REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's not like I bother reading most of what you write, because it's entirely annoying and 90% made up.

Also, racist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.

But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.

[trix]

Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.

But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.

First, my followup responses directed at you were intended to give you the attention you were clearly asking for, with your original response being all jealous of the attention TGRR was getting.  At the time, I made the mistake of assuming you had the intelligence and thickness of skin to see my responses for what they were, and not take them personally.

Second, I kind of prefer your grudge anyway, since it seems to be clouding your mind enough to make the ridiculous leaps and assumptions you keep making.

Third:  90% made up.  Of course.  Because you would know.  See #2 above.

EDIT:
Also, racist?  Since when is "ghetto" a race? ...see #2, again.

EDIT2:  Ahh, I think I see where you're getting racist from.  I mentioned the local mexicans selling brick-weed.  Well, they do.  The mexicans that live in my area, sell shitty brick weed they get from (gasp!) Mexico.  It's a fact.  But yeah, keep putting spin on everything.  It's making you smarter!

[BadBeast]

Dusting weed with crack is a really poor delivery system. And pretty wasteful. Prohibitively expensive too.
Also, what is the reasoning behind it? 

Is it
A/ To make the Weed more addictive?

I doubt it. Kids smoke the fucking stuff all day long anyway.

B/ To surreptitiously introduce new customers to the Crack side of your business?

Nope. Cocaine finds it's own market. If you are selling Rock, there's people banging your door down 24/7 as it is, without trying to trick some Stoner Kids into turning up too. They usually stay too long anyway.

C/ A way to enhance the Weed hit? Make it stronger?

C'mon, If the stuff had anymore fucking THC in it, you'd just have to look at it to get your buzz on.
Plus, people generally don't like their Weed to be fucked about with.

I'm not saying you're making it up, just that you are mistaken if you think dealers are lacing good Hydro with crack. PCP would be far more likely to be the substance involved. Cheaper, and noticeable when added to a spliff, thereby justifying the  market for "Fry Daddy" (wtf,btw?) as a separate product.

One scam I do know was going on here in the UK, is people getting hold of large amounts of Agricultural Hemp, then as it gets split up and packed for distribution, spraying it down with plant misters, containing a solution of hash oil in ethanol or acetone, mixed with Formaldehyde. So what you get is a product that costs next to nothing, that has been grown outside in some Farmer's field, (no growing overheads) that you can store in quantity, with no risk of prosecution if you get a spin. The "activation formula" can be stored inconspicuously at another location, and you can still sell it at 2.5K a key all day long.
The Hash oil solution ensures there is a noticeable cannabis hit when you smoke it, and the Formaldehyde wrecks you, so you know you got stoned on it. The H.A. here were selling loads of that a couple of years ago. Even sprinkling fine white sand on it to seem like it was full of sap crystals.
So for a product that cost maybe £80 a key to produce, that's quite a mark up.

[trix]

Dusting weed with crack is a really poor delivery system. And pretty wasteful. Prohibitively expensive too.
Also, what is the reasoning behind it? 

I have no idea, I'm not one of the ones that do it.

I'm not saying you're making it up, just that you are mistaken if you think dealers are lacing good Hydro with crack. PCP would be far more likely to be the substance involved. Cheaper, and noticeable when added to a spliff, thereby justifying the  market for "Fry Daddy" (wtf,btw?) as a separate product.

I never said it was good hydro, in fact quite the opposite... it's usually the crappy shwag that local gangbangers take and "spike" with ground up crack.  I agree (again) that it is stupid and ridiculous, which mirrors my opinion of crack in general, but it happens.  As to the why, you'd have to ask someone that sells the shit.

Also, RE the name, lol I don't know, maybe somebody thought it sounded cool?  Or maybe some gangbanger ran the fry machine at McDonalds and had the nickname when he started rolling blunts with crack in them?  I just tried to look it up in urbandictionary but the only definition in there doesn't make a lot of sense.

[AFK]

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

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

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.  I have a lot of resources at my disposal and if I need to find certain information, I have plenty of angles to get that information and to get information that is reliable and verified. 

[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.  

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

When you repeatedly do things like:

• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition

Well, this is not completely true.  I have time and time again said that there is definitely room for improvements in law enforcement when it comes to marijuana.  Such as those who have personal amounts of the substances should not be going to jail and instead should be diverted to education, treatment, or community service, depending on the results of a substance abuse assessment. 

