The Culture War Is Over

[MSimon]

And the "Conservatives" lost.

You will note that in the recent midterm elections culture war issues were very subdued. If mentioned at all by the Rs. It will be interesting to see if the Rs can stick to that when governing. If not the electorate will swing in the other direction in due course.

[TDPerk]

Same old one-note charlie.

The only area the old-school progressives are losing is drug prohibition.

Most people agree abortion in the third trimester is murder, a majority believe it is murder in the second.

Most people agree private individuals cannot rightfully be made to cater to same-sex marriages which they religiously oppose.

[MSimon]

Same old one-note charlie.

The only area the old-school progressives are losing is drug prohibition.

Most people agree abortion in the third trimester is murder, a majority believe it is murder in the second.

Most people agree private individuals cannot rightfully be made to cater to same-sex marriages which they religiously oppose.

None the less Republicans did not run on either of those issues this time around.

And you forget one thing. Despite opposition to abortion Americans generally don't want government involved. Why would that be? Well what woman is interested in having her life thoroughly examined (murder investigation) every time she has a miscarriage? What man (other than our "conservative" brothers) would want to subject her to that? In addition the Jewish religion allows late term abortions if the woman's mental health would be adversely affected by carrying to term. Our laws go further than that in that they allow the woman to decide rather than a sanhedrin. Abortion absolutism is a religious matter.

The take away: The electorate wants LESS government.

As to gay marriage. If the Conservatives were smart (how likely is that?) they would get government out of the marriage business. That whole area was started in the 1800s to prevent whites from marrying blacks. Before that time marriage was mostly a religious function. Churches decided who was married. And since the different religions had different ideas Jews were allowed to have their own marriage courts if both parties agreed. A feature still in effect to this day.

Jewish marriages are contracted marriages. The prenup is built in. Look up ketuba if the subject interests you.

Since government is in the marriage business liberals have used that to force the unwilling to cater to people they otherwise would reject. Clever boys. But they are just taking advantage of things the "conservatives" have insisted on. Most amusing.

Smaller government. It is safer for all concerned. We used to know that. Evidently we are relearning it.

[GIThruster]

Well what woman is interested in having her life thoroughly examined (murder investigation) every time she has a miscarriage?

This kind of crazy is a sign of cannabis induced psychosis.

[hanelyp]

Well what woman is interested in having her life thoroughly examined (murder investigation) every time she has a miscarriage?

This kind of crazy is a sign of cannabis induced psychosis.

I'm thinking that statement is characteristic of a paranoid psychotic socialist. But I agree it's not the thinking of someone in their right mind.

[MSimon]

Well what woman is interested in having her life thoroughly examined (murder investigation) every time she has a miscarriage?

This kind of crazy is a sign of cannabis induced psychosis.

I'm thinking that statement is characteristic of a paranoid psychotic socialist. But I agree it's not the thinking of someone in their right mind.

Funny thing is that I'm actually anti-socialist. I prefer small government. Very small government. And especially a Federal Government limited to its constitutionally enumerated functions and powers. Ever notice a drug prohibition amendment? Me either.

Funny that you believe that women would want every miscarriage turned into a murder investigation in order to prevent abortion.

In any case it looks like the culture war is not only over in public but also in semi-private. The TEA Party Express organization whose news letter I subscribe to was veering in a culture war direction. They recently featured Wayne Allyn Root - a Libertarian Party candidate for President - in their news letter and at one of their gatherings. The Libertarians are about as anti-culture war as it gets. Pro choice on everything is the Libertarian sentiment.

I have spent considerable time working against right wing progressives. Once that is well in hand (probably another 5 years) I will start in on the left wing progressives. I'm using B.H.L. Hart's dictum from "Strategy" - go after the weakest element of the opposition first. And the weakest element of the progressive coalition is the right wing progressives.

Once the right has been cleansed of its progressives I intend to use it to go after the left. And the most progressive of the right wing progressives are the culture warriors.

Have a nice day.

[GIThruster]

Simin, you might stop the drugs for a day or two and then post, and we'll have a chance to see if you are ever sober or stuck now in this drug-induced haze of delusion.

[ohiovr]

And the "Conservatives" lost.

You will note that in the recent midterm elections culture war issues were very subdued. If mentioned at all by the Rs. It will be interesting to see if the Rs can stick to that when governing. If not the electorate will swing in the other direction in due course.

Culture is always changing. Those who hold old norms are always getting older, and eventually they die. Then the next generation "grows up" and see the following generation not observing the same values they had, and then they die. etc etc etc

Sometimes you get sharp dislocations such as the invention of birth control.

Most free thinkers can't be easily corralled into a particular group that can easily be labeled and dismissed, although ignorant people try, proclaim truth, and denouncement, and move on to the next thoughtless case.

