Infrastructure Reforms

[Diogenes]

Actually of the 2 GiT is the more rational.

I'll have to take your word on that. Diogenes at least had the shell of an argument. The next time he posts it, there is a ready made comprehensive refutation available for easy linking. I may even shorten and rewrite the thing. It's not going to change his tune, but it'll at least provide watchers something to read. Who knows, maybe I can count it as a community education effort

Would love to see it. You should have led off with this. It would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.

And if you wish to characterize me as lazy, go for it. That says more about you than it does me. I've spent the last few days researching counterarguments to ladajo's apparently honest but inadequately supported argument and Diogenes' apparently dishonest and unsupported argument.

My argument is dishonest? First i've heard of it. What is dishonest about pointing out that Drug addiction decimated China? There are so many sources available which explain this, that I find it hard to believe it is even controversial. It's like saying fire burns down houses.


I'll tell you what's dishonest. It's people who don't have any personal experience with hard drugs and the destruction they cause, telling the rest of us, that they are harmless. Now THAT is dishonest.

How many people do you know who have died, been killed, or gone to prison as a result of their use of hard drugs?

[GIThruster]

You should take note at this juncture D, that Blank still hasn't attempted to answer my argument about the demonstrated fact that cannabis makes people psychotic, the argument that legalization will hugely improve the numbers of psychotics we have to support as a society, or the question about whether his libertarianism isn't in fact in support of all manner of crazy behaviors such as bestiality. These 3 are the only points I've made on this subject and he hasn't answered a single one. He is good at making vacuous charges about his opponents in a debate being clownish, irrational, and dishonest, but in fact, he is the one being clownish, irrational and dishonest.

[Diogenes]

At least I got a concession out of you that they grow, which is in fact, the only salient point. If left alone, Drug usage grows.

Beanstalks grow too but that doesn't make Jack and the Beanstalk true. The rest of your post is just the same tired junk.

"Tired Junk" is in the eye of the beholder. I've heard libertarian crap for decades. Short sighted and simple minded is the best way to describe it. It's just another variation on Liberal Utopian nonsense.

For those who are interested:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americas ... ncy-mexico

An interview with the outgoing Mexican president. It seems they're a bit tired of burying their citizens (60k since he started his drug crackdown) and he wants the US to reconsider its drug policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the ... ml?hpid=z2

Which is happening.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/edito ... policy.ece

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/11/v ... ot-victory

What happens if Central America simply stops the drug war? Hopefully we can find a drug policy that serves to minimize drug use without the level of societal harm we currently suffer.

Speaking of "same tired junk".... this advocacy for capitulation to criminals because they are so mean is a very good example. The proper response to criminals challenging the government is to kill them as quickly and as often as possible. If someone had killed several hundred United States Federal officers, we would not be considering the idea of negotiating with them. We would be pursuing them relentlessly until they are utterly dead.

Suggesting such a thing seems alien to American thinking. Are you another one of them d@mned Furriners?

[Diogenes]

You should take note at this juncture D, that Blank still hasn't attempted to answer my argument about the demonstrated fact that cannabis makes people psychotic, the argument that legalization will hugely improve the numbers of psychotics we have to support as a society, or the question about whether his libertarianism isn't in fact in support of all manner of crazy behaviors such as bestiality. These 3 are the only points I've made on this subject and he hasn't answered a single one. He is good at making vacuous charges about his opponents in a debate being clownish, irrational, and dishonest, but in fact, he is the one being clownish, irrational and dishonest.

I noticed right from the beginning that he would rather dodge a question by nattering on about meaningless irrelevant details than just answer it forthrightly.

Not impressed so far.

[Blankbeard]

Would love to see it. You should have led off with this. It would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.

You seem to be laboring under the belief that I am either trying to or required to convince you of something. That isn't the case. I provided a comprehensive refutation of your argument for the use of anyone reading. Next time you post this argument, a simple link shows it to be wrong again.

Repeating your points will not make them true. So unless you come up with something new, I think we're done here.

