Pot/drugs: An all-encompassing explanation.

[Freeky]

I would like to point out that many in this thread are opposed to reaching that mystical sense of religious transcendence in the traditional way (that is, through religion)  If religious transcendence is bad, it's bad whether you get it from Jebus, Buddhist Meditation, or Psychedelic mushrooms.

I personally disagree, but if you could perhaps expand on your idea, I might see what you mean.

It's not something I am against.  I like the feeling of religious transcendence, but I am, as far as I can tell, in the minority.  Any time it is brought up in the context of magic it gets bashed pretty heavily by many here.  I haven't seen any threads on meditation, but I do know that the concept of enlightenment tends to be mocked.  If enlightenment is bad, and magical gnosis is bad, why would enlightened gnosis via shrooms be good?

(not that I have seen anyone suggest that it IS good mind you, I just want to make sure the assumptions are clear)

Ah. Ok.

[Richter]

I know a lot of freaks, and out of everyone I know, only Nurse Mayhem necks pills more or less at random.  However, it is relevant to add that her other favorite pasttimes include bare knuckle boxing and sunroofing.

"Sunroofing"?

[Telarus]

Well, most 'crazy wisdom' traditions have a hazing or 'crucible by fire' style mocking ritual for anyone who shows up claiming the secrets of Satori/Nirvana/Illumination.

Put up or shut up [plus] the fact that these things cannot be communicated about with language without destroying the mindstate the terms refer to, and are thus talked _around_.

So without the 'put up or shut up' part (i.e. communicate with action that you have/can achieve these mind states) we're just bullshitting each other about throwing fireballs from our navels and really, if you want to do that give me a couple of mini's an a bag full of dice and we'll go raid a Dungeon together (pack another, eh?).



Zen/Sufi/Yogic traditions all recognize and offer endless descriptions of these mental states, but it boils down to "you know it if you've been there, and if you've been there a lot you can see when it happens to others".

But if taken too seriously, this leads to things like the Zen master who cut off the child's hand, because the child answered the question "What is Nirvana?" by imitating another old master's answer, silently raising his fist. The boy not only got his hand cut off, but his spot in the meditation hall was destroyed, with the floor boards torn up and a huge pit dug there, so no-one in the Zendo could forget what Blind Imitation Without Understanding leads to.

And that's the major problem with the typical "pot head" of today, Blind Imitation Without Understanding. Instead of cutting off their raised fist, the Government simply incarcerates nearly a Million people a year (872,721 in 2008) cutting off these people's families, incomes, and possible futures.

Having said that, here's another interesting look at the Aftermath/International Relations-level politics around this current issue:

http://in.reuters.com/article/southAsiaNews/idINIndia-46513320100226?sp=true

In drug war, failed old ideas never die
(Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

By Bernd Debusmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Here's a stern warning to the U.S. states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. A United Nations body is displeased with your liberal medical marijuana laws. Very displeased.

The U.N. rarely takes issue with the internal affairs of member states, and even less with those of the United States. But that's what the International Narcotics Control Board has just done in its latest annual report, published this week. Without mentioning by name the 14 American states where marijuana is legal for medical purposes, the 149-page report says:

"While the consumption and cultivation of cannabis, except for scientific purposes, are illegal activities according to federal law in the United States, several states have enacted laws that provide for the 'medical use' of cannabis. The control measures applied in those states for the cultivation of cannabis plants and the production, distribution and use fall short of the control requirements laid down in the 1961 Convention (on narcotic drugs.)

"The Board is deeply concerned that those insufficient control provisions have contributed substantially to the increase in illicit cultivation and abuse of cannabis in the United States. In addition, that development sends a wrong message to other countries." The Board's concern doesn't end here. It is equally worried over "the ongoing discussion in several states on legalizing and taxing the 'recreational' use of cannabis."

California, the most populous state in the U.S., stands out in that discussion. In mid-February, a California legislator, Tom Ammiamo, introduced a bill that would tax and regulate marijuana (by most estimates the state's largest cash crop by far) much in the same way as alcohol. In addition, California backers of marijuana legalization say they have collected more than 700,000 signatures for a ballot initiative likely to be voted on in November.

There's not the slightest hint in the U.N. report of rapidly growing support for more liberal laws on marijuana, the world's most widely-used illicit drug. The latest U.S. poll on the issue, in January, showed that eight out of ten Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use and nearly half are in favor of legalizing the drug, in small quantities for personal use, altogether.

