Prohibition and Bath Salts

[rj40]

Those are very good points. But I think one can still pull a useful measure from them. For example, what percentage rate of ruined lives would be "acceptable?" It's horrible, but society does this all the time. If everything else was otherwise the same for canibis, but if only 1% of people suffered what you say - what then? What if only one person on planet Earth, every ten years, suffered? At what point would you say "OK, the cost of keeping this illegal now outweighs the ill-effects." That is the extreme example, and reality is much more messy.

It seems to me that society is in the midst of changing what it thinks its cut-off is, at least for marijuana. Right or wrong. It might be useful to have some hard numbers to put forward to sway people in a more desirable direction. We do this with auto fatalities and safety laws and with cigarettes and laws and all sorts of things.

Thanks for your time everybody! Very interesting.

[GIThruster]

I understand your point too well. That's why I can't answer your question.

It's like the case with any values conflict or especially the cases of moral dilemma: as soon as you take a stand the counter-examples pour in to make your stand look wrong because you are in fact looking at a lesser evil/greater good situation. If in our case you were to say a 10% casualty rate is too high, then someone will ask if 9% is too high. If you show conclusively some percent is acceptable throughout history, someone will make a counter-argument that this same percent is not used for another drug. The fact is, you can't do the metrics in the way you suppose.

For example, the fact alcohol is available hugely reduces the requirement for another recreational drug, so you can't compare the need for one with the need for another. You can cite the evidence that alcohol reduces social unrest because it sedates the populous, and in particular the less happy, and fulfilled portions of the populous, but those observations are general and defy statistical analysis.

Sometimes you just need to use some common sense. If this issue were capable of being broken down into a hard statistical analysis, I agree it would have been put to rest long ago. Instead it's being decided on the whims of popular, uninformed opinion.

[palladin9479]

Those are very good points. But I think one can still pull a useful measure from them. For example, what percentage rate of ruined lives would be "acceptable?" It's horrible, but society does this all the time. If everything else was otherwise the same for canibis, but if only 1% of people suffered what you say - what then? What if only one person on planet Earth, every ten years, suffered? At what point would you say "OK, the cost of keeping this illegal now outweighs the ill-effects." That is the extreme example, and reality is much more messy.

It seems to me that society is in the midst of changing what it thinks its cut-off is, at least for marijuana. Right or wrong. It might be useful to have some hard numbers to put forward to sway people in a more desirable direction. We do this with auto fatalities and safety laws and with cigarettes and laws and all sorts of things.

Thanks for your time everybody! Very interesting.

He made very bad points as most of it was self-created BS. THC most definitely does not make you psychotic nor destroy ambition or any of the social evils he was espousing. It's a mild CNS depressant, it'll mellow someone out and render them rather sanguine. It's actually impossible for them to feel anger or other negative emotions. Not a single human has ever overdosed on THC, that is how benign that stuff is. The real issue with recreational cannabis is that the unregulated black market for it has no quality control, there is no way to ensure that the product hasn't been spiked with some other chemical in order for the producers to make a bigger profit. Medical grade cannabis on the other hand won't be spiked and the producers can tell you exactly how much THC is present.

Percaset and Valium pose a greater threat then THC. Heck if we're really going down that rabbit hole Oxycontin does terrible terrible things to people, yet is perfectly acceptable to consume.

[rj40]

I thought he made good points if he himself believed what he stated was true. I have no reason to believe he was lying. I think he very much believes what he says. If this stuff is as bad and as widespread as i think he believes, I think that is a good reason for also believing it should be outlawed.

But, point taken. If it is all BS, then for everyone else "who knows better" it doesn't really matter. And he could be imposing a view on society that is hurting more than it is helping due to all the bad stuff related to prohibition.

In the end, it will be up to society and the voters as whether they believe it and what they want to do about it. And that is where some sort of hard numbers come into play. If possible. Either way, it would be good to have some sort of, more or less, agreed upon numbers. Whether to use to argue against or for.

I think it will probably be treated similar to Ambien in the next few years and similar to hard liquor by the 2020's. I admit I could be wrong. The question is, do I HOPE I am wrong.

[rj40]

I understand your point too well. That's why I can't answer your question.

It's like the case with any values conflict or especially the cases of moral dilemma: as soon as you take a stand the counter-examples pour in to make your stand look wrong because you are in fact looking at a lesser evil/greater good situation. If in our case you were to say a 10% casualty rate is too high, then someone will ask if 9% is too high. If you show conclusively some percent is acceptable throughout history, someone will make a counter-argument that this same percent is not used for another drug. The fact is, you can't do the metrics in the way you suppose.