That said, I have argued against where I see stats misused, conflated, or exaggerated.  Such as focusing on arrests and not looking at how many of those arrested for simple possession actually end up in a jail or prison cell for more than an overnight.  Or looking at how many people are in prison for marijuana offenses and ignoring the fact that many had another con-current offense, a violent offense, or were dealers.  If you were to present me with a clear cut set of data that shows a majority of people in prison were in there ONLY for simple possession charges, then we'd have something to talk about. 

• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children

BECAUSE THAT'S MY JOB!  It's also the central reason I oppose marijuana legalization or decriminalization.  Yeah, in a happy sunny Rainbow world, adults would be able to do whatever the hell they want and a magic force field would go up keeping their bad decisions from affecting youth.  That world doesn't exist.  Like it or not, children are a part of our society.  Like it or not, our society needs thriving youth to produce thriving communities.  Yeah, unfortunately, that means adults need to give up compete and unquestioned freedom. 

• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"

Are you arguing that there aren't people in the legalization movement who's primary motivation is to be able to freely enjoy marijuana without facing criminal penalties?  I mean, your bullet above kind of heads in the direction of "adults should be able to enjoy adult activities, the children be damned."  Doesn't it?  Otherwise, why object to bringing up the damaging effects on youth?  So of course an element of that exists.  Is it everyone in the movement?  Obviously not.  But you can't seriously expect me to believe it isn't part of the motivation. 

• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient

You're going to have to prove that accusation. 

• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture

I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well.  You conveniently leave those out.  But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information.  If you don't or can't, that's not on me.  If you think it's bogus, prove it.  Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information. 

But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.   

• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana

No, I remember quite clearly providing evidence that this claim was overstated.  Feel free to go back and review to refresh your memory. 

• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels

Such as?  [citation needed]

• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")

Such as?  [citation needed]

• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"

It is immaterial.  It doesn't matter that other drugs are more harmful.  Harm is harm and marijuana causes significant harm to the development of an adolescent in and of itself.  I don't believe that the disposition of substances should be dependent on whether or not something is better or worse.  It should be decided on its own merits. 

people will think you're wrong.

It's a free country.  Even if their suppositions and claims are invalid. 

[AFK]

Mostly this. But really, I got a little pissed off at the fact that RWHN actually tries to scare children out of smoking weed by telling them that it effects their "anatomy." That's a horrible little slice of misinformation to be scaring kids with right there. You may as well just tell them they'll go to hell if they smoke weed. Although, telling them that their junk will shrivel away might be scarier for a teenage boy.

Well, *I*, don't tell them this.  My particular job doesn't actually involve lecturing or talking to kids.  My job is about policy change and environmental change.  It's more working with the school systems, parents, community leaders, etc., etc., But, that bit of information IS true.  Technically, what it can do is delay the onset of puberty and decrease sperm production. 

Plus, the argument against legalization because it introduces weed into the social system (or however he phrased it) and therefore is more available to kids, well, sorry, but it's available either way. EVERYWHERE. Wouldn't it make more sense to be able to regulate and controll it? To know where it comes from? Y'know, I don't know ANY weed dealers that check ID's.

No, because as we can see with alcohol and tobacco that doesn't work.  Sure, it is better in that kids can't directly buy from a retail location.  But is very easy for them to get an older sibling, an older sibling of a friend, an uncle, some guy you know to go and buy it for you. 

You and the police exchanging information? Isn't that called an echo chamber? Either way, the cops are just parroting back at you the same stuff you put out. Every cop I've encountered has been tragically out of touch.

Uh, no.  Police deal with law enforcement issues.  I deal with environmental, policy, and parenting issues.  It's a bit more nuanced and complex than what you are assuming. 

Different things effect different people in different ways. To make blanket statements about what weed does and doesn't do is ridiculous. To use these blanket statements to scare kids is pretty evil. The only way for sure to know how weed will or won't effect you is to smoke a joint. One WON'T kill you.

It's called research and it's called education.  The information that kids are presented by a responsible drug educator is backed by peer-review research.  That's research using the scientific method.  No one uses scare tactics anymore, save maybe those approaching this from a strict moralistic perspective.  We don't do that however.  Our approach is fact-based and health-based.  We very much treat substance abuse as a public health issue.  We don't moralize.  We don't tell them "smoking weed is bad", we tell them "smoking weed can be bad for your health"  Which is a very true statement that is backed by science.  It doesn't have to kill to be harmful. 

I just want to know what weed did to you that got you all pissed off. Seriously, most of what you said in here was insulting and offensive to me. Do you think everyone here is a brain-dead, maladjusted, drug-monger with a shrunken dick? It's one thing to spread some bull-shit, it's another to actually believe it.