The idea of conservative and liberal will fade into total nonsense in 50 years.

[palladin9479]

Same old one-note charlie.

The only area the old-school progressives are losing is drug prohibition.

Most people agree abortion in the third trimester is murder, a majority believe it is murder in the second.

Most people agree private individuals cannot rightfully be made to cater to same-sex marriages which they religiously oppose.

Umm no.

Swing voters, those independent unaffiliated voters who's vote must be won each election and who decide individually on each issue instead of blindly agree to anything an ideology says have varied and mixed beliefs on those issues. Religion is down near the bottom of the list of things we care about and it's used by hard right Republicans to cater to their core voting demographic.

All you did was list Republicans views then waive your hand and assume "most" believed in them, all because your party just won many seats from campaigns based on economics.

[MSimon]

Simin, you might stop the drugs for a day or two and then post, and we'll have a chance to see if you are ever sober or stuck now in this drug-induced haze of delusion.

The only drugs I do are tobacco and coffee.

BTW my point about saving $1 trillion a year in the USA from cannabinoid medicine has not been refuted. It has been airily dismissed but that is not the same thing.

In a response to Diogenes I showed that from just two diseases (cancer and diabetes) savings on the order of $200 bn are on the table. And that is just two. Had I made a comprehensive list I have no doubt I could have come up with $1 trillion in savings well before I ran out of diseases.

Look at the NIH monographs on the matter and at least partially refute my points about cannabinoid medicine. So let me just give you one popular link on cannabis and diabetes and a host of technical links. And then be so kind as to provide some links to opposing research.

I'm going to give you a link to the popular literature to show you the word is getting out. And then I'll give you links to scholarly articles:

Time Magazine: http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/21/m ... etes-drug/
“The most important finding is that current users of marijuana appeared to have better carbohydrate metabolism than nonusers,” says Murray Mittleman, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the lead author of the study. “Their fasting insulin levels were lower, and they appeared to be less resistant to the insulin produced by their body to maintain a normal blood-sugar level.”

There is much more there. You might want to read it. Or not.

Decreased prevalence of diabetes in marijuana users: cross-sectional data from the National Health and Nutrition http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... NES)%20III

Cannabinoids and endocannabinoids in metabolic disorders with focus on diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21484568

Cannabinoids as novel anti-inflammatory drugs
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828614/

Marijuana Smoking Associated with 66% Decrease in Diabetes Risk
http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/sin ... 7806e.html

A page full of links on (many many NIH)
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/cannabis.38174/

Of course there is a lot more out there. But I await your refutation.

The really bad thing for you Prohibitionists is that you are concentrated in the Republican Party and word is getting out. When the mass becomes critical it will hurt you for generations politically. It is stupid to let the socialists own this issue. If I was you I'd overcome my hippie hate and look into the medicine and endeavor to talk the rest of your compatriots out of making a mistake that will hurt your political views for generations. But I doubt you are capable.

[mvanwink5]

MSimon, Ben Carson supports medical MJ legalization, so really it is becoming a fringe Repub position to oppose medical MJ. The problem I have with MJ is when its use would compromise industrial work, or transportation equipment operation, or anywhere that would subject minors to second hand smoke, or in any public space, any public space. The problem is that some MJ smokers really don't care about how its use indirectly effects others, and that is my observation, my experience. The only thing that keeps clowns from smoking in public now is its legality problem. Furthermore, MJ can be smoked in such a way that there is no tell tale smell, and in that manner of use the effect is insidious.

I am against prohibition, flatly. However, the problem is you are in true denial that an aerosol intoxicant is not, it absolutely is not benign. You have not admitted that, and that makes me think you are either disingenuous and ignoring a critical distinction (without a solution and don't care?) or delusional (which I seriously doubt).

Aerosol use of an intoxicant is not benign; in lab settings such chemicals are used under a hood. Is that what you are proposing? I doubt it. (In case you try to blow this objection off, let me state in no uncertain terms that the MJ active chemical has even in small concentrations an intoxicant effect on me, which I can't stand).

[MSimon]

The problem I have with MJ is when its use would compromise industrial work, or transportation equipment operation, or anywhere that would subject minors to second hand smoke, or in any public space, any public space. The problem is that some MJ smokers really don't care about how its use indirectly effects others, and that is my observation, my experience.

But you have to face reality. Prohibition or not people are going to make unwise decision. Prohibition did not solve the alcohol problem. Neither did legalization. What it did solve was the criminal problem, and the prison overcrowding problem Yes. Prison overcrowding was a problem during alcohol prohibition.