For example, the fact alcohol is available hugely reduces the requirement for another recreational drug, so you can't compare the need for one with the need for another. You can cite the evidence that alcohol reduces social unrest because it sedates the populous, and in particular the less happy, and fulfilled portions of the populous, but those observations are general and defy statistical analysis.

Sometimes you just need to use some common sense. If this issue were capable of being broken down into a hard statistical analysis, I agree it would have been put to rest long ago. Instead it's being decided on the whims of popular, uninformed opinion.

Well, you can see that sort of thing anywhere. "10% too high? What about 9%?" Having such numbers could be very useful. I think it would be good to face it head on. What about a range of numbers? 8 to 10 %? You can tie numbers to money and lives. Then the voters get to decide. Well, more or less. Probably their elected reps. Still will have a moral component, but now people have some numbers with respect to lives lost/ruined and money spent to help in a decision. Assuming good numbers. That part is hard too.

As far as common sense, I think all sides of this think they ARE using common sense.

Several years ago I heard someone speak about marijuana and alcohol. A rather left leaning speaker. His point was that a reason for outlawing marijuana and not alcohol was that alcohol tends to lead to boisterousness and combativeness and marijuana does not. And this property of alcohol was deemed, on the whole, good for society by the powers that be.

If marijuana did not lead to all the bad stuff you say, would you be OK with legalizing it? Or, is there/are their other reasons in addition that you believe require it to be illegal?

[GIThruster]

If marijuana did not lead to all the bad stuff you say, would you be OK with legalizing it? Or, is there/are their other reasons in addition that you believe require it to be illegal?

No, those are my primary objections. palladin's points are completely counterfactual as per usual. THC is an hallucinogen that causes both hallucinations and delusions--the two primary components of psychosis. Even casual use gives one a 5,000% higher chance to suffer a psychotic episode than if you never use. It's function to destroy ambition is easily observed and documented. If it didn't have these properties I wouldn't object to it. Rather, Cannabis Induced Psychosis is well documented and occurrence of psychosis is much, much higher in Cannabis using demographics than amongst those who don't use. People like paladin and simon routinely ignore these facts in order to argue for their drug use.

Let me ask you, do you understand why I say that you can't use statistics and numbers when evaluating a values conflict such as a moral dilemma? For instance, are you familiar with the lifeboat dilemma?

Take the example of 30 people in a lifeboat that is going down, because it is overloaded. If you throw one person overboard, you can save the boat. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Then whatever answer you give, mess with the metrics. What if there are more people's lives at stake, or less, or if you need to throw more than one person overboard?

There are some issues that are never best described by the hard metrics that linear thinkers such as engineers favor. You are asking the wrong questions and cannot get the right answers with them.

[MSimon]

[quote="palladin9479"][/quote]

Your tag line is uncalled for. Unless your intent is to start a flame war.

I'm not going to intervene next time.

[MSimon]

I thought he made good points if he himself believed what he stated was true. I have no reason to believe he was lying. I think he very much believes what he says. If this stuff is as bad and as widespread as i think he believes, I think that is a good reason for also believing it should be outlawed.

But, point taken. If it is all BS, then for everyone else "who knows better" it doesn't really matter. And he could be imposing a view on society that is hurting more than it is helping due to all the bad stuff related to prohibition.

In the end, it will be up to society and the voters as whether they believe it and what they want to do about it. And that is where some sort of hard numbers come into play. If possible. Either way, it would be good to have some sort of, more or less, agreed upon numbers. Whether to use to argue against or for.

I think it will probably be treated similar to Ambien in the next few years and similar to hard liquor by the 2020's. I admit I could be wrong. The question is, do I HOPE I am wrong.

:D

I follow the issue fairly closely. It may be sooner than 2020. A number of states are gearing up for legalization drives in 2014.

And it looks like Rand Paul will be in the Presidential sweepstakes for 2016.

So you have to ask yourself why the change in sentiment from 40 years ago when 10% favored legalization and most people had understandings similar to our prohibitionist friends.

Experience. People found out that the prohibitionist understanding was the raving of lunatics. People found out through experience that alcohol is worse. That in fact the prohibitionist understanding of pot is closer to what alcohol does than what pot does. Ad of course the studies showing that pot substitution for alcohol lowers traffic fatalities. Which is to say fewer innocent bystanders getting hurt.

And then there is the medical angle. The coming to grips with the CB1 and CB2 systems in the body. The fact that some folks can throw away whole rafts of medicine if they can substitute pot. And medical studies show it works where we have nothing else. Or it works at a tenth of a cent a dose where big pharma drugs run a dollar a dose - or more.

For everyone? Of course not. No drug is. For enough? About 80% of Americans think so. The raids on pot pharmacies are driving more of that 80% into the legalization camp.

