Casual marijuana use linked with brain abnormalities, study finds

[Parkbandit]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds/?intcmp=latestnews

Wait... someone did a study and found pot lowers self motivation?

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!

[Jarvan]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/04/15/casual-marijuana-use-linked-with-brain-abnormalities-study-finds/?intcmp=latestnews

Wait... someone did a study and found pot lowers self motivation?

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!


But.. but.. but... Pot never did nothing bad to no one! I know this is true because a pot head told me so!

[Keller]

That's like your opinion man.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I didn't need a study to tell me it causes brain damage, lowers motivation and lowers IQ. Just look at the self professed potheads here.

[cwolff]

OMG! They should regulate it.

[Keller]

Anecdotal evidence isn't usually very helpful. For example, all but one of my housemates in college smoked pot everyday. They all still do it occasionally. From those 6 folks there are 3 medical doctors, 2 lawyers, and one guy that manages a local carwash. The one that manages the local carwash has never smoked pot.

[cwolff]

I've had some high achieving pot head friends too. One guy I respected a lot in college would get high and go work out every day and then study. When I don't want to go to the gym or clean the bathtub and do other boring chore types of work I find myself wondering if it wouldn't seem like so boring if I smoked up first.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Anecdotal evidence isn't usually very helpful. For example, all but one of my housemates in college smoked pot everyday. They all still do it occasionally. From those 6 folks there are 3 medical doctors, 2 lawyers, and one guy that manages a local carwash. The one that manages the local carwash has never smoked pot.

Wait, you say anecdotal evidence isn't useful, then go one to provide it?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/25/282631913/marijuana-may-hurt-the-developing-teen-brain


"We found that people who began using marijuana in their teenage years and then continued to use marijuana for many years lost about eight IQ points from childhood to adulthood," says study author Madeline Meier (http://psychology.clas.asu.edu/sites/default/files/meier_cv_8.19.13.pdf), now a professor at Arizona State University, "whereas those who never used marijuana did not lose any IQ points."

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00053/full <-- Not anecdotal
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract?sid=7a2a7f1f-ca77-40c4-8970-c758ca07561d <-- Also not anecdotal

[Ashliana]

Wait, you say anecdotal evidence isn't useful, then go one to provide it?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02/25/282631913/marijuana-may-hurt-the-developing-teen-brain



http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00053/full <-- Not anecdotal
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.abstract?sid=7a2a7f1f-ca77-40c4-8970-c758ca07561d <-- Also not anecdotal

His anecdotal evidence contradicts other people's anecdotal evidence, thus proving the point he explicitly stated: anecdotal evidence isn't helpful. He wasn't being a hypocrite..

In any case, from what I've seen, it looks like marijuana does have negative impacts on the growing mind, but not necessarily on adults. I've never used it myself, but think it should legalized. By any objective measure, it's much less harmful than alcohol to the human body.

[cwolff]

Wait, you say anecdotal evidence isn't useful, then go one to provide it?

That's good though isn't it? Keller presented some real world examples but was careful to clarify that it was anecdata and not data. I like it. It beats the hell out of people making claims as fact based only on anecdata.

[Keller]

I've said it a few times before - but I do not believe that THC or any other compound in marijuana damages a person's brain - I think not using your brain damages your brain, and people that are stoned tend to not use their brain. So if you just get high and watch TV, you're going to lose brain power. But so is the person that is sober and watches TV.

[Taernath]

There is very little oversight to how marijuana is grown, so you have to worry about pesticide or other contaminants being mixed in. At this point, marijuana is more comparable to hooch from someone's hidden still than a beer you can buy at a supermarket. There could be a lot more regulation and safety if it were legalized.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Just for the record, I'm cool with them legalizing all drugs. I don't care if it damages anything or not (so long as it's self inflicted and not something like driving while impaired). People should be accountable to themselves for their choices. Put drugs with alcohol and cigarettes, ban any lawsuits regarding all of them and I'm good to go!

[waywardgs]

People seem to forget the fact that marijuana has wildly diverse affects on different people. One person can smoke, finish a master's thesis and go to the gym. Another person will smoke the same amount of the same weed and end up a blubbering mess under the bed. Physiology differs, and marijuana is a pretty powerful psychoactive for some.

[Gelston]

People seem to forget the fact that marijuana has wildly diverse affects on different people. One person can smoke, finish a master's thesis and go to the gym. Another person will smoke the same amount of the same weed and end up a blubbering mess under the bed. Physiology differs, and marijuana is a pretty powerful psychoactive for some.

