What the Obots think of anybody who disagrees with them

[ravingdave]

geez guys, this is not the place for this.

No worries Mate ! It's all in fun !


Nobody takes us too seriously.





David

[MSimon]

OK Dave:

According to the NIDA, "People who abuse drugs are also likely to be cigarette smokers. More than two-thirds of drug abusers are regular tobacco smokers, a rate more than double that of the rest of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug_theory

So tobacco is the gateway drug. Or maybe not.

From the same link:

The gateway drug theory is often attributed to

* Tobacco
* alcohol
* cannabis

So if we are to believe the gateway theory and that prohibition is the answer we need to prohibit alcohol and tobacco even more than cannabis.

In fact if the gateway theory has any validity we need to ban mother's milk which has enough marijuana analogs in it to give the poor little babies the munchies from drinking the milk of their evil mothers.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study suggests that a tendency toward delinquency or living in a neighborhood where drugs are readily available are just as important in determining whether a young person will abuse marijuana as whether or not he tries cigarettes or alcohol first.

The findings call into question the "gateway" hypothesis - that is, that youths at risk of drug abuse progress from using alcohol and cigarettes to illegal "soft" drugs like marijuana to "hard" drugs like cocaine and heroin, Dr. Ralph E. Tarter of the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and colleagues write in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Instead, Tarter and his team say their findings support the common liability model, which proposes that factors such as behavioral deviancy and "genetic risk" can predispose a person to abusing any type of drug, illegal or otherwise.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 3920070115

Dave,

If the subject interests you - do your own research. It is not hard. I have some other things I want to do for a while. But you know I have never lied about any of the things I have learned. I may be mistaken but I will not lie.

So use the hints I have given you and have at it. Or go to my blog. It is moderately well indexed with tags. It also has a fair search engine. Look up stuff. I have links to sources.

Or, if you don't trust me there is Google.

And don't forget - without genetic predisposition you can't get addicted. And even then you need a trauma trigger. And if what we call addiction should really be termed chronic self medication for a chronic condition then the whole idea of keeping people from their medicine is stupid. And wrong. In fact evil. And you know what they say at Google. "Don't be evil."

And Dave: marijuana is the safest anti-depressant known to man with mild side effects. Compare it to the other anti-depressants we have. And because I'm a nice guy I'll give you a link to the PDR.

http://www.pdrhealth.com/search/search- ... depressant

Or go to the library and peruse a copy.

[MSimon]

dave,

OK. The government should prevent us from making unhealthy choices.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.

Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

Eating meat is an unhealthy choice. Skydiving is an unhealthy choice. Riding motorcycles is an unhealthy choice. Small cars are an unhealthy choice. Of course big cars are bad for CO2. Simple enough. Eliminate small cars from the market and tax the hell out of large vehicles.

Bathrooms are the most dangerous room in the house. Board them off. Only out houses will be allowed. And they will need to be taxed to pay for the pollution they cause.

You see. Once your health and welfare is a government problem then of course the government will try to improve your lifestyle. Health club memberships may become mandatory.

Collecting garbage is one of the most dangerous occupations. Stop collecting it.

Old books can be dangerous to children that eat them. So they will no longer be allowed in commerce. Not in used book stores. Not in yard sales. (You think I'm joking? It has already been enacted)

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/09/c ... sale-sign/

The government will invent all kinds of ways to protect you from yourself. Now that the principle has been established.

Me? I try to be consistent. I'm against the nanny state in all its forms.

Oh it gets better. We are going to eat the old. Or at least let them die as quickly as possible. Maybe give them a little push if necessary. Mandatory assisted suicide. Coming to a theater near you.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/12/v ... effective/

Greg Hengler at Townhall captures this revealing moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearings on health-care reform. The speaker, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILg ... r_embedded

You see. We are no longer people allowed to make individual choices. We are a herd to be sheared. Not producing enough dollars? Off to the abattoir.

[MSimon]

The media don't care. All they care about is an excuse to attack their opponents.

Well yeah. There is a fight on.

So as a boxing coach would you suggest that boxers leave their guard down and open themselves to punches of their opponents and just land a blow when they can?

Sword AND shield Dave.

I'm told over and over that social conservatives are more grounded in reality. I don't see it when it comes to playing politics. What I do keep hearing is ""but we are right." That may be so (in many cases) but you have to fight on the battle ground you have, not the battle ground you wish you had.

You would think that conservatives had learned their lesson from alcohol prohibition: you can't change culture by government fiat. But that goes for the opposition: you can't change economics by government fiat.

====

What is the gateway to insulin addiction? Pretty obvious. There is an underlying problem (sugar metabolism). Might the gateway to drugs be something similar (a root cause that is currently not well known - unlike insulin addiction whose root cause is well known)?