Devil's weed is going the way of demon rum. The dust bin of history.

And the fact that enforcement is racist? You know that does not sell well in America anymore. The reaction to that is visceral.

But the big thing is experience.

[MSimon]

Alcohol is an hallucinogen that causes both hallucinations and delusions--the two primary components of psychosis.

Or did you forget that?

We seem to tolerate alcohol quite well socially. Why? Well most folks stop drinking before they get to that stage. And the EXPERIENCE with pot is similar. Except the hallucinations are milder as is the withdrawal.

The thing is that the antipathy to drugs is not reasoned it is emotional and rationalized.

And if it cures some cancers as anecdote and animal studies show? Well the prohibitionists are going to be (and in fact in some quarters are now) widely reviled. In fact when it comes to medical use there are only 20% in the prohibitionist camp.

And how do you counter stuff like this?

State board recommends legalizing medical marijuana
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2010/02/18/Metro/15701.html

Officials from the Iowa Board of Pharmacy voted unanimously to recommend that the state Legislature legalize the use of medical marijuana on Wednesday.

The proposal would reduce marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule II, classifying the drug as presenting the potential for abuse but also having acceptable medical uses.

[rj40]

If marijuana did not lead to all the bad stuff you say, would you be OK with legalizing it? Or, is there/are their other reasons in addition that you believe require it to be illegal?

No, those are my primary objections. palladin's points are completely counterfactual as per usual. THC is an hallucinogen that causes both hallucinations and delusions--the two primary components of psychosis. Even casual use gives one a 5,000% higher chance to suffer a psychotic episode than if you never use. It's function to destroy ambition is easily observed and documented. If it didn't have these properties I wouldn't object to it. Rather, Cannabis Induced Psychosis is well documented and occurrence of psychosis is much, much higher in Cannabis using demographics than amongst those who don't use. People like paladin and simon routinely ignore these facts in order to argue for their drug use.

Let me ask you, do you understand why I say that you can't use statistics and numbers when evaluating a values conflict such as a moral dilemma? For instance, are you familiar with the lifeboat dilemma?

Take the example of 30 people in a lifeboat that is going down, because it is overloaded. If you throw one person overboard, you can save the boat. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Then whatever answer you give, mess with the metrics. What if there are more people's lives at stake, or less, or if you need to throw more than one person overboard?

There are some issues that are never best described by the hard metrics that linear thinkers such as engineers favor. You are asking the wrong questions and cannot get the right answers with them.

I was a bit confused, but I think I understand you better now. Thanks.

Kobayashi Maru. Hey, spell checker knew the words!

Anywhooo...

Still, I think the numbers would be useful to have. Even if it only means going in with eyes (more) wide open. Also, rightly or wrongly people use numbers to influence and inform their decisions every day. Should we have universal health care? What about just folks over 50 who cannot afford anything else? What about the cost (16 trillion dollar debt)? Or, do we, as a society, throw them off one lifeboat and hope another (e.g., family, if they have a big enough boat) picks them up? How much money to put an armed guard in every school? Is it worth it? This sort of thing may not make people's minds up, but I think we need to at least have an idea.

If a set of agreed upon numbers showed that you were clearly correct in your assessment, would you be open, at least a little, to using those numbers to bolster your argument?

[rj40]

MSIMON and all. I'm sure this has been covered, but I suspect any particular analysis of legal vs. illegal drugs can be open to dispute from another side. Is there any online clearing house of all of these arguments, or, at least, a list of papers?

If people cannot even agree on what can and cannot be trusted (yeah, I know, welcome to the real world) things get even more difficult.

Also, what does NIH say? I suspect "more work is needed."

Finally, from a radio show years ago after the Exxon Valdez:
"What should we do with the drunken sailor (repeat twice more)? Hire him at Exxon!"
And in the background you hear a man yell, "You idiot! I said Tanqueray on the rocks!!"

[palladin9479]

If marijuana did not lead to all the bad stuff you say, would you be OK with legalizing it? Or, is there/are their other reasons in addition that you believe require it to be illegal?

No, those are my primary objections. palladin's points are completely counterfactual as per usual. THC is an hallucinogen that causes both hallucinations and delusions--the two primary components of psychosis. Even casual use gives one a 5,000% higher chance to suffer a psychotic episode than if you never use. It's function to destroy ambition is easily observed and documented. If it didn't have these properties I wouldn't object to it. Rather, Cannabis Induced Psychosis is well documented and occurrence of psychosis is much, much higher in Cannabis using demographics than amongst those who don't use. People like paladin and simon routinely ignore these facts in order to argue for their drug use.