It makes me laugh for what feels like 5 hours at Fabio on Conan O'Brien in 2001.

[Taernath]

People seem to forget the fact that marijuana has wildly diverse affects on different people. One person can smoke, finish a master's thesis and go to the gym. Another person will smoke the same amount of the same weed and end up a blubbering mess under the bed. Physiology differs, and marijuana is a pretty powerful psychoactive for some.

Are you saying a sample size of 20 isn't enough to come to any conclusions???

[RichardCranium]

People seem to forget the fact that marijuana has wildly diverse affects on different people. One person can smoke, finish a master's thesis and go to the gym. Another person will smoke the same amount of the same weed and end up a blubbering mess under the bed. Physiology differs, and marijuana is a pretty powerful psychoactive for some.

As does alcohol. Some people shouldn't smoke, some shouldn't drink.

[Tisket]

Are you saying a sample size of 20 isn't enough to come to any conclusions???

The Journal of Neuroscience seems to think the study is worthy of printing.

Everyone knows that pot use can and often does affect behavior. The study is showing that it actually changes the "density, volume and shape" of the brain itself.

[waywardgs]

The Journal of Neuroscience seems to think the study is worthy of printing.

Everyone knows that pot use can and often does affect behavior. The study is showing that it actually changes the "density, volume and shape" of the brain itself.

These brains also start to glow under a black light.

Fact.

[Latrinsorm]

By any objective measure, it's much less harmful than alcohol to the human body.I disagree. Alcohol has been shown to be more harmful when both are taken in excess, but only marijuana has been shown to be harmful when taken at all. Alcohol is sometimes even shown to be slightly helpful when taken casually.
There could be a lot more regulation and safety if it were legalized.The only truly safe path is abstinence.
People should be accountable to themselves for their choices.People are incapable of making a choice about marijuana, because they (in general) do not know the facts about it. Look at Keller: he's a smart guy (his poor choices in NBA fandom aside), but he professes to believe that marijuana does not cause brain damage. This is simply not the case.

Suppose you were on a game show where you had to pick door #1 or door #2, not knowing what was behind either. Should you be held accountable if the result is sub-optimal, or even negative? How could you have known?

Now, did you notice "game show" and "had"? You never have to make a choice in those situations, you can walk off with no more severe penalty than T.J. Lavin's withering scorn. Our game shows imply that neither door will actively harm us, is that analogous to choosing to ingest a product in life? If such ingestion is legal, I would say yes. Our government tirelessly works to ensure that what we ingest is safe, no?

"They know what they're getting into!" is easy to say, but it is almost never the case.

[Tisket]

These brains also start to glow under a black light.

Fact.

lol

[Tenlaar]

I disagree. Alcohol has been shown to be more harmful when both are taken in excess, but only marijuana has been shown to be harmful when taken at all.

I'm disappointed in you Latrine, you are supposed to be an empiricist. Yet here you believe something that has not been proven at all.


The latest review, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, suggests that activating the brain’s cannabinoid system may trigger a sort of anti-oxidant cleanse, removing damaged cells and improving the efficiency of the mitochrondria, the energy source that powers cells, ultimately leading to a more robustly functioning brain.

[subzero]

Anecdotal evidence isn't usually very helpful. For example, all but one of my housemates in college smoked pot everyday. They all still do it occasionally. From those 6 folks there are 3 medical doctors, 2 lawyers, and one guy that manages a local carwash. The one that manages the local carwash has never smoked pot.


I've had some high achieving pot head friends too. One guy I respected a lot in college would get high and go work out every day and then study. When I don't want to go to the gym or clean the bathtub and do other boring chore types of work I find myself wondering if it wouldn't seem like so boring if I smoked up first.


His anecdotal evidence contradicts other people's anecdotal evidence, thus proving the point he explicitly stated: anecdotal evidence isn't helpful. He wasn't being a hypocrite..

In any case, from what I've seen, it looks like marijuana does have negative impacts on the growing mind, but not necessarily on adults. I've never used it myself, but think it should legalized. By any objective measure, it's much less harmful than alcohol to the human body.

Crazy how something used by so many people ends up being found in virtually all aspects of life, huh?! You're going to find successful, 'motivated' people and you're going to find losers that sit on a couch all day.


