Post #367,523
12/8/12 8:03:00 PM
|
rc lectures bho
I've never written to a US president before (well, that's not strictly true: I wrote to Nixon about this time 43 years ago, but since the envelope contained contraband, my Christmas card was mailed anonymously—I like to think that someone in the mailroom smoked the rest of the joint), but I was moved late last month to sign my name to this: Dear President Obama,
I summon to your attention the editorial by Timothy Egan in ThursdayÂs New York Times regarding the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado and the advisability of federal noninterference in these state-level policy experiments.
That the Âwar on drugs, and particularly the war on marijuana, has endured since it was launched under that name by President Nixon is an indictment of the political cowardice of my generation. That it has continued under your administration is at best a sign of cynical political calculation, and IÂm cool with that: with a second term in the balance, you were under no obligation to hand the GOP a club with which to belabor you.
The electionÂs over, though, and itÂs time to do the right and the moral thing. You are, by your own account and the accounts of others, a former marijuana user. Consider that had you been arrested for this, your political career would have been stillborn. You would not be president today. How many recently arrested twenty year-olds (under punitive policies you have countenanced) will have potentially productive careers curtailed or foreclosed?
Our prevailing drug policies ruin many more lives than they save. You know this. It may not be practical to advance enlightened and humane practices on the federal level, but it is absolutely unconscionable to thwart these as they are advanced on the state levelÂthe Âlaboratories of democracy. I venture to hope that we may look for a decent circumspection and inaction in this area over the course of your second term.
IÂm under no illusion that any given letter is actually read by the President, and do not require the kabuki of a Âreply consisting of pious noncommittal boilerplate over an autopen signature. IÂm content to have the sentiment I express here added to those letters of like mind, and would like to think that when enough of these have been tallied, the Administration will find the courage not to act. They appear to have taken me at my word, since to date there has been no pious boilerplate in the mail.
I have only a very small dog in this fight, since I'm not planning to resume my consumption of the herb until later in the decade, but while I have been prepared to cut this administration a fair amount of slack on "national security" issues because I can vividly imagine the political, bureaucratic and sinister shadow-government obstacles to humane policies, I believe that all these same elements, while still present, are significantly less powerful in the "war on drugs" arena. Shee-it, Barry, what's political capital for, if not to expend? At a minimum, I want to see the killer weed knocked down to Schedule II before 2017, ya bastid.
smoke 'em if you got 'em,
|
Post #367,525
12/8/12 8:39:52 PM
|
WH replies can take months
It's a good letter. Thanks for sharing.
They get millions of letters a year.
I think they do get read and filtered, if they're not obvious crank letters.
On their web page, there's a check box if you want a written reply, and those can take months in my experience (I was curious what I would get back).
You'll probably get Christmas cards from Bo from now on. ;-)
They have had various petitions over the years on marijuana, some that they've responded to (when they've exceeded some number of votes).[*] I don't blame them for cracking down on dispensaries that were obvious money laundering outfits[**], etc., but the federal and state rules are a mess. Unfortunately, he can't do much to fix this on his own. Congress needs to change the rules, and apply some science to the classifications and some rationalizations to the rules and punishments, and that probably won't happen until more of the 70+ year olds leave... :-(
Cheers,
Scott.
[*] - e.g. https://petitions.wh...-efforts/hvcsS8pC
[**] - e.g. http://www.sentinels...8a59d158bfad.html
|
Post #367,528
12/8/12 9:50:50 PM
|
those 70yo were 25 in 1967,
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,531
12/8/12 10:03:50 PM
|
precisely
...but I used to keep company with a woman whose sexual and chemical conduct from about 1967 to 1974 was, to put it delicately, extravagant. When she found herself the mother of a young daughter in the 1980s, her social opinions flipped, and she wanted the same folks who'd sold her reefer in 1969 put away for life before her little girl was ever exposed to the killer weed. I suspect that the "tea party" ranks are swollen with a lot of boomers whose morals and conduct were pretty loose back in the day.
cordially,
|
Post #367,534
12/8/12 10:50:09 PM
|
I would suspect you are correct sir
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,570
12/9/12 9:04:31 PM
|
Reminds me of that old ad.
A young Black man talking about how cool it was to smoke dope. The narrator then asks,"What if someone gave it to your little brother?" He raises his fist and replies, "I'd crack their head." This has been my experience with the majority of advocates.
|
Post #367,571
12/9/12 9:30:41 PM
|
just to clarify
The woman I described (whose daughter will be, I think, 34 next year, and who has a couple of graduate degrees) was an "outlier" in my circle, most of whom have kept discreetly inhaling the past four decades and change. Among those who became parents, I think they were inclined to prefer their wee bairn avoid intoxicants during the formative years, but at least a few now enjoy a relaxing doobie with their grown children now and again. I am certain that your own daughters, mmoffitt, have always been far too tactful to raise the subject.
cordially,
|
Post #367,579
12/10/12 7:31:39 AM
|
Bingo
I've seen it go both way.
Hippie couple (peace, love, etc) raised their 2 kids in a totally open honest somewhat permissive environment.
Both kids died of drug overdoses.
They reinvented themselves as a 100% straight laced couple, lied to the next pair of kids for 20 years, and the kids turned out ok.
But most put it on a shelf for a while, and are terrified their kids will find it and take it to school for show-and-tell. They won't smoke in their own house for fear of their own kids informing on them.
It is a magic moment when your kids grow up and you can be honest with them if you live that kind of life. And pass the doobie to them.
I quit everything at age 18 and spent the next 27 years being "good" (legally). So that meant I was not a hypocrite on the subject with my kids. I didn't even drink until they were around 15. Did't start really enjoying until they were both 18. I satisfied my responsibilities and then could move on.
How about you MM? When was the last time you had a drink? Was it in front of the "kids"? How's your personal control? How many years can you keep up the "good" example?
|
Post #367,587
12/10/12 8:34:55 AM
|
I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe
we were visiting friends when the doobs came out. I passed on the joints while my son watched from the floor as it was on a porch and that is where he and I were going to camp out. On our way home I asked him if he noticed that I wasn't partaking. He had noticed and asked me why not. I told him I didn't want to. Simple answer, no judgement being made. Just a note that its not mandatory to participate and no foul if you don't.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #368,142
12/18/12 10:19:25 PM
|
Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe
Nicely done, Box!
"No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT...there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer.
Believe."
— New Mexico Tech's Office of Advancement 2010 Christmas card.
jb4
|
Post #367,594
12/10/12 8:51:21 AM
|
Actually, we have discussed it.
At length even. And I was honest, as I have always tried to be with them. I told them that my personal experience was witnessing two children becoming orphans, four motherless and my own mother having head trauma, her femur jammed up under her collar bone, staying in hospital initially for two years and then spending a lifetime of return trips to hospital for additional surgeries all directly due to someone using the "harmless" illicit drug marijuana. I told them that since my own childhood was disrupted in a very negative way by that drug, it was impossible for me to speak about this issue without great emotion. But, I said, we could certainly agree on a few facts. First, it is illegal. Second, a positive drug test on their records could forever preclude them from pursuing some professions. Finally, because of its illegal status, using it would mean involving themselves with criminals. That is not an opinion. It is a fact. Using an illicit substance requires that you become involved with people in an illegal undertaking; criminals in other words.
Interesting that you noted your "outlier" produced a child with "a couple of graduate degrees". How many of the "grown children" whose parents "enjoy a relaxing doobie" with them have graduate degrees?
|
Post #367,634
12/10/12 4:53:52 PM
|
Every single one of your points is based on illegality
Every single one.
Remove the illegality and there are no points.
|
Post #367,646
12/10/12 9:45:15 PM
|
Read in New Scientist today:
Legalizing medical marijuana in Colorado led to a 14% drop in drunk driving accidents.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #367,707
12/11/12 3:13:16 PM
|
Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE
Sigh.
|
Post #367,733
12/12/12 8:31:11 AM
12/12/12 8:36:14 AM
|
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
"Research" done by a former (or current) stoner, doubtless.