Let me ask you, do you understand why I say that you can't use statistics and numbers when evaluating a values conflict such as a moral dilemma? For instance, are you familiar with the lifeboat dilemma?

Take the example of 30 people in a lifeboat that is going down, because it is overloaded. If you throw one person overboard, you can save the boat. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Then whatever answer you give, mess with the metrics. What if there are more people's lives at stake, or less, or if you need to throw more than one person overboard?

There are some issues that are never best described by the hard metrics that linear thinkers such as engineers favor. You are asking the wrong questions and cannot get the right answers with them.

I was a bit confused, but I think I understand you better now. Thanks.

Kobayashi Maru. Hey, spell checker knew the words!

Anywhooo...

Still, I think the numbers would be useful to have. Even if it only means going in with eyes (more) wide open. Also, rightly or wrongly people use numbers to influence and inform their decisions every day. Should we have universal health care? What about just folks over 50 who cannot afford anything else? What about the cost (16 trillion dollar debt)? Or, do we, as a society, throw them off one lifeboat and hope another (e.g., family, if they have a big enough boat) picks them up? How much money to put an armed guard in every school? Is it worth it? This sort of thing may not make people's minds up, but I think we need to at least have an idea.

If a set of agreed upon numbers showed that you were clearly correct in your assessment, would you be open, at least a little, to using those numbers to bolster your argument?

As most studies on THC are illegal there are very few numbers. Thankfully the effects of THC is well known due to lab studies. GIT is literally making stuff up and presenting it as fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

THC is not hallucinogen, it does not create hallucinations. It's a CNS depressant with analgesic effects, in short it's a mild painkiller. The only studies that have remotely linked it with psychosis dealt with people who were either already psychotic or were in high risk categories for being psychotic. The results were that THC had no effect on normal people but could enhance psychosis in people who were already psychotic. This is similar to what Alcohol does, normal balanced people have no long term ill effects, people with mental illness on the other hand tend to get worse under the influence of Ethanol intoxication. Of course to the true believers none of that matters.

http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/3529

[palladin9479]

Your tag line is uncalled for. Unless your intent is to start a flame war.

I'm not going to intervene next time.

It's an exact quote with no alternation or malicious intent. People will take what they want from it. I didn't even take it out of context.

24th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This merely enhanced and reinforces the 15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Exact quote from D

Yeah, well Republicans thought the 24th amendment was a good idea too. That decision is what is currently killing us.

I will not attack, slander or otherwise incite a flame war. The individual mentioned did in fact make this statement on a public forum and has yet to retract it. Should he retract his statement then I will gladly remove it from the signature block.

[MSimon]

THC is not hallucinogen, it does not create hallucinations.

It is my understanding that it can if the circumstances are right.

What are those circumstances? My take is naive user and very strong pot. But my information is anecdotal.

Like alcohol though it is my understanding that most users do not wish to get into that condition.

====

Now if your point is that neither one drink nor a few puffs of pot will get users or dabblers in that condition I concur.

And if your further point is that the vast majority of prohibitionists are not familiar with the voluminous literature on the subject and only read lurid press reports I would also concur.

I think I have "met" one prohibitionist in my whole life who knows the literature as well as I do. Clayton Cramer. - The gun guy. You can look him up.

We do come to different conclusions based on a common knowledge base. I can respect that. Most folks with that level of knowledge are in the anti-prohibition camp. As I am.

The vast majority of prohibitionists argue from ignorance. And it shows. It is one of the reasons they are losing the argument with the general public.

A lie may make it around the world seven times before the truth gets out the door. But eventually the lie falls flat from exhaustion.

[MSimon]

Your tag line is uncalled for. Unless your intent is to start a flame war.

I'm not going to intervene next time.

It's an exact quote with no alternation or malicious intent. People will take what they want from it. I didn't even take it out of context.

Well if that is your attitude - which I consider uncivil - I'll let you and him "duke" it out.

BTW due to inartful phrasing on his part you are misrepresenting his position. Which is a strike against you. It makes what you are doing nothing more than propaganda.

His beef with the 24th is the last 3 words. And he may have a point on that.

OTOH there are a lot of contributors to the treasury who favor various levels of socialism. Why?

In times past we made provision for the gleaners - those living on the margins. The requirements of that are well documented in the Talmud. I don't know what we could do of similar nature these days. So we use taxes as a substitute. Has that gone too far? Probably.

"The Marching Morons" is a good SF story about a society that went too far in that direction.

So what is the answer to those on the margins? Abortion. Those who can't make it don't have children (or as many). And it is those who complain the most about the tithe the government extracts who are most adamantly against abortion. Which is nothing more than natural selection at work in a human venue.