You should take note at this juncture D, that Blank still hasn't attempted to answer my argument about

Wrong.

the demonstrated fact that cannabis makes people psychotic,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21363868

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748375

Evidence linking cannabis use to psychosis in teens predisposed to psychosis is strong enough to indicated that those teens should not use cannabis. Evidence linking cannabis to psychosis in teens not otherwise predisposed to psychosis is too weak to make any conclusions. In general, teens should not take any drug, legal or not, except under the care of a physician as their brain structures are not fully developed.

Evidence linking cannabis use to psychosis in adults who are not currently psychotic is very weak.

Further, the study above, commonly presented as strong evidence, seems to have misused their primary measure to try to measure something it is not capable of.
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d195 ... d=21502264

So, a weak argument at best. Also not I posted these links earlier so you were wrong when you claimed I hadn't addressed them.

the argument that legalization will hugely improve the numbers of psychotics we have to support as a society, or

You're arguing that legalization will *improve* or lower the number of psychotics? Don't you mean worsen or increase?

In any case, since the evidence linking cannabis and psychosis in the general population is so weak, there is little need to consider this argument at all.

However

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiolo ... izophrenia

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_can ... by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_life ... by_country

suggests no link between the two. UNODC data backs this up. Note Australia, near the top of cannabis usage, has the lowest effect from schizophrenia. There is simply no evidence this argument is correct and much that it is wrong. Refuted and addressed earlier in the thread.

the question about whether his libertarianism isn't in fact in support of all manner of crazy behaviors such as bestiality.

I haven't addressed this because it's obviously false as anyone who's passed philosophy 101 would know. Criticizing criminalization is not the same as supporting full legalization. Morally wrong and illegal are not the same thing. Further, you cannot generalize. Drug use is inherently morally neutral. Bestiality is morally wrong because it is a violation of stewardship of a living being. Animals are not themselves moral actors but are capable of feeling pain. Inflicting avoidable pain on them for ones own pleasure is thus morally wrong. That's why God invented the Fleshlight.

A first year philosophy student should be capable of working this out on their own.

Refuted and also covered earlier in the thread with ladajo. So wrong three out of three times.

These 3 are the only points I've made on this subject and he hasn't answered a single one. He is good at making vacuous charges about his opponents in a debate being clownish, irrational, and dishonest, but in fact, he is the one being clownish, irrational and dishonest.

They're all either wrong or unproven. You need to provide evidence, not just make claims. And like Diogenes, unless you have something new and evidence supported, you've been refuted and I feel no further need to reply to your screeds.

[GIThruster]

Evidence linking cannabis use to psychosis in adults who are not currently psychotic is very weak.

How absurd to take a drug we all know causes hallucinations and tell us the evidence it causes psychosis is weak. I posted the detailed studies on this a month ago, and honestly, to have you discard the evidence and all common sense based on statements about studies you posted up yourself, is not answering the point. You are a very dishonest man, and that is using the term "man" very loosely.

In any case, since the evidence linking cannabis and psychosis in the general population is so weak, there is little need to consider this argument at all.

So why are you below pretending to have answered the question, when you're here admitting you have no such intention? My argument was that because about only 1/9 people will use an illegal drug, that legalizing cannabis will cause a 9 fold increase in its; use and therefore in cannabis induced psychosis. This is a very simple, common sense argument even a small child can follow. Why do you think it is you're having so much trouble?

Further, you cannot generalize. Drug use is inherently morally neutral. Bestiality is morally wrong because it is a violation of stewardship of a living being.

So you do admit exceptions to your rule that we are not suited to run other people's lives? You do admit there are moral imperatives that society is best interested to support. You just don't admit that there is any moral content in the drug issue.

That makes you a very poor Libertarian. I think you're lying. This stuff about animals being dumb but we have to be good stewards. . .is pretty contrived, especially lacking any evidence that those practicing this sick behavior are causing pain to the animals.

Are you saying if the animals like it as much as having their fur petted it's okay to frick your pet Schnauzer? You're certainly not very rational. Worse yet, to look at all the vast suffering drugs have caused over the centuries and not see the moral component--you're a very immoral man. And again, I use the term "man" loosely. You have no moral compass. You can't tell right from wrong. You're assuming people frick animals is wrong because the animals suffer, when there is no evidence of this, and you assume drugs are neutral and do not inherently cause suffering when there is extreme evidence of this.