Edited by mmoffitt
Dec. 12, 2012, 08:36:14 AM EST
|
Post #367,743
12/12/12 9:32:11 AM
|
Ad hominem
--
Drew
|
Post #367,748
12/12/12 10:10:00 AM
|
I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0)
|
Post #367,757
12/12/12 1:10:03 PM
|
Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #367,758
12/12/12 1:11:18 PM
|
Thanks.
|
Post #367,762
12/12/12 1:29:34 PM
|
The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated
|
Post #367,784
12/12/12 10:18:03 PM
|
So what?
Do more research.
Don't worry, we'll keep the light on for you.
|
Post #367,635
12/10/12 5:34:01 PM
|
That would be dumb
He's got a great career going, no graduate degree required.
He pays for the house that I live in.
When he walks through the door after a tough day at the office I have his version of a martini ready. No pearls or heels required, that's for when M gets home 2 hours later.
Obviously, you've done it wrong.
|
Post #367,636
12/10/12 7:27:52 PM
|
hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels....
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #368,603
12/27/12 2:59:12 PM
|
Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels....
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain ÂPuddÂnhead WilsonÂs New Calendar, 1897
|
Post #368,722
12/30/12 9:15:17 AM
|
Watch it
I actually CAN post a pic like that from my Rocky Horror days.
Heels, lingerie, and fishnets as well.
Once seen, you can't unsee it. No matter how much bleach.
|
Post #367,578
12/10/12 7:15:52 AM
12/10/12 7:20:21 AM
|
Nicely programmed
Take someone who has made a possibly poor personal decision, and ask them if they'd want their little brother to make the decision. Add a little racist touch. Believe that is a valid viewpoint to spread across the assumed population, then use it as "advice" to those outside it. Then give a "validation" because all the YOUR interaction with these "type" of people are the same.
Your interaction is dictated by your attitude. You'll see what you want to (or really "don't want to" but really you enjoy it, you get that really cool moralistic surge, you just don't admit it)
Most of that person's "poor decision" is legal ramifications. And dangerousnous associated with acquiring/dealing. Of course you'd want to keep family members away.
CONTROLLED. Like alcohol.
Keep it away from the kids. It'll be a constant tug of war, but it will be an honest one. Right now they can get it, and pretty much anything else they want from the same person. And that person has an incentive to sell them smaller, more easily concealable addictive alternatives.
Yes, some people will abuse. they already do. But most don't, and are being penalized for the hysterical response from people like you.
PUT THEM IN JAIL.
fuck you.
It is NOT physically addictive, at least not like anything else, and withdrawal (ooh nooo, I'm blah for a couple of days) does not lead to seizures like alcohol.
And no concept of pot dealers upselling to any other chemical. Poof, gone, the "gateway" drug concept disappears.
I will happily share with any adult family member. I will not go near anyone younger than 18 (for legal AND moral reasons, they have years of brain maturing to go) and my preference is 25+ for general association.
And guess what? Someone already shared it with your kids. They just are never going to tell you. You've made it obvious you will not accept any discussion on this point.
Ooooo noes Mr billllllll.
So now, maybe they decided they like it, but there is a clamp down, they can't get any, but the local gas station has this really cool thing called bath salts. Maybe they should try that? Those idiots in congress and the press call it synthetic pot, it can't hurt you, can it?
How many deaths later?
Because people like you want to keep a mostly harmless substance from the general population.
Asshole.
I wonder if your kids have visited the local gas station lately for some perfectly legal fun.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 10, 2012, 07:20:21 AM EST
|
Post #367,532
12/8/12 10:27:27 PM
|
Yeah?
http://oversight.hou...rict-of-columbia/
Committee Members
REPUBLICAN
Chair: Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-4) (Born 1964)
Vice Chair: Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-1) (Born 1958)
Dan Burton (IN-5) (Born 1938)
John Mica (FL-7) (Born 1943)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10) (Born 1975)
Scott Desjarlais (TN-4) (Born 1964)
Joe Walsh (IL-8) (Born 1961)
DEMOCRAT
Danny Davis (IL-7) Ranking Member (Born 1941)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) (Born 1937)
Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-1) (Born 1956)
Christopher Murphy (CT-5) (Born 1973)
Yeah, age is too simplistic a discriminator.
Maybe the people at the NIH and the ONDCP are right that there are dangers and no legitimate uses for smoked pot as a medicinal. I dunno. But the law and the law enforcement efforts clearly need to be reformed.
Too many people are locked up for drug offenses. Kids shouldn't have their future lives ruined (by getting a police record) for experimentation that doesn't hurt anyone. And there's too little rehabilitation and too much illegal money is involved. Big changes are needed.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,535
12/8/12 10:51:21 PM
|
make up your mind or read what you write :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,537
12/8/12 10:53:20 PM
|
Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :)
|
Post #367,529
12/8/12 9:51:15 PM
|
excellent!
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,542
12/9/12 6:56:54 AM
|
Well.. if he sees it--
I'd bet you'll get back *some* reply/quip/pen&ink caricature?
(As someone steeped in the entire pseudo-science-cha-cha-cha of the Law, he would, I expect: appreciate that you cut to the bone of the 'logic' aspect of the Stupid Shit-for-brains behind most of our puritanical sin-taxes.
So.. I'd guess your missive would pulse his System.)
[OTOH, what do I Know: given the likelihood of anything he scribbles.. subsequently getting blogged/spindled/mutilated enroute: uh, never mind..]
|
Post #367,569
12/9/12 6:20:38 PM
|
victims of federally legalized pot
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,577
12/10/12 6:53:03 AM
|
Awwww
I'd have stop being "this guy".
|
Post #367,591
12/10/12 8:43:45 AM
|
Very sincere...
and I completely agree this "War On Drugs!" has done far more harm to more people than it has saved.
Let alone built a HUGE... HUGE>>> HYARGE!!! Prison System in nearly every state. Some states even have specialized in out sourcing for other states, so they don't have to build.
I mean, damn, THC Butter... at really high percentages of THC, if you ate your fill of it, the worst thing that'll happen is you sleeping for a while. I doubt there has been a documented overdose on POT... now being stupid while on POT does present a problem... so does alcohol.
I mean... guess if you concentrated the THC hard enough into something inject-able... I guess you might be able to kill yourself. But "Dude" pot ain't about that at all.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,595
12/10/12 9:01:49 AM
|
Or kill someone else.
It's happened. To three of the very best people I ever met in my life. They were killed in the early thirties. This "it's harmless" argument is only ever made by users and junkies.
|
Post #367,598
12/10/12 9:28:35 AM
|
neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless
when used in a proper setting. Behind the wheel is not a proper setting. Sorry for your loss.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,599
12/10/12 9:58:24 AM
12/10/12 10:02:00 AM
|
Where does...
Now let us quote my post a second: " now being stupid while on POT does present a problem... so does alcohol."
Come into play with that. It should be regulated like alcohol.
I addressed it Mike. --
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Edited by folkert
Dec. 10, 2012, 10:02:00 AM EST
|
Post #367,615
12/10/12 1:42:44 PM
|
No acknowledgement?
Ok. I see how it is.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,616
12/10/12 1:44:59 PM
|
You need to reread your post and my follow up.
You didn't mention potential damage to others in your original. That's all I was pointing out.
|
Post #367,632
12/10/12 4:24:20 PM
|
Was inferred by the alcohol comment.
But I guess you need something like this:
The worst thing that can possibly happen to you is you falling asleep for a few days after eating a pound of THC butter. That is *UNLESS* you are operating heavy machinery or operating a motor vehicle or other type of powered item, since you might KILL SOMEONE like you can while driving while intoxicated with alcohol. Driving "BUZZED" is Driving "DRUNK" and should and needs to be treated in no uncertain terms that way with laws in the exact same vein. Pot needs to be regulated like Alcohol, but should NOT be illegal and included in the "War on Drugs" unless you want to include Alcohol and Tobacco in the "War on Drugs".