Countries that have done that come in for harsh rebuke from the Control Board, which singles out Mexico, Argentina and Brazil for having sent "the wrong message" by passing legislation that takes the crime out of drug use and replaces prison sentences with treatment and education programs.

U.N. OVERSTEPS THE MARK

In the eyes of two liberal think tanks, the Washington Office on Latin America and the Transnational Institute, lecturing the U.S., Mexico, Argentina and Brazil on the way they handle drug use are way off the mark. The rebuke, said a joint statement by the two groups, "clearly oversteps the INCB's mandate and constitutes unwarranted intrusion into these country's sovereign decision-making."

The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs placed marijuana in the most restrictive category, alongside heroin (as does the U.S. federal government) and for years was seen as a major obstacle to domestic reform in signatory countries. But a follow-up treaty in 1988 provided a measure of flexibility on whether or not drug possession should be treated as a criminal offence.

In the United States, for decades the spiritual home of rigid marijuana prohibitionists, President Barack Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, last October issued new policy guidelines that marked a milestone in a long-running dispute over whether federal law trumps state law on matters of marijuana. Holder announced that the Justice Department would stop raiding medical marijuana facilities set up under state law.

That was the most high-profile move on drug policy so far in the presidency of Obama, who is on record saying that "the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws..." He made the remark in 2004, when he was running for a seat in the U.S. senate. Speaking about drug policies as a whole, not only on marijuana, as a presidential candidate, Obama said he believed in "shifting the paradigm, shifting the model so that we can focus more on the public health approach."

In the long-running global dispute over drug strategy, that means treating addicts not as criminals but as patients who deserve care in a public health system. To hear Obama's drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowski, tell it, that shift is underway. But is it really?

The answer is no, judging from just-released highlights of the national drug control budget for Fiscal Year 2011, which begins in October. It provides for $15.5 billion in overall spending, a 3.5 percent increase over 2010, and allots vastly more money to law enforcement ($ 9.9 billion) than to addiction treatment and preventive measures ($5.6 billion).

Like drug control budgets under President George W. Bush, the figures do not include the vast cost of arresting drug offenders and putting them behind bars, a practice that has helped turn the United States into the world's biggest jailer. Factoring in those costs would show that 73 percent of overall spending goes to law enforcement and controlling the supply of drugs, according to John Walsh, a senior expert at WOLA.

Aaron Houston, director of government relations at the Marijuana Policy Project, sees the budget as evidence of recycled Bush policies rather than the paradigm shift Obama promised.

It's Bush wine in Obama bottles.

(You can contact the author at Debusmann@Reuters.com)

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

That was a great post, Telarus.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bravo, Telarus.

[the last yatto]

It is, however, probably a good idea to stay away from pot if you know you have inclination to psychosis (sorry Pixie)

*Something, which btw, I think people shouldnt do anyway, whether they have inclination towards psychosis or not. Unless you're in pain, I guess. Because I don't wanna take peoples joints away if their joints hurt like hell.

thinking edibles or topical might be a safer alternative

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

No, we as a nation have not redefined hash, it has been like that for more than ten years, the bad stuff is usually referred to as solid or soapbar, good hash is available if you know the right people,

Been that way since at least the mid 1990s. On DoD P3nt had some solid and joked that it was "mostly diesel" as in the fuel, its the cheapest lowest grade of hash and the running joke was the better stuff had more plastic in it.

[AFK]

And then this article I posted was merely to demonstrate that while one study may suggest a short term benefit, one must also consider the long term impacts of prolonged use of any drug whether it be mushrooms or pot.

yes, that's exactly what I meant by "scoring points":

the research linked in the article (let alone the article itself) was not relevant, cause it was about the dangers of long term usage of pot and the one you were replying to about a debatable benefit of single use of mushrooms.

it was only relevant in the sense of countering "research that seems to show benefit of drug usage" with "research that shows danger of drug usage".

maybe my issue is with you lumping together pot and mushrooms like that. you can't compare them.

Well, I would argue that you can compare them, in as much, as they both have impacts on the brain.  And they both have impacts on the brain that we continue to study and understand.  That was the point and all I was trying to demonstrate.  It wasn't about scoring points, it was about adding another perspective.  Sure, I could've simply replied and said "Well, we might learn later that this short term effect is blunted by a long term negative effect", and considering the fallout, perhaps that's what I should've done.  But I didn't. 