Yep, that's exactly what I think.  Brilliant deduction Sherlock!  You might try reading a little slower next time. 

[AFK]

The reason I don't like the lies is that kids figure out it's bullshit and then assume that adults are lying to them about other, more damaging drugs as well. After all, if we're lying to them about pot, why wouldn't we be lying to them about meth? I think it's absolutely not only counterproductive, but also dangerously irresponsible.

We aren't lying to them about pot.  But feel free to actually demonstrate precisely where they are being lied to about pot.  I mean, just throwing out an emotional generalized statement really doesn't do that. 

[AFK]

Of course you can easily label this as "all-talk", and I definitely will want to see the walk as well, but at least you do see public acknowledgment from Gil Kerlikowske for the need to use different approaches that divert non-violent offenders out of the prison system:

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/alcohol/two-new-reports-tackle-drug-policy-during-40th-anniversary-of-nixon%E2%80%99s-declaration-of-%E2%80%98war-on-drugs%E2%80%99

"These findings illustrate why we must approach our nation's drug problem as a public health and safety problem," Gil Kerlikowske, Director of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement. "Drug addiction is too often the root of crime in our communities. Supporting innovative initiatives that divert non-violent offenders into treatment, instead of jail, and expand treatment access for incarcerated individuals can help break the vicious cycle of drug use and crime, reduce recidivism and make our communities healthier and safer."

[Doktor Howl]

Your original rant didn't cause my grudge, BTW. It was stupid and poorly written, and I just skimmed it enough to note that it was directed at TGRR. It was your followup responses, when I was trying to be pleasant and helpful, something you clearly have no concept of.

But at least you earned it. I bet you're proud; at least you have one accomplishment under your belt.

First, my followup responses directed at you were intended to give you the attention you were clearly asking for, with your original response being all jealous of the attention TGRR was getting.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

[East Coast Hustle]

The reason I don't like the lies is that kids figure out it's bullshit and then assume that adults are lying to them about other, more damaging drugs as well. After all, if we're lying to them about pot, why wouldn't we be lying to them about meth? I think it's absolutely not only counterproductive, but also dangerously irresponsible.

We aren't lying to them about pot.  But feel free to actually demonstrate precisely where they are being lied to about pot.  I mean, just throwing out an emotional generalized statement really doesn't do that. 

Yes you are, you just THINK you're telling them the truth because you refuse to accept that any source of information that differs from or contradicts your own sources might actually be better and more truthful information. You, who have absolutely ZERO personal experience in the production or sale of drugs, think that the bullshit that you read in some report or "academic" study is infallible and that the firsthand information you're being given from people who have extensive personal experience in those areas is somehow invalid.

In other words, you're being willfully ignorant to an alarming degree. I don't think your mindset in the context of this subject is at all conducive to helping kids make the right choices. Why would they listen to somebody who is feeding them a bunch of bullshit and refuses to listen to reality?

Pretty fuckin' sad if you ask me. And I think I'm done debating this subject with you as though you were debating in good faith.

[AFK]

Good faith?  Is good faith going on and on about how someone is wrong without actually posting any substance or information that actually demonstrates how I'm wrong?  I mean, just because you two say I'm wrong doesn't make it so.  Offer up some counter-evidence. 

And I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about.  It just isn't coming from you, personally.  Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious.  (Like protecting my job and my family)

[East Coast Hustle]

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

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

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.  I have a lot of resources at my disposal and if I need to find certain information, I have plenty of angles to get that information and to get information that is reliable and verified.  

Verified by who? The people who suffer from the exact same lack of experience and perspective as you?

Have you ever heard of a feedback loop?

[East Coast Hustle]

Good faith?  Is good faith going on and on about how someone is wrong without actually posting any substance or information that actually demonstrates how I'm wrong?  I mean, just because you two say I'm wrong doesn't make it so.  Offer up some counter-evidence. 

And I don't know how to make it any more clear to you that I do have access to the kind of information you are talking about.  It just isn't coming from you, personally.  Sorry about that but I kinda need to keep IRL and the internet separate for reasons which I would hope would be painfully obvious.  (Like protecting my job and my family)

Dude, I'm not trying to set myself up as some sort of "Deep Throat" of the prevention field. It's just painfully obvious from the way you conduct this debate here how you react to valid information that comes from a source you don't personally approve of. It's impossible for me to conceive of any way that you WOULD get accurate info on those things. And because you have zero experience in "The Game" (I hate that term but I'm sick of typing long shit out and everyone knows what that means) you're not even capable of understanding WHY that's the case.