There is that enough CLARIFICATION FOR YOU?
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,600
12/10/12 10:02:25 AM
|
Remind me: do you drink?
|
Post #367,601
12/10/12 10:12:22 AM
|
Red Herring much?
|
Post #367,602
12/10/12 10:24:22 AM
|
Nope
It has some bearing on the rational basis (or lack thereof) for to your unbending opposition to pot, since the butcher's bill for drunk driving year in, year out is so much steeper. So I'm wondering whether you oppose all intoxicants (and walk the abstemious walk) or merely those you feel to have had a malign effect on your own life.
|
Post #367,604
12/10/12 11:51:51 AM
|
Steeper? Well, perhaps.
Or perhaps just better measured. Certainly the three deaths I mentioned never added to any sort of "pot" tally. But the driver was tested for alcohol, and that test was negative.
I reject your assertion that other intoxicants are under discussion or that my lack of opposition to alcohol has any bearing on the topic at hand. I have already conceded the deaths and accompanying devastation to many lives that followed on account of pot have left me unable to discuss this dispassionately. Perhaps if the "it is completely harmless in all cases and most beneficial" nonsense that is argued in favor of pot had not been so strong for the entirety of my life, I wouldn't be so adamant in my opposition to it. I remember sitting in an eighth grade Social Studies class mere months after the accident hearing an argument from my fellow students that "Pot never killed anyone". When I protested that I knew that was not true, the teacher "corrected" me. He, too believed that.
I've known many drunks in my life, but I've never met one who didn't concede it was potentially dangerous. The same cannot (quite obviously!) be said about those advocating pot use.
The fact that you didn't answer my question is not lost on me. How many of the well adjusted, adult children who enjoy an occasional doobie with their parents have graduate degrees? Think there might be a causal relationship there?
|
Post #367,607
12/10/12 12:32:25 PM
|
I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees
All have at least completed undergraduate degrees by now. And the daughter alluded to above with the two postgraduate degrees (correction: she's still working on the doctorate, it turns out)? I probably should have mentioned that in her mid-twenties, the last point at which I have a direct account* of her, she was an occasional consumer of the demon herb, so you can put your "causal relationship" in your pipe and, you know.
*From her mother, whose own stance had considerably relaxed from its former rigidity.
|
Post #367,608
12/10/12 12:48:23 PM
|
yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody
I personally know people who were killed by that additive in the water supply
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,609
12/10/12 12:49:45 PM
|
[citation needed]
|
Post #367,611
12/10/12 1:23:15 PM
|
Re: [citation needed]
"www.fluoridation.com/poison.htm#Richard Foulkes" relatives
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,626
12/10/12 2:44:12 PM
|
That's not "fluoridation is bad"
...that's "industrial accidents are bad".
No different to excess chlorine in the water, or aluminium - both of which are used in the water treatment process, and both of which have caused fatalities in the past.
Might as well get excited by chemtrails or HAARP, tbh.
|
Post #367,610
12/10/12 12:55:28 PM
|
Red herring.
I'm sorry for your loss.
Nobody (of any integrity) denies that there have deaths due to fluoride poising. It's toxic at high levels.
http://en.wikipedia....Fluoride_toxicity
There have been deaths due to drinking too much water, too. :-(
http://en.wikipedia....ater_intoxication
The question here is whether "normal" consumption of MJ should be regulated differently than now.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,612
12/10/12 1:38:53 PM
|
Assumes facts not in evidence.
What, exactly, is "normal" use of an illegal drug?
Believe it or not, I have softened quite a bit on this issue since Rand and I last got into it (how many years ago was that? I think marlowe was still actively posting back then). My position now is pretty much, "Go ahead. Get high every day. Post all of your information on Facebook. Play Xbox 24/7 when you can keep your eyes open and for Christ's sake, please keep voting for idiots. Just be sure you have a carload of your compatriots riding along with you when you decide to drive. Most of you [not "you" as in the people here, but "you" as in the great mass of Murican Peeple] will never amount to a cold bucket of spit anyway." I mean, hell, Indiana University is one of our best universities and one in four degrees awarded at that institution is in business ferchrissakes. We're done. We're completely cooked. The load-o's have taken over and we are falling fast. There is no fixin' this. And a big part of me believes that no small part of our demise is due to the fact that the stoner generation is in charge of almost everything now.
|
Post #367,613
12/10/12 1:41:31 PM
|
Mixing up cause and effect
The world doesn't suck because people self-medicate. People self-medicate because the world sucks.
--
Drew
|
Post #367,614
12/10/12 1:42:16 PM
|
So, the chicken came first? ;0)
|
Post #367,623
12/10/12 2:31:20 PM
|
According to the chicken, the rooster did
--
Drew
|
Post #367,633
12/10/12 4:38:55 PM
|
Yabut the rooster didn't care.
|
Post #367,617
12/10/12 1:54:01 PM
|
lrpd that sucker
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,620
12/10/12 2:05:42 PM
|
criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry
Drink a flask of vodka and drive erratically (or run into other vehicles, pedestrians, etc), and feel the codified weight of community censure. Stay home alone with the flask and the toot, and feel the hangover.
For drink and vodka substitute sundry other blood/brain avenues of access and other potentially intoxicating substances—marijuana, heroin, oxycontin, khat, Nyquil, valium, LSD-25, crystal meth, codeinated cough syrup, morning glory seeds, et cetera—and extrapolate.
cordially,
|
Post #367,627
12/10/12 2:44:50 PM
|
It's a quagmire!
|
Post #367,630
12/10/12 3:27:44 PM
|
No.
|
Post #367,637
12/10/12 8:05:13 PM
|
"how many years ago was that?"
Sprouting from a post by—why yes, our beloved marlowe!—that thread raged for a week and a total of 110 comments. It was ten years ago this spring. A cursory review suggests that we have broken no new ground of discourse these past few days.
http://forum.iwethey....iwt?postid=97159
cordially,
|
Post #367,640
12/10/12 9:24:27 PM
|
That was a good thread. Thanks.
|
Post #367,645
12/10/12 9:45:10 PM
|
Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though.
Somehow that has been retained following IWT's resurrection.
cordially,
|
Post #367,648
12/10/12 9:47:19 PM
|
Probably something long in one of the posts.
I don't think I'm going to wade through 100+ posts to try to figure out what.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #367,650
12/10/12 9:52:28 PM
|
I think it was me.
I posted a table with auto accident statistics and used TT or PRE or something. That always seemed to break the subsequent word-wrapping.
:-(
Sorry.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,679
12/11/12 11:03:03 AM
|
Seconded. And I'm glad to see...
that it was almost entirely civil. Much more so than I recalled. And more than a little melancholy for me when I read the little exchange between Beep and me. ;0(
|
Post #367,642
12/10/12 9:35:05 PM
|
After all that...
Look who is Vice-President!!!
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,647
12/10/12 9:46:15 PM
|
Yup. I chuckled at that.
|
Post #367,670
12/11/12 8:27:41 AM
|
Holy smokes. Thanks.
|
Post #367,710
12/11/12 3:58:58 PM
12/12/12 8:01:51 AM
|
Wow
Where the hell was I when that was going on?
Hey MM, I figured out the core issue (besides the dead best buds and all).
You have bought into "Reefer Madness" (you'll love that flick, go watch it) perspective, where once smoked is eternally insane.
We KNOW now (we did not then) that THC triggers prolactin in the brain and makes guys get mini-post orgasm relaxation, and it makes women horny (reefer madness got that right!!!) and possessive. We KNOW this now.