People seem to forget the fact that marijuana has wildly diverse affects on different people. One person can smoke, finish a master's thesis and go to the gym. Another person will smoke the same amount of the same weed and end up a blubbering mess under the bed. Physiology differs, and marijuana is a pretty powerful psychoactive for some.

Also quite possibly the result of different kinds of weed being used. But you are right, people do certainly react differently to chemicals even if they are 100% the same.

[Keller]

ILook at Keller: he's a smart guy (his poor choices in NBA fandom aside), but he professes to believe that marijuana does not cause brain damage. This is simply not the case.

I feel like I may have overstated my position.

It is possible that marijuana affects brain chemistry and composition.

The point I am making is that USING your brain (or not using it) has a profound impact on brain chemistry and composition. It has been my experience that people who smoke pot and are aggressive learners/thinkers/new-thing-doers are more intelligent, successful, and interesting than sober people that watch TV or play video games all day. Therefore, I think we should have a "say no to laziness" campaign and let people smoke all the drugs they want.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I disagree. Alcohol has been shown to be more harmful when both are taken in excess, but only marijuana has been shown to be harmful when taken at all. Alcohol is sometimes even shown to be slightly helpful when taken casually.The only truly safe path is abstinence.People are incapable of making a choice about marijuana, because they (in general) do not know the facts about it. Look at Keller: he's a smart guy (his poor choices in NBA fandom aside), but he professes to believe that marijuana does not cause brain damage. This is simply not the case.

Suppose you were on a game show where you had to pick door #1 or door #2, not knowing what was behind either. Should you be held accountable if the result is sub-optimal, or even negative? How could you have known?

Now, did you notice "game show" and "had"? You never have to make a choice in those situations, you can walk off with no more severe penalty than T.J. Lavin's withering scorn. Our game shows imply that neither door will actively harm us, is that analogous to choosing to ingest a product in life? If such ingestion is legal, I would say yes. Our government tirelessly works to ensure that what we ingest is safe, no?

"They know what they're getting into!" is easy to say, but it is almost never the case.

How do you feel about breaking laws that you are ignorant of?

Are you saying if you don't know what might happen as the result of doing something, you should not be accountable for it?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think we should have a "say no to laziness" campaign and let people smoke all the drugs they want.

I could get behind that. But again, I wouldn't stop at marijuana, I'd open it to everything.

[Parkbandit]

My wife wants to get high for her birthday (she's never done it before)...

:ohshit:

[cwolff]

I feel like I may have overstated my position.

It is possible that marijuana affects brain chemistry and composition.

The point I am making is that USING your brain (or not using it) has a profound impact on brain chemistry and composition. It has been my experience that people who smoke pot and are aggressive learners/thinkers/new-thing-doers are more intelligent, successful, and interesting than sober people that watch TV or play video games all day. Therefore, I think we should have a "say no to laziness" campaign and let people smoke all the drugs they want.

We live in a chemical induced fog as it is. People pick their poison and it's not that big a deal. MJ's supposed to be the "gateway" drug. If there is a gateway drug it's either coffee or cigarettes. Little Johnny may not know the difference between THC and Caffeine but he sure as hell can tell how his parent's moods are different pre and post coffee.

MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.

[Parkbandit]

MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.

Excellent marketing for years.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.

Maybe because it is illegal in most places? I'm fascinated that you find it fascinating.

[Jarvan]

We live in a chemical induced fog as it is. People pick their poison and it's not that big a deal. MJ's supposed to be the "gateway" drug. If there is a gateway drug it's either coffee or cigarettes. Little Johnny may not know the difference between THC and Caffeine but he sure as hell can tell how his parent's moods are different pre and post coffee.

MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.

One reason why it still lingers.. is because it's still illegal in most places.

Prostitution is illegal in almost all places, it's considered a sin. Just because it's legal in one place, or some people think it should be legal, doesn't make it less of a "sin".

Now.. I find it HILARIOUS that you use the word sin. Since Sin is a religious term. I do not think it says anywhere in my bible that smoking MJ is a sin. It's a crime according to the federal government, and most state ones. But last I heard, a person never got arrested for committing a sin, just a crime.

So.. you may want to change that word.

[cwolff]

One reason why it still lingers.. is because it's still illegal in most places.

Prostitution is illegal in almost all places, it's considered a sin. Just because it's legal in one place, or some people think it should be legal, doesn't make it less of a "sin".