You're out of your mind. I think it's the result of the drugs.

[Diogenes]

Would love to see it. You should have led off with this. It would have saved us both a lot of wasted time.

You seem to be laboring under the belief that I am either trying to or required to convince you of something. That isn't the case. I provided a comprehensive refutation of your argument for the use of anyone reading. Next time you post this argument, a simple link shows it to be wrong again.

Please provide such a link. I read everything you posted, and it was just a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuting nothing. You were like an Irishman; Wouldn't talk in a straight line so long as you could find a bush to dance around.

Repeating your points will not make them true. So unless you come up with something new, I think we're done here.

We were done before we started. When I presented the example of logistic growth as with a disease, you said "What kind of disease?"



I knew right then that you weren't interested in an honest discussion. Nobody dodges with irrelevancies if they have a strong argument.

[Diogenes]

I haven't addressed this because it's obviously false as anyone who's passed philosophy 101 would know. Criticizing criminalization is not the same as supporting full legalization. Morally wrong and illegal are not the same thing.

They are exactly the same thing. Laws are defacto legalized morality. The question is not whether it's morality being enforced by the law, the question is who's morality is going to be enforced by the law.

Further, you cannot generalize. Drug use is inherently morally neutral. Bestiality is morally wrong because it is a violation of stewardship of a living being.

These sort of comments always crack me up! Libertarians are always invoking some personal rule of universal morality to which they think everyone adheres, so that they can to their satisfaction, prohibit behavior they personally don't like, and allow for behavior of which they approve. It never occurs to them that their perception is subjective, rather than objective.

Over at "Classical Values" the Proprietor (Erick Schie, if I remember correctly) Argues that he is against Pedophilia because it is illegal. When asked if he was against Homosexuality when it was illegal, he runs away and refuses to answer. Apparently the law is morally correct when it agrees with him, but Morally wrong when it doesn't.

Well played sir!

Animals are not themselves moral actors but are capable of feeling pain. Inflicting avoidable pain on them for ones own pleasure is thus morally wrong. That's why God invented the Fleshlight.

And it continues, and gets even funnier!!! Blankbeard appears unaware of the fact that the majority of beastiality porn features animals having sex with Women. The Women aren't forcing them to do it, the animals have to be restrained to prevent them from doing it!

So it begs the question, should we make them feel pain by stopping them, or should we have pity on the animals and let them? Riddle me that, oh wise one!

They're all either wrong or unproven. You need to provide evidence, not just make claims. And like Diogenes, unless you have something new and evidence supported, you've been refuted and I feel no further need to reply to your screeds.

Yes, if you didn't change my made up mind, you aren't worth listening to. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, that.

[ladajo]

Oh, ladajo, how about those studies you mentioned? I understand you're probably busy.

Finally back Stateside for a while. Thanks for the patience.

Looks like you boys have been busy.

The funny thing about studies is that you can pretty much always find a counter-outcome study. Especially when one takes quantitative basis and leaps to a qualitative conclusion as is mostly the case in drug studies.
The best ones have a solid dual base with a grounded thoery approach, and then a well developed qualitative analysis. Those are few and far between.

But anyways, back to the fun. Since I now once again have unfiltered reference access, I will endeavor to provide links to previous material I have referenced.

[ladajo]

I spent a little time earlier today re-reading the DEA 2011 position paper and specifically looking at the citations. I veritable goldmine if you will.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijua ... n_2011.pdf

[Blankbeard]

Finally back Stateside for a while. Thanks for the patience.

Not a problem. Everyone has a schedule.

Looks like you boys have been busy.

There's been sound and fury to be sure.

The funny thing about studies is that you can pretty much always find a counter-outcome study. Especially when one takes quantitative basis and leaps to a qualitative conclusion as is mostly the case in drug studies.
The best ones have a solid dual base with a grounded thoery approach, and then a well developed qualitative analysis. Those are few and far between.

