I'll just leave this here....

[East Coast Hustle]

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?

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[AFK]

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. 

[East Coast Hustle]

IT'S NOT ME IT'S ALL OF YOU.

[Phox]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

WE HAD TO DO THE TUSKEEGEE EXPERIMENTS FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE!

[AFK]

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.

[Phox]

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?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

We're not the ones trolling here, rev.

[AFK]

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? 

[AFK]

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. 

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

[Phox]

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:

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:

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?