We can explain the various pot head stereotypical behaviors. And we know how block them if we want to, ie: gotta exercise to drive dopamine up (what was that bullshit back then about it pushing dopamine. where'd you pull that from? You wipe that region recently?). And it EXPLAINS why some people can think ok in a short while and others can't.
Talking to the guys here: When you orgasm, you get pretty stupid for a bit. That is the result of the prolactin that just got dumped in your bloodstream. YAY prolactin.
You can drift away and go to sleep, or you can get hungry, force yourself up, and go to the fridge. That was dopamine pushing you. As dopamine rises (move faster), prolactin goes down. 10 minutes later you can be pretty clear headed after an orgasm, right?
The prolactin is pretty much GONE at that point.
You want to know how you can be SURE the prolactin has dropped? You can get another erection. Prolactin is responsible for the refractory period, ie: the amount of time after orgasm a guy cannot have another erection.
Let's move back to cannabis, and if you make me track down and scan the medical journal articles I will, but you better have a damn fine reason for calling bullshit.
THC triggers prolactin (known). Not nearly as high a dose as orgasm, but up there.
The amount of prolactin you get from pot is usually FAR less than sex. You can still (usually) get an erection after smoking pot, ie: not enough to cause refractory period effects.
ALL THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REMAIN THE SAME. You move fast, the prolactin goes down. And god forbid, you might actually be able to fool a real person at that point. Becuase your capabilities ARE returned. The prolactin has dropped.
But the full body pain killing still works along with the full body anti-inflammatory properties.
So, you scared of a little prolactin? Why? It might make you nicer? It might give you a bit of feminine viewpoint? Uhoh, might be a plot to turn us all gay!
Don't forget the passionflower extract, it will block the feminizing (really, pot grow tits in guys) aspect and you'll remain the macho guy you are.
See, it does have downsides.
But as for driving? 1st 10 minutes, nope, won't try to judge, I will only assume I can't.
Then won't for a couple of hours. Depends on the pot. Some is weak with very little mental effect and I'd need to smoke continuously to maintain a mediocre high. But it still works for pain, and I only use it every 4-8 hours or so. But then we have the social weed, and that stuff is 2 hits DO NOT DRIVE. Don't do it. For about 30 min the high will increase, and you can't judge where it will go since everyone is unique in that aspect. But then, you are done, doesn't get any higher.
If the need arises, 10 minutes of exercise will drive up the dopamine. That drives down the prolactin (they are in a balance). Poof, vast majorityof mental state is back to the baseline crazy.I still am affected, absolutely. I can judge by what "feels fast".
No music or any unnecessary distractions though. Setup GPS beforehand. No eating. Focus is important, and mind wandering is dangerous. The vehicle is a several thousand pound bullet. Take this shit very seriously.
Basically, is 55 MPH fast? Holy shit, I've smoked way too much, pull the fuck over.
Happened once. I should not have driven far enough to get on the entrance. But I did. Dumb. Not again.
Is 65 fast? Ehh, yeah, but is it scary feeling? Well, dumb shit, drive at 55 no matter what the speed limit is (speed limit could be 65)
The key is to be able to judge your reaction time and adjust, just like you do in the rain.
And since it is nothing like driving drunk (really man, NOTHING), it is more like driving after just getting a blowjob, it doesn't trigger speeding and overcorrection. It triggers people driving too slow and annoying you.
BTW: This is the same process you use (on the doctor's direction) when you are any prescribed medication. I've been on major painkillers for many years and made these exact decisions, and they are legally justifiable and directed.
Driving under the influence of THC is WAY safer than driving under the influence of percocet, and for some people, those type of meds are lifelong, and they get to choose when they drive as long as they don't hit anyone or swerve around and get caught. And in those cases, caught isn't that bad. They aren't forced into rehab because they had an accident while under the influence of these narcotics. They are prescribed more and told to be more careful.
I haven't touched a "real" narcotic in years, and am very happy for it.
And as far as it changing people's lives forever, yes it does. Just like sex. Some people can handle it, some people can't. Sorry.
Referring to the long term fat storage here that you loved to rant about back then. If microscopic amount of THC is released during fat burn (or just fat cell life cycle) (allowing for your insanity here, assuming it has an effect), the effect is the same as a bit of continuous prolactin release.
This happens to guys when they fall in love and are having frequent sex. It alters their personality. It makes them more socialized. Less testosterone, more estriol. Happens more when they become fathers. It makes them more acceptable to the general group.
The derogatory term is pussywhipped. It's real, it has a biological bases, it is not a choice if you don't have the passion flower extract handy. On the other hand, if you try to block it, well, you marraige may suffer and you may be a selfish prick to you wife and kids, which is what it is trying to cut out.
Most women prefer this personality type for long term relationship. We evolved for it. But they love a fling with the alpha for that occasional genetic refresh.
There are always guys who have a gut reaction against other guys with those types of personalities. Those are the homophobics. Because the homophobes do pick up on that feminine personality edge, and they don't like it. I was (and am now) somewhat feminine. I certainly have a languid posture. I can bitch pretty damn well.
They thought I was gay. I stole their girlfriends.
The macho jock homophobes call the dopers fags. They have a hint of science to back them on it, but obviously I think they go a bit far in their personal overreaction.
So, long term release of unmeasurable amount of THC causing a trivial amount of prolactin to be present (as compared to becoming a father and living that life of ever increasing prolactin) would equate to a trivial amount of additional socialization behavior.
Jeez, tough when people are easier to get along with, EXCEPT WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO THROW US IN JAIL.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 11, 2012, 04:10:07 PM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 11, 2012, 04:19:32 PM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 11, 2012, 04:22:43 PM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 11, 2012, 04:29:04 PM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 07:04:51 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 07:25:24 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 07:43:52 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 08:01:51 AM EST
|
Post #367,714
12/11/12 6:30:28 PM
|
dunno about anyone else but
after I kick a knot I want to build car motors, clean the garage, an amphetamine like manic stage kicks in for an hour or so.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,722
12/12/12 6:51:48 AM
12/12/12 8:26:43 AM
|
You show the female response
Nesting behavior is one of them.
You display it HARD.
And you can expect it to increase as you age.
Go get the passionflower extract now, smoking or not, you want it.
Really.
Do you JUMP up, say, thanks, hon, gotta go to the garage, or do you at least hang with her for a couple of minutes?
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 07:30:11 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 08:26:43 AM EST
|
Post #367,728
12/12/12 8:18:09 AM
|
not nesting, invigourated
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,729
12/12/12 8:19:25 AM
|
Then you are not done.
Time for the 2nd pass.
|
Post #367,730
12/12/12 8:20:47 AM
|
2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,731
12/12/12 8:29:44 AM
|
Longer delay, more prolactin
Rather have 1 than 5.
And never sore.
Better living through understanding of chemistry.
|
Post #367,746
12/12/12 10:00:56 AM
|
nope
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,718
12/12/12 12:25:36 AM
|
So why not cut out the middleman?
If it's the prolactin that's the main cause of the benefits, why not just take a pill (titrated with whatever "passionflower extract" is needed to minimize the development of female secondary sexual characteristics)? Hasn't the argument always been that bare THC or whatever doesn't work as well as the doobie?
It seems to me that inhaling smoke, of whatever sort, is a health hazard (no matter what offsetting benefits there may be) - it's not "harmless" as some advocates say.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,721
12/12/12 6:50:53 AM
|
Because THC alone is BAD
And for most, it is not the goal. People need CBD as well, and in varying ratios for different effects.
The goal can be a an enjoyable sharable experience for a group of people (social lubricant) or the goal could be one of it's variety of medical uses (painkiller (global, narcotic like but no breathing depression), pain killer (local, stop generation of pain chemicals during actual flesh tear), anti-inflammatory, appetite stimulant, muscle relaxant, sleep aid.) Some of the immediate uses, others are long term like anti-cancer.