This is why I keep insisting on primary research. We get to see what was done, to who, how it was done, how results are measured. Remember the study referenced by all of those "pot doubles the risk of psychosis" articles you brought up earlier? Initially, it looked really strong. Looking at the study, it had a serious methodological problem. It's hard to say that they had any actual results at all.

The best studies are those that use a double blind procedure, those that use proper randomization, those that have a control group with a placebo or other sham intervention, ideally all of the above. Obviously the FDA isn't approving drug studies that are designed like that so we're left with weaker studies. Still, weaker studies are vastly preferable to simply making stuff up, which seems to be the method of choice in political discussions of this issue.

I have to say that the first two sentences of this quote seem like well poisoning. I hope that isn't the case.

But anyways, back to the fun. Since I now once again have unfiltered reference access, I will endeavor to provide links to previous material I have referenced.

Appreciated.

[Blankbeard]

I spent a little time earlier today re-reading the DEA 2011 position paper and specifically looking at the citations. I veritable goldmine if you will.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/docs/marijua ... n_2011.pdf

I'd refer to it as fool's gold. Out of 287 cites (not references, cites) I count 5 references to primary literature. And that's counting anything that looks like primary literature as if it were and the results of a survey. There's no literature review, nothing to actually convince the skeptical mind that policy is correct, effective, or sane.

Of course, that's not the point of a policy document. If all you want is the DEA's position, this is a gold mine.

[ladajo]

It is not a study, it is a postion paper. But what it does provide are names/dates and pointers to others that have referenced studies or done them. It is some legwork, but that is fundamentally what a lit review is.

I was looking over a Canadian policy paper yesterday, but had to move on to some other more important things. I will try to get some time today to look it up again. It also had a good list of pointers for further review, a number of them dealing with psychosis.

I am well versed in the prosecution of studies and research. Especially Qualitative, where in my opinion a lot of the drug debate actually lays, unlike those who push numbers would like for everyone to believe.

[Blankbeard]

It is not a study, it is a postion paper. But what it does provide are names/dates and pointers to others that have referenced studies or done them. It is some legwork, but that is fundamentally what a lit review is.

No, it really isn't even close to being the same thing. It references dozens of newspaper articles and other position papers. It explains the policy and gives the reasons for that policy. It does not address whether that policy is justified, supported by data, or better than alternatives.

In a literature review, the body of literature on a subject is scanned, evaluated, and either reported or used to determine whether evidence supports a given statement under investigation. In a policy paper, a statement is put forth and other statements are marshaled in support of it.

I went through the references the first time you posted a link to that paper. I skimmed them again when you posted it again. There isn't much there if you're interested in asking questions about effectiveness or evidentiary support.

I was looking over a Canadian policy paper yesterday, but had to move on to some other more important things. I will try to get some time today to look it up again. It also had a good list of pointers for further review, a number of them dealing with psychosis.

I am well versed in the prosecution of studies and research. Especially Qualitative, where in my opinion a lot of the drug debate actually lays, unlike those who push numbers would like for everyone to believe.

Those who push numbers? Have breast cancer? Try new Schnopinex! We didn't bother with those confusing numbers, we gave it a funny name. Schnopinex: The fun cancer medication!

And it isn't a qualitative question whether disease X appears after using substance Y. Or whether drug use rates have fallen in Portugal since they changed their drug law or whether psychosis rates in Ireland quadrupled after they changed theirs. You can't feel your way to an answer for these questions. Life is not an opt-in survey.

We've had our leaders pushing programs based on their qualitative attributes my whole life and now we, as a nation, are broke and in debt with programs we can't pay for. Maybe we can feel our way out of this. Or maybe we need to pay more attention to those who push numbers.

[GIThruster]

You can pretend you're the champion of hard numbers all you like, but facts are facts. When studies come in that cannabis use does not lower global IQ, except in those who smoke 5 joints or more a week, it's pretty obvious the report is worded to support drug use. How many people know people who smoke dope and smoke less than 5 joints per week? Dopers smoke daily. Daily use is casual use. What people are supporting when they champion drug legalization and use is a serious drop in intelligence across an enormous population. So you can pretend you're the champion of numbers, but really you're just the champion of drugs.