The point of me posting the article was to highlight the research.

Well, you would have been better off linking the actual research, as the article drew incorrect conclusions from the research and was basically spreading FUD, which is not really useful in a debate.

Well, guess what, I fucking have to work during the day.  That's the reason I'm not around that much anymore.  I work 40 hours a week, I have a wife and daughter and another kid on the way.  The only time I get for this shit is a little bit of time in the morning after breakfast.  And so while I was scanning MSNBC for the news, I came across this article and thought I'd share it.  I'm sorry I don't have the luxury of hunting for the two studies on the internet, but that's the way it is. 

And that's what I got from Rat's response, not questioning your integrity, but questioning the article.

Then, after Rat, very clearly debunked the article but not the research linked in the article, you took that as questioning your integrity, which prompted my response of not taking everything so damn personally.

Maybe you missed the part where Rat intimated that pretty much everything I do in my job is about making up lies and bullshit.  All based upon ONE fucking article. 

Or should I just believe anything you link to, due to your sterling reputation of providing us with reliable studies and anecdotes on the topic?

And this is exactly what I'm talking about.  You can't just simply disagree with me.  You've gotta get a personal dig in as well. 

Well in all fairness, you have posted links to studies that were not reliable* and anecdotes that were, to say the least, rather confusing** .

And of course ALL of the counter studies that you and Rat and others have posted are 100% bias-free and iron clad right?  There's absolutely no confirmation bias with you guys at all is there? 

*the ones I read in the previous thread about drugs were severely biased and contained numerous falsehoods and omissions. when this was pointed out, you took that personally and the discussion went downhill from there, again about your integrity and no longer discussing the research.

That's quite the generalization there.  I'm sure you and Rat did disagree with some of the studies I've posted.  But your assertions don't automatically invalidate peer-reviewed research.  So while you have come to conclusions that all of the studies I've posted are bullshit, there is always the possibility that you are completely wrong. 

**remember the "pharma parties" and "popping pills from a bowl like skittles" discussion? sure we resolved the confusion in the end, you never meant to imply kids grabbing a handful of pills blindly from a bowl, but it took pretty damn long before we cleared up that simple misunderstanding, mostly because you took it so very personally that people doubted your story.

No, it was mostly because you and Rat and others were acting like pedantic pricks and decided instead of focusing on the actual debate, decided to piss and moan about a generalization which I very quickly clarified.  The point of the discussion was that kids are using Rx drugs in social situations.  They are bringing them to parties and using them together.  I said they were popping them like skittles.  Yes, it was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point remained.  Kids were callously and carelessly abusing medications they simply didn't understand.  But no, you guys had to focus on exaggeration even after it was qualified. 

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

No, we as a nation have not redefined hash, it has been like that for more than ten years, the bad stuff is usually referred to as solid or soapbar, good hash is available if you know the right people,

Been that way since at least the mid 1990s. On DoD P3nt had some solid and joked that it was "mostly diesel" as in the fuel, its the cheapest lowest grade of hash and the running joke was the better stuff had more plastic in it.

The good stuff is available, if you know the right people, and is more likely to be named e.g charas, templeball ect but the bad stuff seems to afflict the french as well.

Dammit where are scousespag and
P3nt?

Unfortunately I can't link you to the Goldie Lookin' Chain lyrics that talk about soapbar on my phone, maybe if I ask Payne nicely he will post em. The song makes me laugh cos they are welsh and its just as true there!

Its the lowest common denominator solid stuff.

[AFK]

Laugh it up, even if it's a false rumor, better to know what's possible than not, well-informed is well-armed for the parents who don't always don't know or give a shit what their kids are up to.  It's not an urban legend, but it's nice that people think that kids don't have the stupidity to perform such acts.

http://newsok.com/article/3324405

http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/law-police-forces/13583417-1.html

http://www.todaystmj4.com/features/iteam/45751987.html

http://www.summerhousedetoxcenter.com/blog/archives/43

http://www.sergiochapa.com/files/tbarz.pdf

...but perhaps this is just like so many UFO-sighting stories, yaknow?  Perhaps we just should ignore the fuck out of this, since really, if the kids OD'd and no one knows what they're on because their friends didn't see them take what it was and wouldn't know, who's to say this wasn't just RANDOM, or just a Chick Tract Gone Awry?