The experience will be determined by the ratio of THC to CBD. The more THC, the "higher" you will get. The more CBD, the "lower" (couch lock, serious anti-pain) you will go.
THC alone will cause psychotic breaks in the most stable of people. When mixed with CBD, the mental effects are moderated.
There are a few other main chemicals that have an effect, found in trace qty and varying by plant species, but very little true research in them.
As far as ALL combustion products being dangerous, you can assume all you want, but studies have shown otherwise. This is an area you will seem to say: but we do't know enough yet.
http://www.scienceda.../120110163444.htm
Yes, yes we do. A joint a day for 7 years shows no harmful effect. And when they didn't show any (they WANTED to find it), they then said: But we don't know for longer term. Yes they do.
But if you REALLY believed that, then there are a bunch of alternative methods. Cooking in brownies, oil extract under the tongue, vaporizer (no flame, extract temperature, NO smoke), etc.
I need to understand YOUR goal.
Is it limited adult distribution via a chemical extracted (and/or synthesized), controlled by the Dr and drug companies, and still putting people in jail for possession?
Or is is legalization like alcohol, while maintaining a wary stance?
And if that, is home growing prohibited?
Or somewhere in between?
Obviously, I want full adult legalization with hard penalties for supplying minors and a real DUI test. Test mental capacity, test reflexes, test memory, test distraction. Test all these for any type of infraction, and ignore the blood quantities since they do not match mental state.
I NEVER want the storm trooper to have a reason to break down the door if I'm growing a plant because it competes with a high paying interest. And that is what the world seems to be right now.
|
Post #367,726
12/12/12 8:09:20 AM
|
Read that link again.
"it's long been known that marijuana smoke has many irritant chemicals found in tobacco smoke and can cause lung irritation, wheezing and cough immediately after use;"
Any smoke contains CO and CO2 in addition to all sorts of particulates. It's not good for you.
There may be beneficial drugs in the smoke, but that doesn't make smoking (of anything) harmless.
I'll see if I can find a study of what's actually in the smoke...
More later.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,727
12/12/12 8:14:48 AM
|
Remember, even if you find it
it doesn't matter. Many alternative input methods, that will be determined by your answering what your goals are.
So what are your goals?
Prescribed or legal?
|
Post #367,755
12/12/12 12:51:45 PM
|
My goals: Rational, sensible policy.
I said as much earlier: http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367532 and in olden-days: http://forum.iwethey....iwt?postid=98059
Of course, nothing in life is risk-free. Medical treatments, and even food, has risks. (There are toxins in mustard and beer.)
You didn't say "harmless", but other advocates have. https://www.google.c...&client=firefox-a
My points in all of this is that:
0) The human body is complicated. We don't really understand it. What seems "harmless" now may easily turn out to be otherwise. I'm suspicious of any categorical statements. (Including that one. ;-)
1) Yes, in general, bad and dangerous behavior should be punished rather than yes/no or 0.07%/0.08% BAC arbitrary limits for substances in the blood (that can get there other ways). But we know that it is human nature that those in power will apply power arbitrarily if they choose to do so. Some objective standards are necessary to protect against arbitrary incarceration. What's the balance?
2) The conventional wisdom is that too many people are in prison for small amounts of pot. Is that true? I dunno. Maybe they pleaded guilty to that, as it was easy to prove, rather than going to trial and risking conviction for something more serious (but more difficult to prove). I dunno.
In either case, something seems to be very wrong with the laws and how they are applied. Pot is not the same as heroin and should not be treated as such. Laws against "possession with intent to distribute" should not be used as an easy cudgel to throw people in jail if they should reasonably be charged with something more serious.
People should not have their chance at a professional career ruined by experimentation while they are young (as long as they do not hurt others).
3) There are "true believers" on both sides who have a strong case, but I'm not convinced they are right. Life is full of shades of gray.
MM has posted links about studies of what's in the smoke (thanks Mike!).
We've all seen horror stories about people who get caught up in overboard drug-prosecutions.
We know the history of the Opium Wars and earlier in China.
We know the horrors of what's going on now in Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
There has to be a better way.
4) In the US, decriminalization may be the way to go. Full legalization for adults in the US may be the way to go. I dunno. There are lots of details that need to be worked out either way. Purity and potency standards (Y/N)? Government stores (Y/N)? Wouldn't that encourage increased consumption to increase revenue (rather like lotteries)? Commercial farms (Y/N)? Exclusivity (Y/N)? Home grown (Y/N)? Tax a lot (encourage tax avoidance) or a little (make it easier to get physically or psychologically addicted)? Public consumption (Y/N)? "Coffee shop" consumption (Y/N)? "Private club" consumption (Y/N)? Car interlocks for stoners who cause accidents (Y/N)? Advertizing allowed (Y/N)? Offseting warnings about the dangers (Y/N)? Etc., etc.
Simply throwing up our hands and letting "the magic of the marketplace" sort it all out is a recipe for disaster.
Clearer now?
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,759
12/12/12 1:15:53 PM
|
Seems the right time for this one
http://steve-yegge.b...ed-marijuana.html
Long, but worth it. See the second set of bullet points in particular.
--
Drew
|
Post #367,764
12/12/12 2:13:52 PM
|
Excellent. Thanks.
One of my favorite songs by JT: http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=bRrWdvtLqro (9:34) - SFW but use headphones.
:-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,767
12/12/12 3:39:30 PM
|
Seen that one before...
Its pretty damn poignant!
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,736
12/12/12 8:42:43 AM
|
Phhh
Hack cough. Got it. Smoking my cigarette right now. Personal choice.
Click. Bubble bubble filter filter draw AHHH. No cough.
You better have a damn fine level of damage documented before you use some generic X is bad and we should put people in jail for it.
I walk by the BBQ place and get a whiff of charcoal. Do we put them in jail?
|
Post #367,738
12/12/12 8:49:46 AM
|
Here's a couple.
Dec. 14, 2007 -- New research from Canada shows that some toxins may be more abundant in marijuana cigarettes than tobacco cigarettes.
The researchers burned 30 marijuana cigarettes and 30 tobacco cigarettes on a machine in their lab, measuring levels of chemicals in the smoke.
Ammonia levels were up to 20 times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. Levels of hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen-related chemicals were three to five times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke.
The nitrogen-based fertilizer used on the marijuana plants -- which all came from the same batch of Canadian pot plants -- may have affected the results. The temperatures used to burn the cigarettes may also have been a factor.
Marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke shared many of the same chemicals. But the two types of smoke weren't identical.
For instance, marijuana doesn't contain nicotine. And tobacco doesn't contain cannabinoids, which include THC, marijuana's active ingredient
Tobacco has long been linked to cancer and other health problems. Marijuana smoke hasn't been tied to cancer in the past, note the researchers, who included David Moir, PhD, of the Safe Environments Programme in Kitchener, Ontario.
http://www.webmd.com...n-marijuana-smoke
FRIDAY, June 19 (HealthDay News) -- The smoke from cannabis, the plant from which marijuana is derived, contains compounds that can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer just like tobacco smoke, says a new study from the United Kingdom.
In laboratory tests, Rajinder Singh from the University of Leicester and colleagues found certain carcinogens in cannabis smoke in amounts 50 percent greater than those found in tobacco smoke. They noted that light cannabis use could possibly prove to be even more damaging because cannabis smokers usually inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers.
"The smoking of three to four cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day," the researchers noted in a news release from the university.
http://abcnews.go.co...id=7885120&page=1
Keep on smokin', crazy.
|
Post #367,741
12/12/12 8:57:16 AM
|
2007
Far more recent REAL info.
Keep reading.
But thanks, you may be exposed to a bit of info.
|
Post #367,742
12/12/12 9:03:47 AM
|
#2: Research CBD
Actually, it reduces and/or cures (yeah, laugh, cures, go read a bit before responding, cancer).
https://www.google.c...=cbd+cures+cancer
No real life human studies (and they have many years of tracking) proved out any of the cancer predictions.
