the official information with some "reality of the streets" might help and certainly can't hurt. I mean, you don't have to USE the information you acquire from unofficial channels but I can't see the point in being blind to it or willfully ignoring it in favor of data that fits your preconceptions, which is what you SEEM to be doing now.

[East Coast Hustle]

But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap. 

No argument at all. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I was missing a big part of the overall perspective as well? And that that's why I enjoy having this debate with someone (you) who has credible academic AND experiential perspective on those areas?

Sometimes I don't think you actually read my posts before you formulate your response.

[AFK]

You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.

I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.

I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention.

As you should, since it's not at all what I was saying nor am I even certain how you managed to interpret it like that. but just because you're already effective (and more than plenty smart) doesn't mean you couldn't be even MORE effective, and balancing out the official information with some "reality of the streets" might help and certainly can't hurt. I mean, you don't have to USE the information you acquire from unofficial channels but I can't see the point in being blind to it or willfully ignoring it in favor of data that fits your preconceptions, which is what you SEEM to be doing now.

I've already explained this.  I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement.  How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations?  Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them?  No, they have informants, intelligence, etc.  And I can get access to that information through those channels.  I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information. 

[AFK]

But if we're really going to go by the ground rules that experience is everything then I would point out the obvious child-lessness handicap. 

No argument at all. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that I was missing a big part of the overall perspective as well? And that that's why I enjoy having this debate with someone (you) who has credible academic AND experiential perspective on those areas?

Sometimes I don't think you actually read my posts before you formulate your response.

Well that post was in response to your experiential premise, not a particular post.  And it was intended to demonstrate the futility of the experiential argument.  So can't we just go back to debating the actual substance of the issue instead of figuring out who's drug-peen is bigger than the other?

[East Coast Hustle]

You, however, seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that you also lack the experience necessary to have 100% of the available perspective in this matter. As though reading about it on paper or hearing about it 3rd or 4th-hand from sources that lack credibility (both dealers and cops) can even come CLOSE to replacing that experience. I disagree with you about marijuana being illegal, but I couldn't agree more strongly about the need to keep kids from fucking around with shit that changes their brain chemistry until they're old enough to make that decision for themselves in a responsible fashion. And I feel that your unwillingness to remove your blinders and accept the actual reality of certain aspects of your field of interest probably hampers your effectiveness.

I know you think you know how it is out there, but you're somewhere between "not totally right" and "dead wrong" on that. The Game doesn't work the way you appear to want it to.

I'm sorry but I categorically reject the notion that someone must have been a drug dealer to be effective at substance abuse prevention.

As you should, since it's not at all what I was saying nor am I even certain how you managed to interpret it like that. but just because you're already effective (and more than plenty smart) doesn't mean you couldn't be even MORE effective, and balancing out the official information with some "reality of the streets" might help and certainly can't hurt. I mean, you don't have to USE the information you acquire from unofficial channels but I can't see the point in being blind to it or willfully ignoring it in favor of data that fits your preconceptions, which is what you SEEM to be doing now.

I've already explained this.  I have access to that kind of information through law enforcement.  How do you suppose it is they end up busting drug operations?  Do you think they just accidentally fall into all of them?  No, they have informants, intelligence, etc.  And I can get access to that information through those channels.  I don't need to actually BE a drug dealer to get that kind of information because there are people on the inside, and dealers themslves that give up that information. 

And I'm trying to explain to you that due to the nature of the subject matter, your information in that particular aspect of things is not as reliable as mine and probably never will be. I don't know why that's so hard for you to accept, especially given that I'm hoping you use whatever information you glean from me to be more effective in your field.

[East Coast Hustle]

It's like you're putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA I ALREADY READ A BOOK ABOUT THAT AND ATTENDED A LECTURE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR INPUT FROM ANYONE WHO HAS MEANINGFUL AND EXTENSIVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE IN THIS BECAUSE THAT CAN'T POSSIBLE BE AS GOOD."

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism.  It's another hallow and lazy argument.  I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices.  If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.  

Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.

When you repeatedly do things like:

• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition
• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children
• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"
• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient
• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture
• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana
• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels
• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")
• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"

people will think you're wrong.

[trix]

 
Rampant assumptions about how much credibility I lack, knowing practically nothing about me, is above you, Nigel.  Your Ex was a ex-heroin junkie?  Whoopdie fuckin doo.

*

Just because some shit goes some way in your area does not make your experience true everywhere.  And it's a bit ridiculous that I have to point that out.