[ravingdave]

dave,

OK. The government should prevent us from making unhealthy choices.

NO NO NO NO NO ! You keep re-stating what I said into something I didn't say. This is what i'm saying.

The government should prevent us from making choices that are Unhealthy to OTHERS !

I don't care if a person drinks themselves into stupification, but I do care if they run a car into me because they're too drunk to control that dangerous vehicle.

Eating meat is an unhealthy choice. Skydiving is an unhealthy choice. Riding motorcycles is an unhealthy choice. Small cars are an unhealthy choice. Of course big cars are bad for CO2. Simple enough. Eliminate small cars from the market and tax the hell out of large vehicles.

Bathrooms are the most dangerous room in the house. Board them off. Only out houses will be allowed. And they will need to be taxed to pay for the pollution they cause.

Collecting garbage is one of the most dangerous occupations. Stop collecting it.

Old books can be dangerous to children that eat them. So they will no longer be allowed in commerce. Not in used book stores. Not in yard sales. (You think I'm joking? It has already been enacted)

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/09/c ... sale-sign/

The government will invent all kinds of ways to protect you from yourself. Now that the principle has been established.

Me? I try to be consistent. I'm against the nanny state in all its forms.

You see. We are no longer people allowed to make individual choices. We are a herd to be sheared. Not producing enough dollars? Off to the abattoir.

You need to aim your response at me, not the scarecrow. I am all in favor of the peoples right to be stupid. (which is what i've always called it.) It's a fundamental part of freedom. I am a big proponent of freedom, but one person's freedom stops when it threatens other people.


Here's a tale of two states. Oklahoma and Missouri. Back in 1980 A friend and I decided to ride our motorcycles to Springfield to visit his parents. He told me I had to bring a helmet because Missouri law required Motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. I asked him if Missouri required eye protection. (The way Oklahoma law does) He told me "No. Missouri doesn't require eye protection."

I told him this was peculiar. Requiring people to wear eye protection protects both the rider AND the people he might run into if he gets hit in the eye by a bug, but the helmet only protects the rider.

I opined that Oklahoma was more sensible in this regard. Recognizing that people who chose to ride Motorcycles were grown up enough to be responsible for themselves, but not permitting them to take a risk (riding a motorcycle without eye protection) that could endanger others.
Missouri on the other hand, was all about protecting the rider from his own decision (to ride a motorcycle) but did nothing to protect other people from his risky behaviour.(riding without eye protection.)




Hurt yourself ? Fine by me ! Hurt others ? NO!


David

[KitemanSA]

Dang, Dave. From this schpiel you almost sound (shhh) libertarian.

[ravingdave]

The media don't care. All they care about is an excuse to attack their opponents.

Well yeah. There is a fight on.

So as a boxing coach would you suggest that boxers leave their guard down and open themselves to punches of their opponents and just land a blow when they can?

Sword AND shield Dave.

I'm told over and over that social conservatives are more grounded in reality. I don't see it when it comes to playing politics. What I do keep hearing is ""but we are right." That may be so (in many cases) but you have to fight on the battle ground you have, not the battle ground you wish you had.

As was said of George Herbert Walker Bush. (Bush Senior)

"He Not only doesn't know where the battle lines are, he doesn't even realize he's in a war! "

The Moderates are always saying the party is loosing people because of being too conservative, especially socially conservative. This is a red herring, and if there is any truth in it at all, it's because the Entertainment/News Liberal Monopoly are constantly repeating it.
(forcing this meme on the people)

As I mentioned earlier, people have to FIRST realize they are in a WAR, and then they need to figure out the battle lines. I have come to realize that our opponents are not the Democrat politicians. They are just puppets. Our opponents are the people who are screwing up people minds by feeding them a constant diet of Liberal B@llsh*t disguised as news and entertainment. (oh, and education.)


We need to start attacking that man behind the curtain, and I mean monetarily, legally, and confrontationally, using every means at our disposal. We need to make them HURT.


It took me awhile to realize this, and I presume everyone else is as unaware of the danger from the media as I used to be. They are the MEME pushers, and it is the MEME (socialism) that we are fighting.

You would think that conservatives had learned their lesson from alcohol prohibition: you can't change culture by government fiat. But that goes for the opposition: you can't change economics by government fiat.

====

What is the gateway to insulin addiction? Pretty obvious. There is an underlying problem (sugar metabolism). Might the gateway to drugs be something similar (a root cause that is currently not well known - unlike insulin addiction whose root cause is well known)?

Don't know if you've run across this, but in the last year i've read something along the lines of research into why eyelet cells are attacked by the immune system. The researchers are saying they believe it is NOT an autoimmune disease, but instead is caused by a virus.