And then they found out CBD cures it. And in this case, possibly inhibits the start of it.
Keep reading though. Thanks for at least taking the interest.
|
Post #367,750
12/12/12 10:21:27 AM
|
Can't have anyone curing cancer now...
Curing Cancer would drop the bottom out of pharma that produces massive amounts of really expensive drugs.
You really think a grown plants is going to be able to be "allowed"... never.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,824
12/13/12 2:41:40 PM
|
Hmm...
|
Post #367,846
12/13/12 6:00:41 PM
12/13/12 6:03:17 PM
|
Puhleeze
Go to a study and try to disprove it, don't point to a government / industry mouthpiece.
You might as well tell Gryg to trust the AMA on saturated fat issues.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM EST
|
Post #367,848
12/13/12 6:11:27 PM
|
Ad hominem.
|
Post #367,863
12/13/12 9:06:51 PM
|
Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and
I will. This is the cancer subthread, so I assume that, right?
|
Post #367,869
12/13/12 9:25:19 PM
|
Pick your poison.
Scroll down and tell me where they're wrong.
Here's a direct link to the FAQ - http://cancer.gov/ca...bis/patient/page2
Or, if that's too conversational, click on the Health Professional Version tab and go to town - http://cancer.gov/ca...ealthprofessional
Let me know where they're wrong.
Hint: "In writing Cancer Information Summaries, PDQ Editorial Boards review current evidence. They do not make recommendations or develop guidelines. Their work is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This summary on Cannabis and cannabinoids does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. The summary statement represents an independent review of the literature; that review is not influenced by NCI or any other federal agency."
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,740
12/12/12 8:56:09 AM
|
Please don't assume my words
I didn't say harmless. I said has not been shown to be harmful as compared to any assumed baseline, ie: cigarettes cause X, and this should as well.
There are many years of propaganda to fight against.
The question, does the benefits (depends on the goal) outweigh the risks (depends on the delivery system), and what is YOUR goal?
I could easily argue delivery system on any smoking issue, and legal rights VS medical company lockup as compared to an easily home grown MOSTLY harmless medicine when used as directed, just like 99% of the stuff in any herb garden.
How does it compare against home distilling?
What is YOUR goal?
|
Post #367,723
12/12/12 7:59:29 AM
|
Better question: Why?
For several serious conditions, it already works better than other known medications with fewer side effects. Right now, smoked. If there were a new pill that you could say that about, there would already be commercials on TV for it.
Apropos Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. http://en.wikiquote....iki/H._L._Mencken--
Drew
|
Post #367,725
12/12/12 8:03:27 AM
12/12/12 8:12:57 AM
|
Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't
articulate.
And in your statement, limiting to serious conditions means there is a serious set of side effects that should be considered before prescribing it. Rethink.
C'mon AS, do some more research. You'll come around.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 08:12:57 AM EST
|
Post #367,744
12/12/12 9:34:56 AM
|
Project much? :-p
Patience, grasshopper. All will be revealed in due time.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,745
12/12/12 9:48:42 AM
|
Hokay
Take your time. I've had years working on this.
|
Post #367,756
12/12/12 1:04:45 PM
|
Just asking the question.
See my reply to crazy, at http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367755
If the psychochemistry is as simple as crazy lays out, then surely there would be a pill that has the benefits, now.
It's not simple.
Smoke is not good for you, even if it does have beneficial drugs along with it.
From 1997:
http://nihrecord.od....11_97/story02.htm
Dr. Reese Jones, professor at the Langley Porter Institute, University of California, San Francisco, began the science portion with an hour-long lecture on the clinical pharmacology of marijuana. He pointed out a number of issues that complicate the clinical study of smoked marijuana, including the difficulty of designing a blind trial, and the near impossibility of quantifying and standardizing the dosage of a drug that a study participant smokes (and thereby self doses).
"It's the nature of smoking that people dose themselves," he said. "That's one of the advantages of it. But it does present a problem in designing the studies. [In order to get reliable data] a patient must smoke the same way each time, which is virtually impossible."
Of major concern to many group members was the potential risk to the lungs and other organs that the act of smoking itself presents, an issue that must be balanced against any benefit marijuana may offer.
A member of the group of experts, Dr. Paul Palmberg, professor of ophthalmology at the Bascom-Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, reported his success with a glaucoma patient who smoked marijuana as part of a compassionate use agreement with the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970's. He said the patient's symptoms were relieved -- with no apparent ill effects to date, nor intoxication. He also said the beneficial effects lasted only a couple of hours. The patient, a woman, had to smoke about 10 cigarettes per day to maintain the level of relief she was experiencing.
In addition, Palmberg mentioned another patient also treated with marijuana cigarettes under an IND whose glaucoma was not relieved by the drug. The large number of major medical advances made in the last decade in treating glaucoma, he said, could diminish the rationale of smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms of the disorder.
Marijuana cigarettes were made available for patients with certain conditions in 1978, under a Single Patient Investigational New Drug (IND) of the FDA. A total of 14 patients ultimately received marijuana under this IND. Compassionate use ended in 1992, due in part to the unpredictability of administering the drug, and the development of newer, more potent and longer lasting alternatives, Jones reported. [One such alternative is Marinol, a synthetic derivative of the major active constituent of marijuana, which was developed with support from NCI. In 1985, FDA approved Marinol for treating the nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy and, in 1992, for use in wasting in patients with AIDS. However some patients, especially those with nausea, say they have difficulty swallowing a capsule.]
These reasons most likely contributed to the decline in research proposals to use marijuana in clinical trials. NIH welcomes clinical investigators to submit proposals for studying the therapeutic effects of marijuana, Leshner said. As with all NIH-funded research, he added, the studies must be carefully peer-reviewed and approved.
"You can argue policy and you can argue politics all you want," workshop chair Beaver concluded, "but if you haven't got the data, then you haven't got an issue."
The group will provide a written summary of its conclusions to NIH director Dr. Harold Varmus in 4 to 5 weeks. This will assist Varmus in considering what actions NIH could take to fund research on the therapeutic potential of marijuana for patients with certain diseases.
It's a tough problem that deserves thoughtful consideration by those for and against changes in the laws. But it's human nature to see the seemingly obvious benefits and minimize the problems. Without more science to help build a consensus on the benefits and risks, it will be that much tougher to have sensible changes in the laws.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,760
12/12/12 1:17:03 PM
|
But the laws now prohibit doing the science
There's a term for that ... something about catching a multiple of 11 or something like that.
--
Drew
|
Post #367,761
12/12/12 1:24:21 PM
|
That's an easier law to change than the others.
Some say that Obama can sign an Executive Order to remove MJ from Schedule I (see the end of this story - http://www.huffingto...on_n_2165852.html ). If it were that easy, presumably it could be reversed just as easily during the next administration. Maybe that's another reason why Obama hasn't been persuaded thus far.
I'm not for the status quo. I just want us to know more before we do our leaping. Letting the NIH do the science is a sensible, long-overdue, step.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,763
12/12/12 1:44:15 PM
|
Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety.
http://www.usatoday....-effects/1751011/
Good thing we legalized it before we knew what we were doing though, eh?
|
Post #367,769
12/12/12 3:45:54 PM
|
Thanks.
|
Post #367,787
12/12/12 10:43:13 PM
|
Your straw man, not mine
Ok, AS, then do a balance of harm calc.
Don't forget the include all the expense to treat aids cases from the prison anal rape that MM would like to subject some of us to.
|
Post #367,792
12/12/12 11:12:14 PM
|
You talking to me?
:-)
We all do balance of harm calculations every day. I'm not going to be changing my behavior any time soon.
My job isn't to write the laws or regulations. I don't have the time nor expertise to present a strong enough case to get you to change your mind or modify your position. It's academic for me at the moment.