Youre just pissing in the wind Jenne.  It's like Howl said, we are arguing religion here.  You and I have experiencd this shit, but what the fuck do we know?  We're just fucking idiots. 

[AFK]

I'm not super concerned with whether or not the Brits are referring to the right kind of pot or not, because I don't fucking live in Britain and don't have to be concerned with that.  But potency is potency whether you call it skunk, antelope, or Marge Simpson.  But again, it's not the disagreeing, it's the disagreeing and calling my integrity into question that pisses me off. 

Did you simply not fucking read what I wrote? Potency is not potency, at least not anywhere near the numbers quoted in the study. Skunk, Kine, Bud whatever you call it does NOT HAVE A FUCKING 18% THC Content!!!!!!!!! That IS FUCKING FALSE according to every other fucking study done on potency, including the US one done 3 months before that report was published. So the 'scientific' report uses slang rather than scientific terms, which is particularly problematic in the context. Let us say, for the sake of argument that the foundation of the report is true (that higher potency pot will cause mental problems)... the report claims that smoking "hash" is LESS DANGEROUS because it has a lower potency.

Either you can have a discussion here or you can't. If you're gonna get all butthurt, I suggest not discussing it because I'm not gonna pat you on the back and say "Good job RWHN, you found another crap report!"

On the other hand, if you want to discuss the topic and sack up when you liink to bad data, then I think that's great.

The reality, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is that the marijuana of today is more potent than the marijuana of the 60s.  To think this shift in potency isn't resulting in different impacts upon those using it is foolish.  It doesn't take too much conceptualization to figure that much out.  Add that on top of kids who are already vastly more medicated than they were in the 60s.  Because of adaptation of growing methods, the marijuana does have a higher content of THC. 

[AFK]

And here is the last thing I'll post on this topic today.  (Because I have to go to work soon.  And I am federally funded now so obviously I have to make sure I get there in time for the daily brainwashing)  The reality is that drug use amongst adolescents is going to start going up again.  Indeed, it's already starting.  Why?  Because it is becoming increasinly normalized.  There has always been an element in society of "well it's just part of growing up."  But, the thing is, back in the 80s and before, we didn't have the medicated culture we have today.  We didn't have the ads running 24/7 telling YOU to tell your doctor what drugs you are supposed to take, all because you have a little twitch, or because you didn't get a good nights sleep, or because your fucking eyelashes aren't long enough.  Think of the kids who have grown up in this era?  What have they learned?  That your solution to your problems is chemicals.  Now, let's add on top of that all of the messaging that comes from media, particularily the internet.  The videos on YouTube showing you how to do drugs vastly outnumber any prevention messaging that exists.  Indeed, if a kid came to this board and viewed this discussion, they'd see I was about the only choad arguing against drugs, and so it must be normal to be on the other side of things.  Validation is everywhere.  Meanwhile, the funding for prevention is drying up.  I don't do this fucking job because I want to be rich.  I don't do it because it is easy. It isn't easy.  It's like fucking "300".  It's David v. Goliath except someone took our fucking slingshot away from us.  All we can hope for is that we have some success in the margins.  The rest of them are fucking screwed.  Society gives them all of the validation they need complete with a nice pat on the back.  That's what I'm fighting.  I don't need to make shit up, they are already bombarded with bullshit.  When history is written, my prediction is that it will say that this generation was one of the most medicated and drug-addicted generations in history, between what is being described by doctors AND what they are buying from their friends.  It's pretty fucking sad.  But as this thread has demonstrated, society doesn't give a fuck. 

[Triple Zero]

Maybe you missed the part where Rat intimated that pretty much everything I do in my job is about making up lies and bullshit.  All based upon ONE fucking article. 

yes I think I missed that, because the quote I think you must be referring to is not even half as strong as that. feel free to prove me wrong though.

Or should I just believe anything you link to, due to your sterling reputation of providing us with reliable studies and anecdotes on the topic?

And this is exactly what I'm talking about.  You can't just simply disagree with me.  You've gotta get a personal dig in as well. 

Well in all fairness, you have posted links to studies that were not reliable* and anecdotes that were, to say the least, rather confusing** .