As you may or may not know, many viruses are cell specific, and can only infect certain kinds of cells. Apparently, there exists a viruse that specifically infects pancreatic eyelet cells, and the body then attacks them to destroy the virus, and ends up creating antibodies that specifically targets eyelet cells.

This may explain why that one woman doctor has been so successful at curing diabetes. After the original eyelet cells are all destroyed, the virus is mopped up and is no longer available to infect the new cells she creates.



David

[ravingdave]

Dang, Dave. From this schpiel you almost sound (shhh) libertarian.

I view Libertarianism as Newtonian Physics, and Conservatism as Einsteinian Physics. Libertarian philosophy is the easiest to understand, but it overlooks the effects of the consequences of people's actions beyond the immediate and obvious. It's too short term and short sighted.

In any case, Libertarianism is superior to Socialism. (collectivism)



David

[MSimon]

Well Dave. If driving while impaired bothers you we ought to get folks to switch from alcohol to pot.

Drivers under the influence of marijuana pose far fewer risks on roadways than do drivers intoxicated by alcohol, a new University of Toronto study suggests. The study corroborates earlier research demonstrating that marijuana is not a significant causal factor in traffic accidents.

"The failure of the Toronto University researchers to observe a significant effect of marijuana on driving culpability is consistent with findings from earlier studies," NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. He noted that a May 1998 study by the University of Adelaide (South Australia) Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology determined, "There was no evidence of any increase in the likelihood of being culpable for [automobile] crash[es] amongst those injured drivers in whom cannabinoids were detected. ... [Their] culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group."

Toronto researchers analyzed new data as well as several controlled international studies and concluded that marijuana-impaired drivers compensate by driving more slowly and cautiously.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3961

It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.

Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.

Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 1999) — The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says University of Toronto researcher Alison Smiley.

Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says.

"Both substances impair performance," Smiley says. "However, the more cautious behaviour of subjects who received marijuana decreases the drug's impact on performance. Their behaviour is more appropriate to their impairment, whereas subjects who received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 110700.htm

Go to the site to follow the links to the articles

Schaffer Library of Drug Policy References on Drugs and Driving

Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary
UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division) Report (2000)

Cannabis and Road Safety: An Outline of the Research Studies to Examine the Effects of Cannabis on Driving Skills and on Actual Driving Performance
National Drug and Alcohol Research Center (Australia) Report

The Influence of Cannabis on Driving
UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division) Report (2000)

Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance
US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report (1993)

Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, (November 1993)

Erowid Library on Cannabis and Driving

BBC Report on Marijuana and Driving

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5448

Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality. The first was conducted on a highway closed to other traffic. Subjects (24) were treated on separate occasions with THC 100, 200 and 300 g/kg, and placebo. They performed a 22-km road tracking test beginning 30 and 90 minutes after smoking. Their lateral position variability increased significantly after each THC dose relative to placebo in a dose-dependent manner for two hours after smoking. The second study was conducted on a highway in the presence of other traffic. Subjects (16) were treated with the same THC doses as before. They performed a 64-km road tracking test preceded and followed by 16-km car following tests. Results confirmed those of the previous study. Car following performance was only slightly impaired. The third study was conducted in high-density urban traffic. Separate groups of 16 subjects were treated with 100 g/kg THC and placebo; and, ethanol (mean BAC .034 g%) and placebo. Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had. These studies show that THC in single inhaled doses up to 300 g/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/mis ... riving.htm

The most obvious effect of the cannabis was that the volunteers drove more slowly, trying to compensate for intoxication by being more cautious.

The volunteers also found it difficult to follow a figure-of-eight loop of road when given a high dose of cannabis.

However, reaction times to motorway hazards were not significantly affected.

Trials previously completed under similar test conditions at the TRL have shown that alcohol and tiredness have a more adverse effect on driving ability.

The results of the cannabis and driving study agree with similar research carried out in Australia, the US and Holland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1068625.stm

There Dave.

It seems that if you are OK with alcohol being legal you might be a proponent of cannabis legalization and be making efforts to get drivers to switch from alcohol to cannabis. To improve road safety.

But that would be rational behavior.

In any case there is not much you can do about irresponsible people. They are already on the road. In fact cannabis intoxicated drivers are already with us. You just think that "prohibited" means they are not.

BTW roadside sobriety tests work well no matter what the intoxicating substance.

[MSimon]

Dave,

Libertarianism is about government leaving people alone (a founding principle of the USA BTW). Conservatism is about using government guns to attempt to get desired results.

And you know where that leads.

If you tell people what to do they will do the opposite. If you leave them alone they will do as they darn well please.

Case in point: Holland which has significantly lower rates of pot use than the good ole USA. Especially true among teens.

Or Portugal which has had legal cannabis for 8 years with no noticeable social effects.

Seriously Dave. You make pronouncements with no facts to back them up. I can back up every statement I have made on the subject. Why? I have actually studied it. As opposed to falling in line with government propaganda.