Similarly, I'm upset by various other injustices in my state and country. I can't push learning more about marijuana pharmacology and drug laws up above the other things.
It's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts and participation, but you're not going to win. :-)
Have fun.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,798
12/13/12 5:56:35 AM
|
I didn't say it was your job
And you certainly don't have to make a commitment to work for anything.
But you have no goals, you have questions.
And your questions will probably not be answered in your lifetime. Your questions are primarily long term harm compared to the short term cost, but since the immediate harm is not on your doorstep, it isn't worth your time, and costs are not just dollars, so there are subjective measurements involved.
Until then, it is unprovable accusations. Any time I try to focus on a specific thing, and provide safer usage and alternatives to the ASSUMED harmful methods, you respond with a shitload of open questions, and no preferred direction for me to work with.
Your questions seem to have nothing (or very little) to do with a person's behavior while under the influence, more along the long term health costs.
Remove ALL smoking from the equation. Vaporizer only. Portable. Joints, pipes, bongs not used. Poof, most of your ASSUMED health issues disappear.
|
Post #367,800
12/13/12 8:37:05 AM
|
And how would that work, exactly?
Law: "Pot is legal to consume if you use a vaporizer. If not, it's illegal due to the health risk to you and those around you."
Stoner#1: "Man, that's messed up. I don't like vaporizers. It mellows my harsh."
And so, Stoner#1 ends up in the same position as now - breaking the law. How would your proposal be a solution?
I think I've outlined several of my concerns. You view them differently - that's fine. Whether they're resolved in my lifetime is immaterial to the discussion, isn't it?
But you have no goals, you have questions.
Again, I want rational, sensible policy. In my mind, the details of that policy are not clear and I think need to be reasonably clear before radical changes are made.
Remember how things used to be before Sen. Harkin and others decided that the FDA had no business regulating "herbal supplements"? Do you see the differences between then and now? We're bombarded with ads for "5 Hour Energy" and "Vitamins" and so forth that make all sorts of wild claims about "helps promote XYZ health" while at the same time there's the ubiquitous 2 point text "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease." What do you suppose the marketplace would be like if pot were handled the same way?
Yes, more questions. But questions in service of the goal of finding a rational, sensible policy.
We seem to be talking past each other, so I'll quit now.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,802
12/13/12 9:42:31 AM
|
Easy
At that point you can treat the actual issue, not the substance.
Alcohol is illegal to inhale in some areas. Not others.
http://en.wikipedia....ol_without_liquid
The delivery mechanism is what makes it illegal.
We already live in a world with many laws like that.
My flavored rolling papers are illegal if they are sold with tobacco. Federal level. But it is not illegal when sold alone, or with "legal" herbs which can kill you.
Buy any can of paint or solvent and you will see it various illegal uses.
Oh well.
|
Post #367,803
12/13/12 10:14:13 AM
|
View it from the other side
Imagine there were no existing laws against marijuana. On what basis would you make it illegal? It may cause unquantified harm to some people when consumed via some delivery mechanisms? That's not enough to ban something. That makes the existing ban a bad law, which should be repealed.
IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof.
--
Drew
|
Post #367,805
12/13/12 10:56:45 AM
|
Thought experiments are easy.
I'm sympathetic to the "minimal laws and no more" viewpoint - I really am.
But like it or not, we live in a complicated society. Substances which are addictive (to some substantial fraction of the population), which interfere with judgement, motor control, etc., are different from others. They can destroy societies (and not just because they're illegal - look at the history of opium in China - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars )
It never hurts to ask the question "cui bono?" and see where things lead. Some consequences are easier to foresee than others.
We tried "no laws against marijuana". Similarly with cocaine. Heroin was developed and touted as a safer, non-addictive alternative to morphine - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Heroin#History . There are good (and bad) reasons why we have the drug laws we do - they didn't popup out of no where.
IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof.
Logically, maybe. But practically, no. Practically, you have to convince enough legislators and the federal/state executive and the courts that you are right to demand changes. That means addressing their interests and concerns.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,806
12/13/12 10:59:57 AM
|
That's a crock
You are comparing heroin to cannabis on addiction potential and lethality.
Wow. No point in discussing, if you pull that type of false equivalence.
$respect--;
|
Post #367,807
12/13/12 11:10:05 AM
|
Read me in my posts.
Your persecution complex on this topic is getting in the way of your understanding.
For some people, MJ is addictive (whether psychologically or physically, it doesn't much matter).
For some people, heroin or crack is something they can take or leave and they'll never be addicted with casual usage.
The underlying issue is the same: There are some substances that cause reduction in motor control, blurring of judgement, and in come cases, addiction. They're not like jellybeans.
You have acknowledged that (at least in part).
We (MM and I) don't fully accept the picture that you're painting, and you seemingly don't accept that there are issues that need to be addressed before legalization is considered.
If that's the case, it's a stalemate and as you say, there's no point in continuing.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,808
12/13/12 12:07:37 PM
|
But the statement is wrong
ALL people who use opiate based narcotics of heroin strength for more than 2 weeks WILL become addicted. No choice. You find a random outlier, it won't matter. This is pretty much a 100% of the population.
A LARGE percentage of them who dabble with it over time WILL become addicted.
Physical, with serious (but rarely fatal) withdrawel symptom. People go nuts during that phase, and the crime rate of this population will definitively jump as they steal for their next fix.
For those that dabble and/or are addicted to opiate based narcotics, they have a decent likelyhood of screwing up their dose and are playing with death, directly, on every injection and crushed oxycontin. I have at least 1/2 a dozen cousin level reltaives that have died via a variety of narcotics. We can all be pretty sure the lethality of random dozing is unknown, but significant.
Cannabis has no lethal dose that a mere mortal can consume by smoking. If someone is playing with concentrated extracts, I'm sure they can hit it sooner or later. Like any other random concentrated substance, you need to be careful with it at that point. Like cinnamon. Like don't consume enough for 10,000 doses, you will be unhappy. Probably won't kill you, but you will be unhappy for a few hours.
No one has EVER died from THC overdose.
While any mood altering substance can be addictive (jelly beans, pistacios, alcohol, cough syrup) we typically limit the attempt of controlling the individual at the point that addiction causes harm, while allowing all access to most substances, as long as they haven't proven dangerous.
This is flipped on cannabis, with a huge amount of assumptions that need to be disproven, which is much more difficult and sometimes impossible.
Why is it up to those in jail to prove this?
Because their cultural method of relaxation pissed the gringoes off, and we are suffering for it this many years later? Because the jazz musicians scared the high class assholes? Because Dupont didn't not want hemp oil competing with petroleum based oil?
Why is it up to the persecuted (when you are threatening to put someone in jail for behavior that does not affect you (at least no more than people buying alcohol and cough syrup) that you don't like, that's persecuting)?
Not up you to accept. But I always want to know why, because why I may not agree with you on a subject, you are at least well read enough to see multiple sides and gather info on it. Demographics will win no matter what, it WILL be legal, it'll just take a while.
I just will correct bullshit on the subject when I see it, and false equivalences is a major bullshit item.
|
Post #367,809
12/13/12 12:25:55 PM
|
Different part of the issue
Yes, the practical reality is that legislators would need to be convinced before anything changes. But shouldn't we try to establish some objective facts about the drug itself before deciding what to do about it?
That's where I'm coming from WRT effects, side-effects, addiction, etc. There is plenty of recent research -- granted, much of it conducted outside the U.S. -- showing that marijuana has fewer and milder direct health consequences compared to both tobacco and alcohol, addiction rates nowhere close to the other substances you compared to, intoxicating effects milder than alcohol, and numerous profound positive effects.
As long as people continue denying those facts, or (more commonly) denying that those facts have been sufficiently proven, it's not possible to discuss what laws are needed.
--
Drew
|
Post #367,732
12/12/12 8:30:02 AM
|
In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ...
