IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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.
New 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
New Excellent. Thanks.
One of my favorite songs by JT: http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=bRrWdvtLqro (9:34) - SFW but use headphones.

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New 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
     rc lectures bho - (rcareaga) - (135)
         WH replies can take months - (Another Scott) - (27)
             those 70yo were 25 in 1967, -NT - (boxley) - (26)
                 precisely - (rcareaga) - (22)
                     I would suspect you are correct sir -NT - (boxley)
                     Reminds me of that old ad. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                         just to clarify - (rcareaga) - (18)
                             Bingo - (crazy) - (2)
                                 I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (jb4)
                             Actually, we have discussed it. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                 Every single one of your points is based on illegality - (crazy) - (9)
                                     Read in New Scientist today: - (malraux) - (8)
                                         Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE - (crazy)
                                         Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                             Ad hominem -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                 I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                             Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (malraux) - (3)
                                                 Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     So what? - (crazy)
                                 That would be dumb - (crazy) - (3)
                                     hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                         Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... - (lincoln) - (1)
                                             Watch it - (crazy)
                         Nicely programmed - (crazy)
                 Yeah? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     make up your mind or read what you write :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :) -NT - (Another Scott)
         excellent! -NT - (boxley)
         Well.. if he sees it-- - (Ashton)
         victims of federally legalized pot - (boxley) - (1)
             Awwww - (crazy)
         Very sincere... - (folkert) - (94)
             Or kill someone else. - (mmoffitt) - (93)
                 neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless - (boxley)
                 Where does... - (folkert) - (3)
                     No acknowledgement? - (folkert) - (2)
                         You need to reread your post and my follow up. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Was inferred by the alcohol comment. - (folkert)
                 Remind me: do you drink? -NT - (rcareaga) - (87)
                     Red Herring much? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                         Nope - (rcareaga) - (85)
                             Steeper? Well, perhaps. - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                                 I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees - (rcareaga)
                                 yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody - (boxley) - (82)
                                     [citation needed] -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         Re: [citation needed] - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's not "fluoridation is bad" - (pwhysall)
                                     Red herring. - (Another Scott) - (78)
                                         Assumes facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (77)
                                             Mixing up cause and effect - (drook) - (4)
                                                 So, the chicken came first? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     According to the chicken, the rooster did -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Yabut the rooster didn't care. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 lrpd that sucker -NT - (boxley)
                                             criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry - (rcareaga)
                                             It's a quagmire! -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 No. - (mmoffitt)
                                             "how many years ago was that?" - (rcareaga) - (68)
                                                 That was a good thread. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                                         Probably something long in one of the posts. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                             I think it was me. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Seconded. And I'm glad to see... - (mmoffitt)
                                                 After all that... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     Yup. I chuckled at that. -NT - (rcareaga)
                                                 Holy smokes. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Wow - (crazy) - (59)
                                                     dunno about anyone else but - (boxley) - (6)
                                                         You show the female response - (crazy) - (5)
                                                             not nesting, invigourated -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                 Then you are not done. - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                     2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                         Longer delay, more prolactin - (crazy)
                                                             nope -NT - (boxley)
                                                     So why not cut out the middleman? - (Another Scott) - (38)
                                                         Because THC alone is BAD - (crazy) - (17)
                                                             Read that link again. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                                                 Remember, even if you find it - (crazy) - (4)
                                                                     My goals: Rational, sensible policy. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                         Seems the right time for this one - (drook) - (2)
                                                                             Excellent. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Seen that one before... - (folkert)
                                                                 Phhh - (crazy) - (9)
                                                                     Here's a couple. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                         2007 - (crazy)
                                                                         #2: Research CBD - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                             Can't have anyone curing cancer now... - (folkert) - (5)
                                                                                 Hmm... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                     Puhleeze - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                                         Ad hominem. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                             Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                 Pick your poison. - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Please don't assume my words - (crazy)
                                                         Better question: Why? - (drook) - (19)
                                                             Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                 Project much? :-p - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                     Hokay - (crazy)
                                                             Just asking the question. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                 But the laws now prohibit doing the science - (drook) - (14)
                                                                     That's an easier law to change than the others. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                         Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                             Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Your straw man, not mine - (crazy) - (10)
                                                                                 You talking to me? - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                     I didn't say it was your job - (crazy) - (8)
                                                                                         And how would that work, exactly? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                                             Easy - (crazy)
                                                                                             View it from the other side - (drook) - (5)
                                                                                                 Thought experiments are easy. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                     That's a crock - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                                                         Read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                             But the statement is wrong - (crazy)
                                                                                                     Different part of the issue - (drook)
                                                     In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                         Did I expect an actual reponse - (crazy)
                                                         hey during that timeperiod - (boxley)
                                                         You were probably right - (crazy) - (9)
                                                             Oh come on... - (folkert) - (8)
                                                                 Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me - (crazy)
                                                                 Also, interesting - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                     Do as you wish. Matters not to me. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                     You're both coming across as mardy twats - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                                                         twats is a gendered insult -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             Not when I say it, it's not - (pwhysall)
                                                                         kiss kiss -NT - (crazy)
                                                                         You didn't like the Quagmire picture? -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Looks like my letter did the trick - (rcareaga) - (6)
             Woot! -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Ok, I'm done - (crazy) - (4)
                     Finally! - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         hehe - (crazy) - (2)
                             Don't assume you know the future. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Good point - (crazy)
         Another excellent IGM thread! - (Ashton)

...introduce an "if", and you're down the slippery slope. You add "for", and it's an avalanche. Then the "while" falls on you, and you're buried.
123 ms