Now.. I find it HILARIOUS that you use the word sin. Since Sin is a religious term. I do not think it says anywhere in my bible that smoking MJ is a sin. It's a crime according to the federal government, and most state ones. But last I heard, a person never got arrested for committing a sin, just a crime.

So.. you may want to change that word.

I like the word sin in this case. There's a moral component that goes beyond strict legality. It has to do with how we've educated ourselves about MJ since it first become illegal. Whole generations were raised on the idea that drugs are bad and taught this by drinkers. What I find fascinating is how long it will take society's perception to shift. Beer = just a good time and the perfect accompaniment for a football game. Weed = something sinful that you should do in secret and don't let the kids know. It's a straight up cultural conditioning experiment where you arbitrarily demonize one drug and celebrate with another.

[Warriorbird]

But.. but.. but... Pot never did nothing bad to no one! I know this is true because a pot head told me so!

They just never did anything to anybody else, given these results.

[Keller]

MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm Read that.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm Read that.

Excellent read.

[subzero]

People are incapable of making a choice about marijuana, because they (in general) do not know the facts about it. Look at Keller: he's a smart guy (his poor choices in NBA fandom aside), but he professes to believe that marijuana does not cause brain damage. This is simply not the case.

You make it sound like this is some new creation that hasn't been around and used forever. The bottom line is people have been using it for ages and sure seem to be doing ok. Same for alcohol. Sure, it might fuck some people up if they abuse it, but since when has that stopped us? I have yet to meet a single person who has literally smoked themselves retarded as a result of brain damage. It just doesn't happen. On the other hand, I have seen people die of liver failure because they were alcoholics. People know alcohol can and will ruin them and it's been known for quite some time. The truth of the matter is, despite your belief to the contrary, knowing all the facts about something isn't going to stop some people from harming themselves.

The pharmaceuticals we consume in this country compared to the rest of the world is staggering, yet they keep shoving those things down our collective throats despite the plethora of harmful or potentially harmful side-effects. There are quite likely a lot of things being given to people today that we don't know 'all the facts' on. But that shit makes money for the people in control of this country, so who gives a damn, sell away! They put the warning labels on the bottles afterall! So, just sell cannabis with a little warning label that says it may cause brain damage, lack of motivation, induce black folks to rape white women (gotta apply the same logic here as for other meds; if one person shows a symptom while taking something, it has to be included, so I'm assuming at least one black person has been high on teh weeds when raping a white woman), etc. Hell, you could even add 'We have no idea what long-term effects using this product may have on you' and people would still use it. Those people would continue to live their lives and humanity will continue along just fine.

The whole concept that people can't make a choice about something because they don't know all the facts is ludicrous. Imagine where we'd be as a species if that was the prevalent belief of people. Thankfully most people aren't afraid to step out of their little protective bubbles.

[Keller]

My wife wants to get high for her birthday (she's never done it before)...

:ohshit:

I hope you mean just the two of you and not as part of some birthday party, right?

[Tisket]

Birthday brownies for everyone!

[Keller]

I have yet to meet a single person who has literally smoked themselves retarded as a result of brain damage. It just doesn't happen.

I have not yet seen 12 Years a Slave, but I suspect it is actually a movie.

Let's not pretend marijuana doesn't have very negative side effects. It does. A lazy person that gets stoned is going to absolutely rot their brain.

[Keller]

Birthday brownies for everyone!

I know you're joking - but I'll use this as an excuse to give unsolicited advice. Eating THC is not how I'd recommend it for a first-timer. Not only does it affect you differently, but it is MUCH easier to over consume since you have no idea what your tolerance is and it takes longer to (an hour+ vs 5 minutes) to feel.

[subzero]

Therefore, I think we should have a "say no to laziness" campaign and let people smoke all the drugs they want.

Not really related to the topic, but your 'say no to laziness campaign' reminded me of something ridiculous I heard the other day. Apparently the federal government is trying to ban junk food from schools. Ok, sounds good in a commie sort of way. But, uh, why is physical education one of the first things being cut from schools? Why are so many schools eliminating recess periods? Shouldn't they maybe step in and prevent the elimination of those things rather than try to control what people eat?



MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.

It's starting to fade away at least. People are realizing they were lied to and the government will eventually have to properly re-schedule it. The fact that nearly 20 states have legalized laws concerning medicinal use shows that it doesn't belong as a Schedule I.

[Tisket]

I know you're joking - but I'll use this as an excuse to give unsolicited advice. Eating THC is not how I'd recommend it for a first-timer. Not only does it affect you differently, but it is MUCH easier to over consume since you have no idea what your tolerance is and it takes longer to (an hour+ vs 5 minutes) to feel.