"Get high, so that you'll like people." Funny that. In that 10 year old post I criticized the 60's social constructs for being disingenuous since all that "love" came about only during stupors. Thanks for confirming that for me.
|
Post #367,734
12/12/12 8:32:51 AM
12/12/12 8:36:11 AM
|
Did I expect an actual reponse
No.
At least not from you.
But as the token irrational hater (as so eloquently posted 10 years ago), it really doesn't matter.
I got my point out there, and you provided a nice launch.
Thanks.
BTW: You are also part of the macho homophobe group, so it dovetails nicely with your base viewpoints. thanks.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 12, 2012, 08:36:11 AM EST
|
Post #367,747
12/12/12 10:02:45 AM
|
hey during that timeperiod
"since all that "love" came about only during stupors" most of the love was in between stupors, didnt like mixing my pleasures
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,788
12/12/12 10:45:18 PM
|
You were probably right
You were a preachy asshole that harangued them, and the only time they could stand you was while while stoned.
|
Post #367,794
12/12/12 11:36:51 PM
|
Oh come on...
That pot-shot was un-called for.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #367,797
12/13/12 5:39:51 AM
12/13/12 6:41:04 AM
|
Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me
I can only be told I am stupid by an irrational loud person with no logic behind him but a shitload of prejudice and shitload of directed MUST FIND EVIL studies for so long before reacting.
Especially when they are disproven for the most part.
A bunch of assumptions with no experience or logic. Based on 60 year old propaganda. Once inhaled, insane and insulted forever. That what I'm arguing against here. And I'm arguing against this attitude with MY LIFE ON THE LINE.
This SOB wants to LOCK ME UP. He wants people with guns to show up at my house, take away anything I own, rip me from my family, and put me in a place where the vast number of people have animalistic antagonism towards me, and will end up physically and mentally torturing me for many years.
THIS IS HIS GOAL.
Yet he's stated, very eloquently, that he's associated it an irrational hatred due to his loved ones dying by a "stoned" driver. Stoned on pot. I'd have to read it all again (and I'm not) to find out if there are any other chems involved.
We KNOW that no matter what the assumptions are, DUIs go DOWN in areas where pot smoking goes up. His random event, an outlier, is driving him to support a fascist state.
AND THIS IS THE GUY WHO HATES THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY/ALL CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER HIS LIFE, AND IS WAITING FOR THE REVOLUTION TO HAPPEN.
WHY, SO HE CAN JUST KILL THE POT SMOKERS RATHER THAN PAY TO LOCK THEM UP?
FUCK HIM!
So no, I'll escalate as he does.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 13, 2012, 05:41:31 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 13, 2012, 06:04:29 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 13, 2012, 06:41:04 AM EST
|
Post #367,799
12/13/12 6:14:42 AM
12/13/12 6:26:46 AM
|
Also, interesting
Hey MM, you notice that?
You have been incredibly insulting, diving in imagined personal areas, since you assume anyone who smokes pot is simply incapable of rationality.
Yet you display some pretty significant disconnects to reality in your thrashing around.
When you go personal, people ignore it.
When I go a bit personal, people (Greg, and I'm sure others nodded) probably got very unhappy.
Know why?
I assume you thought: Yeah, cause they hate you.
Nahh. Pretty sure that's not it. That's just you.
Right now they are annoyed with me.
Because people don't like seeing the village idiot beat down, no matter how much of an asshole he is. It is like beating a small child.
They are probably worried about your mental stability. Any recent suicidal ideation?
I'll try to tone it down.
For them, not you.
Edited by crazy
Dec. 13, 2012, 06:19:25 AM EST
Edited by crazy
Dec. 13, 2012, 06:26:46 AM EST
|
Post #367,804
12/13/12 10:19:57 AM
|
Do as you wish. Matters not to me.
|
Post #367,814
12/13/12 1:31:00 PM
|
You're both coming across as mardy twats
Chill pills all around.
|
Post #367,815
12/13/12 1:41:14 PM
|
twats is a gendered insult
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
|
Post #367,818
12/13/12 1:47:29 PM
|
Not when I say it, it's not
Anyone can be a twat, cunt, prick, dick, cock-end, dickhead or bell-end, irrespective of their gender.
UK swearing is an equal-opportunity exercise.
But trust the Americans to over-complicate things, as usual.
|
Post #367,816
12/13/12 1:45:47 PM
|
kiss kiss
|
Post #367,819
12/13/12 1:48:43 PM
|
You didn't like the Quagmire picture?
|
Post #367,914
12/14/12 1:50:14 PM
|
Looks like my letter did the trick
From slate.com: President Obama sat down with ABC News Barbara Walters for a holiday season interview that will air in full later today. The major newsy nugget (no pun intended): The president doesn't sound like a man who has any plans to aggressively target pot smokers in Colorado and Washington, the two states that recently voted to legalize recreational marijuana use.
"We've got bigger fish to fry," Obama said, adding: "It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that itÂs legal." http://www.slate.com...e_has_bigger.html
(holds right index finger near pursed lips; expels breath.)
cordially,
|
Post #367,915
12/14/12 2:38:29 PM
|
Woot!
|
Post #367,916
12/14/12 2:45:05 PM
|
Ok, I'm done
It was all stealth, it really causes cancer and higher accidents. Happy.
|
Post #367,924
12/14/12 4:09:38 PM
|
Finally!
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #367,932
12/14/12 6:07:43 PM
|
hehe
Nah, just when the obvious political viewpoint is a bit a against me (way over us), than anything I can do to argue the direction is a possible measurable plus. Drive by readers count, google counts.
But when it swings my way (as it is, FU MM), then I measure the effort, and say, nah, won't convince some, will inflame others, and it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. I'll ride the winning wave for a while and kick back.
And when I get my cancer (and I will, I smoke tobacco), I'll extract out all the CBD I need from a pound of pot, and cure it. While you check the medical industry web page to see if they have a cure for your cancer that they are willing to sell at a price you can afford.
Really, do your own research on CBD. You may need to make the decision sooner rather than later. MOST of us will have to make that decision, at least those of us aware of the alternative.
|
Post #367,936
12/14/12 6:44:23 PM
12/14/12 8:01:59 PM
|
Don't assume you know the future.
And when I get my cancer (and I will, I smoke tobacco), ...
Don't assume you'll be Ok except for that.
Stroke is bad news. Life is really hard for you and your family when you can't control half your body any more.
Smoking doubles the risk of stroke. http://www.stroke.or...?pagename=smoking
Make things easier on your TL. Quit tobacco as soon as you can. (You too, Box.)
Hang in there.
[edit:] Tyqo.
Cheers,
Scott.
(The chant is: "I choose not to smoke. I choose not to smoke. I choose not to smoke...")
|
Post #367,941
12/14/12 8:12:40 PM
|
Good point
And with my genetic disease, stroke risk increases. Those damn blood vessels are a bit stretchy and poppy in my family.
|
Post #367,944
12/14/12 9:12:06 PM
|
Another excellent IGM thread!
(and when I get my first inkling of The Big-C invading some aspect of this particular body:
THEN.. I shall likely investigate thoroughly the-THEN "status of knowledge" re CBD (Thanks, crazy.))
Meanwhile, given the accelerating Info Overload precipitated via the techno-perfection of LINK-age:
I shall must needs Not-further delve [just now] into the intricacies ... of the Political aspect (thanks for traditional lucidity, Scott).
Finally (here) and, given recent interactions with mouth-breathers of local ilk: I remain grateful for the compounded-sanity which [not Always.. but often-enough]
Can be found in these pages--especially with the newly-restored Historicity of our band of Outliers;
this not-to-mention: resurrecting of the Classic Early Little Red Plasma Dot®Â© Archives!
Z is for zymurgy--the very-Last Word, for alliteration addicts..
Carrion, then! ... the irascible as well as.. the conciliatory..
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
|