BTW the government will no longer debate with anti-prohibitionists armed with facts. They haven't for about a decade. Why? The anti-prohibitionists make them look bad. Very bad.

Just as I'm doing with your arguments. We slice 'em and dice 'em.

===

Note: conservative don't give a durn about follow on effects. If they did they would be concerned about the amount of crime and the murders prohibition induces. If conservatives actually cared they would find some other way of increasing drug use besides handing control of drug distribution over to criminals.

INTERNATIONAL
Summer 1999

On June 13, 54% of voters in Switzerland endorsed state distribution of heroin to addicts. The vote supported the medically supervised distribution of heroin to about 1,500 addicts. Despite a recent vote supporting the heroin maintenance program and a government report hailing the program as a success, the initiative to end the program was put on the ballot by anti-drug groups, such as Swiss Doctors Against Drugs (Associated Press, "Swiss Voters Turn Down Paid Maternity Leave," Toronto Star, June 14, 1999; Bruce Lawson, "Switzerland's Heroin Program Faces the Voters," Globe and Mail (Canada), June 9, 1999).•

http://www.ndsn.org/summer99/intl2.html

Heroin Dave. From the conservative Swiss. You know the Swiss. A machine gun in every home.

Page last updated at 23:49 GMT, Sunday, 30 November 2008

Swiss voters have approved a radical health policy that offers prescription heroin to addicts on a permanent basis.

Final results from the national referendum showed 68% of voters supported the plan.

The scheme, allowing addicts to inject the drug under medical supervision at a clinic, began in Zurich 14 years ago before spreading across the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7757050.stm

How about that Dave? 68% Up from 54% nine years earlier. If only Republicans could garner those kins of vote totals.

Evidently the Swiss like the effects of the policy. Plus - they are no longer supporting criminals and terrorists. Something the Republicans seem committed to doing. Kind of strange for the law and order party don't you think?

As the old saying goes though. You can never reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -Winston Churchill

A Libertarian believes that government is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. A Conservative believes this time it will be different.

[IntLibber]

Dang, Dave. From this schpiel you almost sound (shhh) libertarian.

The reason he isn't is that he doesnt believe in innocent until proven guilty. He wants a fascist government that sees all and prevents all politically incorrect acts.

If you believe in freedom, you need to accept that people are going to put themselves in circumstances that harm others, period. All you can do is prosecute for wilfull acts and negligence, and make sure compensation is paid.

[KitemanSA]

Case in point: Holland which has significantly lower rates of pot use than the good ole USA. Especially true among teens.

Slight correction. Lower rate of INDIGENOUS pot use. Add in the foreigners and the rate climbs substantially. (Based on fairly old data).

[MSimon]

Case in point: Holland which has significantly lower rates of pot use than the good ole USA. Especially true among teens.

Slight correction. Lower rate of INDIGENOUS pot use. Add in the foreigners and the rate climbs substantially. (Based on fairly old data).

True.

But I hardly see how you can count tourists if you are trying to figure out how a legalization regime would work in a country where drugs are legalized.

BTW I believe Mexico is on the verge of decriminalization (similar to the Dutch regime).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193702,00.html

Maybe it is part of an effort to encourage tourism.

[KitemanSA]

Also, please note that MJ is still technically illegal in Holland, but they have a policy not to arrest folks in certain areas. Only quasi-libertarian, but a huge step forward none-the-less.

[ravingdave]

Well Dave. If driving while impaired bothers you we ought to get folks to switch from alcohol to pot.

The most obvious effect of the cannabis was that the volunteers drove more slowly, trying to compensate for intoxication by being more cautious.

The volunteers also found it difficult to follow a figure-of-eight loop of road when given a high dose of cannabis.

However, reaction times to motorway hazards were not significantly affected.

Trials previously completed under similar test conditions at the TRL have shown that alcohol and tiredness have a more adverse effect on driving ability.

The results of the cannabis and driving study agree with similar research carried out in Australia, the US and Holland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1068625.stm

There Dave.

It seems that if you are OK with alcohol being legal you might be a proponent of cannabis legalization and be making efforts to get drivers to switch from alcohol to cannabis. To improve road safety.

Well, You know of course there is no such thing as "Switching." There is only ADDING another method of impairment to the list.

Somehow I can't see the logic of adding additional impaired drivers as being beneficial.

But that would be rational behavior.

It WOULD be rational IF people really gave up Alcohol and switched to pot. That won't happen. We will end up with Both Alcohol AND pot. The irrational is in postulating the nonsensical idea of a "Switch."

In any case there is not much you can do about irresponsible people. They are already on the road. In fact cannabis intoxicated drivers are already with us.

You just think that "prohibited" means they are not.

Yeah, everone knows that people don't break laws.





David