I don't know what to do about the industrial problem except educate. The same thing that is working on the alcohol and tobacco problems. What we do know from the medical cannabis experiment is that people switching from alcohol to cannabis lowered traffic fatalities by 9%. So if we can stigmatize alcohol use and regularize cannabis use there will be benefits.

What else do we know? Experienced users are hard to tell from those who have never used in terms of motor function and intelligence. You can look it up. It is the novices who are most at risk.

Dangers? I'm sure there are some. Maybe even a lot. But they are exaggerated. The whole subject, to use the currently fashionable term, has been Gruberized. It is the government after all. Obamacare. AGW. Prohibition. Starting to see a pattern?

And BTW alcohol users don't care how their use directly affects others. Car crashes. Domestic violence. To name just two well known effects. We don't think Prohibition is the answer to those questions. It is not. In fact the answer may be to switch them to cannabis. Will it make things perfect? Of course not. But it will improve things. At least in terms of car crashes. We won't know about domestic violence until the results from Colorado's first year are in. And that will be another six to nine months. First to get to the end of the year and then to collect the stats and publish.

=========================

I did manage to find an anti-pot screed:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/ ... /10066215/
There is not enough data five months into the Colorado experiment to make sound judgments. But there is ample evidence to know that legalization does not solve the drug problem.

Well duh. It is not intended to solve the drug problem. It is intended to solve the crime problem. The gang problem. The racist enforcement problem. The prison overcrowding problem. The enforcers gone wild problem. The asset forfeiture problem. The denying people medicine problem. The lack of human trials for medicine problem. And probably a few other problems I failed to mention.

It is too late for the Forth Amendment and police militarization though. Those will take 50 to 100 years to unwind. If we unwind them at all.

[MSimon]

Aerosol use of an intoxicant is not benign;

You are unaware of the literature.

1. Donald Tashkin - once a noted prohibitionists - found that smoking cannabis had protective effects on the lungs. It surprised him. The only known effect medically is smokers cough. No emphysema (it opens airways - unlike tobacco) and no cancer. In fact it reduces tumor formation in the lungs.

2. Dose titration. Since the cannabis gets into the blood stream much faster through the lungs than through any other method, smokers - if they want - can adjust their dose while they go. This is well known and it is why stronger pot poses very little more risk than the weaker stuff. People can adjust on the spot. We do know that the edibles are a problem in this respect from what has gone on in Colorado this past year. So I would say that eating the stuff poses the most danger. This has also been noted in the government approved THC pill - Marinol.

But as with all "new" things we are on a learning curve. A few more years of experience will sort things out. Mostly.

[ohiovr]

MSimon, Ben Carson supports medical MJ legalization, so really it is becoming a fringe Repub position to oppose medical MJ. The problem I have with MJ is when its use would compromise industrial work, or transportation equipment operation, or anywhere that would subject minors to second hand smoke, or in any public space, any public space. The problem is that some MJ smokers really don't care about how its use indirectly effects others, and that is my observation, my experience. The only thing that keeps clowns from smoking in public now is its legality problem. Furthermore, MJ can be smoked in such a way that there is no tell tale smell, and in that manner of use the effect is insidious.

I am against prohibition, flatly. However, the problem is you are in true denial that an aerosol intoxicant is not, it absolutely is not benign. You have not admitted that, and that makes me think you are either disingenuous and ignoring a critical distinction (without a solution and don't care?) or delusional (which I seriously doubt).

Aerosol use of an intoxicant is not benign; in lab settings such chemicals are used under a hood. Is that what you are proposing? I doubt it. (In case you try to blow this objection off, let me state in no uncertain terms that the MJ active chemical has even in small concentrations an intoxicant effect on me, which I can't stand).

Its better when it is eaten. Then you just got to make sure you remember which cookie is which!!

[ohiovr]

Aerosol use of an intoxicant is not benign;

You are unaware of the literature.

1. Donald Tashkin - once a noted prohibitionists - found that smoking cannabis had protective effects on the lungs. It surprised him. The only known effect medically is smokers cough. No emphysema (it opens airways - unlike tobacco) and no cancer. In fact it reduces tumor formation in the lungs.

2. Dose titration. Since the cannabis gets into the blood stream much faster through the lungs than through any other method, smokers - if they want - can adjust their dose while they go. This is well known and it is why stronger pot poses very little more risk than the weaker stuff. People can adjust on the spot. We do know that the edibles are a problem in this respect from what has gone on in Colorado this past year. So I would say that eating the stuff poses the most danger. This has also been noted in the government approved THC pill - Marinol.

But as with all "new" things we are on a learning curve. A few more years of experience will sort things out. Mostly.

Lol it makes me caugh up something bad. Don't see how it can be good for your lungs... But with all vices... its a risk I can take. Till I can't any more