How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

When I argue, it's because I think I'm right and hope to at least have the other party understand where I'm coming from.  If I know that the other party is hostile and Will Not Budge, even thinking about arguing gives me a headache if I don't move on, so I don't understand where you're coming from at all.


Then again, I'm not particularly smart or perceptive or something, so I'm not good at arguing anyway.  I would rather be wrong and admit it than to be right and argue my position, in fact

I would disagree with the smart and perceptive part.

And I know what I'm getting into with RWHN. I know that he won't yield, or even acknowledge any point. That bit helps me figure out where I stand, because there is some still some grey area with me, and talking to a wall makes me wonder what my walls are. And if RWHN gives me a headache, I'll just stop. I'm cool with admitting that I'm wrong too, and that's part of arguing with him too. Not because he's right, but because I can see, funny enough, where I agree with him.

For example, I think that marijuana prohibition is wrong. How does that extend to other addictions now, and why? Where are my lines?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Believe it or not, asshead has given me a bit to think about, and none of it has to do with weed, since my mind's made up on that.

[Freeky]

Well, there's that I guess.

[The Johnny]

Can't we just have a thread where we mock RWHN mercilessly and not actually have it be about drugs but for the pure joy of pointing out what an arsehole he is? I mean, at this point the drug issue is only a facilitator, since that's the most obvious moronic thing he clings to because it's his uniform, so that's obviously going to be the focus but goddammit that's not why I like mocking him. Calling it ruins it. I'm out until the next one.

Hey, knock yourself out, I don't see how my PredictionOfDoom interferes in any way.

[AFK]

Arguing with me on this can be a good exercise, especially if you actually tru to have a semblance of an open mind.  Before we had these drug threads, pretty much everyone assumed that if you are a Discordian, it must meant you had a set of pre-defined beliefs when it comes to drugs and drug policy.  I broke the mold baby.

And you know what, back then I did budge minds.  No one who went in pro-legalization came out anti-legalization, but I would regularly get PMs from people saying, "well I dont completely agree with you, BUT, I had never thought of x before."   

In my career, I've read and studies a lot about marijuana and its impacte on kids and communities.  I don't think y'all realize just how much that is.  It is a huge body of stuff that tells me legalization would be bad for youth in society and society itself.  I don't change my mind because to date none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign. 

That is the threshold.  Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.

[Junkenstein]

The main reason take-back programs rely so heavily on the environmental argument is because, really, it's the ONLY compelling argument that can be made for them - which RWHN, if he actually keeps up on the available evidence, surely knows.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/24/will-the-governments-drug-take-back-do-anything-to-reduce-misuse/
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/prescription-drugs/more-research-needed-on-drug-take-back-programs-report-concludes
the study they're talking about there --> http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/takebacks

Your characterization is incorrect.  I run the most successful take back program in the state.  Our messaging is on the environment, drub abuse, AND elder safety.  And we know our program works.  We have more and more people regularly cleaning out medicine cabinets making more and more homes more safe and cutting down on the amount of drugs available for diversion.  We have documented behavior change which is what you want to see in any public health effort.

Documented, you say?

Let's see it.

[Lord Cataplanga]

...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign. 

That is the threshold.  Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.

You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Still wondering how he copes, mentally, with dismissing this as "untrained":
http://oregonmph.org/content/health-management-policy-psu

That being the exact degree my friend has. Said friend having been in the field for many many more years than RWHN. Also, this is the degree he tried to lead the entire board on that he had, and only now has started dismissing it as "untrained" because we found out what his actual degree is.

Pretty sure she earns well more than twice what he does, too. With her "untrained" badass self. 

Your friend disagrees with him.  Rather than provide evidence to support his argument, he instead has decided that MPHs are untrained or ill-trained lab monkeys that cannot function without an MPP.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_the_Beltway_(terminology)

I didn't know that term existed, but it is a perfect match.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why not try giving the piece of shit the one thing he doesn't want? He doesn't come here for thought provoking conversation, or because he likes any of us, he comes back to be a disruption because he's a spiteful child who doesn't just take his ball and go home, he comes back without it and makes everyone miserable, because he hasn't had enough attention.  Roger had it right, he's just BH with an obsession over a different method of control.

Just stop giving him that attention.  Stop trying to get the last word in.  Stop trying to make him feel bad - it might be working, but it might also be giving him vindictive pleasure and all the reason he needs in his own mind to keep this bullshit up.  BH eventually went away nd then was banned recently for outing a troll?), this moron will too if you just leave it alone.  Don't be all "pledge!", either (see what happened last time), just DO it.

For me, it has become all about the fact that he spends an inordinate amount of time here, which means he's not doing anything "productive" for his employer. Well, he did proofread a document yesterday, so I guess that's something. Something that should probably have been an intern's job, but still something.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign. 

That is the threshold.  Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.

You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!

It's not only an insane demand, it's also a hypocritical one. He certainly can't provide any evidence that criminalization is completely benign, and if that's the threshold, it should clearly not be criminal.

[Cain]

...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign. 

That is the threshold.  Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.

You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!

Not to mention the hilarious double standard.

Can RWHN bring the data to show that existing policy is completely benign?    

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's still frantically searching the internet for ANYTHING to support his claims that isn't "because we say so".

When he finds some tenuous link, he's going to triumphantly return to post it along with some story about how he had to go to a meeting or was yanked away by some other important Policymaker™ obligation.

No, I was busy proofreading one of the other staff person's news articles after the MPH she went to told her she'd be better off coming to me.

The MPH is right, that would have been a waste of her precious time.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/16/20054773-christie-gives-conditional-ok-to-broader-medicinal-marijuana-use?lite

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/16/20054773-christie-gives-conditional-ok-to-broader-medicinal-marijuana-use?lite

Pretty awesome. One of the saddest side effects of criminalization has been the severe restrictions on medical research, let alone availability of marijuana for people whom it is an inexpensive and effective treatment. Epileptic children in particular.

[AFK]

...none of y'all have produced any kind of data or evidence that legalization would be completely benign. 

That is the threshold.  Until you can meet it, you will be unsuccessful.

You are insane. You can't seriously not do something just because it itsn't a Paretto Improvement. You would never get anything done!

It makes no sense to make a policy change that worsens conditions.