Everything is better with chocolate.

Science.

[Warriorbird]

I have not yet seen 12 Years a Slave, but I suspect it is actually a movie.

Let's not pretend marijuana doesn't have very negative side effects. It does. A lazy person that gets stoned is going to absolutely rot their brain.

Anecdotally I'm pretty sure I have students who smoke themselves into disability. I still think it should be legal though.


Not really related to the topic, but your 'say no to laziness campaign' reminded me of something ridiculous I heard the other day. Apparently the federal government is trying to ban junk food from schools. Ok, sounds good in a commie sort of way. But, uh, why is physical education one of the first things being cut from schools? Why are so many schools eliminating recess periods? Shouldn't they maybe step in and prevent the elimination of those things rather than try to control what people eat?

Federal education policy is staggeringly dumb.

[Ashliana]

I disagree. Alcohol has been shown to be more harmful when both are taken in excess, but only marijuana has been shown to be harmful when taken at all. Alcohol is sometimes even shown to be slightly helpful when taken casually.The only truly safe path is abstinence.People are incapable of making a choice about marijuana, because they (in general) do not know the facts about it. Look at Keller: he's a smart guy (his poor choices in NBA fandom aside), but he professes to believe that marijuana does not cause brain damage. This is simply not the case.

What is your scientific basis for the claim that marijuana causes brain damage (i.e., permanent reductions of brain function) among adults users?

Not only have I found no evidence to back up your claim, there's quite a bit of evidence that contradicts your claim. There are some long-term risks to various hormone levels inherent to the use of any drug capable of altering your mental state--including caffeine, alcohol, sugar, and so on.

If you think people can't make an informed decision about marijuana (a strange presumption), then why are they able to for alcohol? Alcohol abuse results in the deaths of about 90,000 Americans a year1 (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm). Marijuana can't be overdosed on.

Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) at a House Oversight Committee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rc8p7AwSaU) hearing on Feb. 4th, 2014:
“Is it not a scientific fact that there is nothing comparable with marijuana?” “And I’m not saying it is good or bad, but when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol, other hard drugs are certainly—even prescription drugs—are a threat to public health in a way that just isolated marijuana is not. Isn’t that a scientific fact? Or do you dispute that fact?”

“I don’t dispute that fact,” Michael Botticelli - Deputy Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

[cwolff]

I know you're joking - but I'll use this as an excuse to give unsolicited advice. Eating THC is not how I'd recommend it for a first-timer. Not only does it affect you differently, but it is MUCH easier to over consume since you have no idea what your tolerance is and it takes longer to (an hour+ vs 5 minutes) to feel.

Tell me about it. I ate 1/2 a cookie before watching Die Walkure at the SF Opera and by the time the Valkyries showed up I was ready to throw myself off the balcony.

[Keller]

Not really related to the topic, but your 'say no to laziness campaign' reminded me of something ridiculous I heard the other day. Apparently the federal government is trying to ban junk food from schools. Ok, sounds good in a commie sort of way. But, uh, why is physical education one of the first things being cut from schools? Why are so many schools eliminating recess periods? Shouldn't they maybe step in and prevent the elimination of those things rather than try to control what people eat?

Great point.

Good luck trying to convince people to pay more taxes to fund physical education.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You make it sound like this is some new creation that hasn't been around and used forever. The bottom line is people have been using it for ages and sure seem to be doing ok. Same for alcohol. Sure, it might fuck some people up if they abuse it, but since when has that stopped us? I have yet to meet a single person who has literally smoked themselves retarded as a result of brain damage. It just doesn't happen. On the other hand, I have seen people die of liver failure because they were alcoholics. People know alcohol can and will ruin them and it's been known for quite some time. The truth of the matter is, despite your belief to the contrary, knowing all the facts about something isn't going to stop some people from harming themselves.

The pharmaceuticals we consume in this country compared to the rest of the world is staggering, yet they keep shoving those things down our collective throats despite the plethora of harmful or potentially harmful side-effects. There are quite likely a lot of things being given to people today that we don't know 'all the facts' on. But that shit makes money for the people in control of this country, so who gives a damn, sell away! They put the warning labels on the bottles afterall! So, just sell cannabis with a little warning label that says it may cause brain damage, lack of motivation, induce black folks to rape white women (gotta apply the same logic here as for other meds; if one person shows a symptom while taking something, it has to be included, so I'm assuming at least one black person has been high on teh weeds when raping a white woman), etc. Hell, you could even add 'We have no idea what long-term effects using this product may have on you' and people would still use it. Those people would continue to live their lives and humanity will continue along just fine.