And of course ALL of the counter studies that you and Rat and others have posted are 100% bias-free and iron clad right?  There’s absolutely no confirmation bias with you guys at all is there?  [/quote]

Well, is there? Feel free to point it out, that's what debate is for!

The point is not about whether the references are 100% bias-free, of course they never are. That is why they must always be open for discussion.

So please, feel free to factually point out confirmation biases in articles references by others. Nobody else would take it personally if you did.

*the ones I read in the previous thread about drugs were severely biased and contained numerous falsehoods and omissions. when this was pointed out, you took that personally and the discussion went downhill from there, again about your integrity and no longer discussing the research.

That’s quite the generalization there.

I see no generalization in that statement? I specifically speak only about [that i]the ones I read[/i].

Why do you try to paint that as a generalization, it's not necessary. Let's please keep a bit focused here. It'd be generalization when I would say all articles you post are all entirely false.

I am trying to point out that because some articles you posted (namely the ones that I read) contained some examples of FUD, false statements, omissions and exxagerations--I tried to discuss these with you last time, but you didn't let me, getting all defensive because you took my factual critique of the article very personal and tried to paint it as "disagreement", or in other words, just like, my opinion man--because of that, I think it is perfectly reasonable to not immediately trust any (peer reviewed or not) article or research or report you post, since my experience in the past is that at least some of them contain blatant falsehoods and exaggerations.

Example, if I check my planner to check if I have an appointment scheduled for some time in the future, because I know I have some appointments in the future, it's also incorrect to tell me I'm generalizing as certainly I'm not busy all the time in the future!

I’m sure you and Rat did disagree with some of the studies I’ve posted.

Quite probably.

But let's stick to the subject please?

We were talking not about disagreement of opinion, which is all very fine but could be settled by "we agree to disagree". Instead, factual inaccuracies, exaggerations and falsehoods, as a basis for discussing the merits of given reports, references and citations and whether it is appropriate to get personally offended whenever someone does not accept a reference as truth without any questioning.

But your assertions don’t automatically invalidate peer-reviewed research.

It doesn't matter! We can still discuss them right?

So while you have come to conclusions that all of the studies I’ve posted are bullshit, there is always the possibility that you are completely wrong.

If you're more interested in putting words into my mouth than in actual debate, just say so and I will stop replying to you, which is fine because I think everybody has gotten the point by now, except for you.

I never fucking said anything about all studies you posted being bullshit. DAMNIT!

Do you wanna have an actual discussion or would you rather just go OH I GET IT EVERYTHING I SAY IS BULLSHIT whenever somebody disagrees with you?

**remember the "pharma parties" and "popping pills from a bowl like skittles" discussion? sure we resolved the confusion in the end, you never meant to imply kids grabbing a handful of pills blindly from a bowl, but it took pretty damn long before we cleared up that simple misunderstanding, mostly because you took it so very personally that people doubted your story.

No, it was mostly because you and Rat and others were acting like pedantic pricks and decided instead of focusing on the actual debate, decided to piss and moan about a generalization which I very quickly clarified.  The point of the discussion was that kids are using Rx drugs in social situations.  They are bringing them to parties and using them together.  I said they were popping them like skittles.  Yes, it was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point remained.  Kids were callously and carelessly abusing medications they simply didn’t understand.  But no, you guys had to focus on exaggeration even after it was qualified.

I remember it quite different. The pissing and moaning coming mostly from you, that we dared to draw into question your expertise as a drug counselor over a "little exaggeration", that was not at all qualified until at least 8 pages of discussion (could have been much more, at least , where you continuously claimed that everybody was out to discredit you, while the only thing we just wanted to know, and we literally and very specifically asked you was whether there were actual accounts of kids randomly swallowing mouthfuls of pills, which was what shocked most of the people in that thread (not just Rat and me), not whether kids were using Rx drugs in social situations, nobody was disagreeing with that, but that was the only thing you kept pounding on.

Turned out this was a misunderstanding of the way most people interpret a phrase as "popping like skittles", something that could have been resolved with a lot less drama and a lot quicker if you just would stop taking critical questions about the things you say so damned personally.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, I had a big response ready to post but I think Triple Zero covered everything.

[Kai]

This thread is full of so much fail fighting that it hurts to read for more than 2 minutes.