The whole concept that people can't make a choice about something because they don't know all the facts is ludicrous. Imagine where we'd be as a species if that was the prevalent belief of people. Thankfully most people aren't afraid to step out of their little protective bubbles.

Do you argue for a living? The eloquence and grace in which you express your case is simply overwhelming. I mean, "smoked themselves retarded"... that's genius.

[Keller]

Everything is better with chocolate.

Science.

So take a couple of hits and eat a snickers.

[Keller]

Marijuana can't be overdosed on.

You absolutely can OD on THC.

[Jarvan]

What is your scientific basis for the claim that marijuana causes brain damage (i.e., permanent reductions of brain function) among adults users?

Not only have I found no evidence to back up your claim, there's quite a bit of evidence that contradicts your claim. There are some long-term risks to various hormone levels inherent to the use of any drug capable of altering your mental state--including caffeine, alcohol, sugar, and so on.

If you think people can't make an informed decision about marijuana (a strange presumption), then why are they able to for alcohol? Alcohol abuse results in the deaths of about 90,000 Americans a year1 (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm). Marijuana can't be overdosed on.

Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) at a House Oversight Committee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rc8p7AwSaU) hearing on Feb. 4th, 2014:
“Is it not a scientific fact that there is nothing comparable with marijuana?” “And I’m not saying it is good or bad, but when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol, other hard drugs are certainly—even prescription drugs—are a threat to public health in a way that just isolated marijuana is not. Isn’t that a scientific fact? Or do you dispute that fact?”

“I don’t dispute that fact,” Michael Botticelli - Deputy Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

So you are saying that if someone ate say.. 1 kilo of pot, they couldn't even remotely get sick and die? That it is just not physically possible to ever under any circumstance?

[Wrathbringer]

So you are saying that if someone ate say.. 1 kilo of pot, they couldn't even remotely get sick and die? That it is just not physically possible to ever under any circumstance?

drink enough water and it'll kill you.

[Keller]

So you are saying that if someone ate say.. 1 kilo of pot, they couldn't even remotely get sick and die? That it is just not physically possible to ever under any circumstance?

It is speaking in absolute terms about likelihood. It's not correct that one cannot OD on THC. It is definitely possible, however difficult to accomplish.

[subzero]

I have not yet seen 12 Years a Slave, but I suspect it is actually a movie.

Let's not pretend marijuana doesn't have very negative side effects. It does. A lazy person that gets stoned is going to absolutely rot their brain.

I haven't seen it either, so if what I said was in relation to the movie somehow, I missed it.

Anyhow, I'm not saying it doesn't have negative effects. I'm sure it does, especially when you're smoking it. I just see no reason for it to be treated the way it is when you consider all the other perfectly legal, regardless of the regulations around them, substances we consume.

[Jarvan]

It is speaking in absolute terms about likelihood. It's not correct that one cannot OD on THC. It is definitely possible, however difficult to accomplish.

I know.. I was just pointing out to Cat boy that it is possible. It's just one of those Myths that Pot users like to say. Just like that pot smokers actually drive better then not pot smokers when high.

[Warriorbird]

It is speaking in absolute terms about likelihood. It's not correct that one cannot OD on THC. It is definitely possible, however difficult to accomplish.

Much easier to do with hashish. Definitely difficult though.

[subzero]

Do you argue for a living? The eloquence and grace in which you express your case is simply overwhelming. I mean, "smoked themselves retarded"... that's genius.

Yes. I think I'll point my boss to this here forum as a reference when I demand a raise.

[Keller]

I haven't seen it either, so if what I said was in relation to the movie somehow, I missed it.

My point is things exist even though we've never witnessed them.

[subzero]

I know.. I was just pointing out to Cat boy that it is possible. It's just one of those Myths that Pot users like to say.

It's not so much a myth as people leaving out the key part of it, which, until recently hasn't really been an issue since use has predominantly been by smoking the flower. It's basically impossible to smoke enough in that form to overdose. With oils and edibles, who knows? Maybe someone at some point will.

[cwolff]

It's not so much a myth as people leaving out the key part of it, which, until recently hasn't really been an issue since use has predominantly been by smoking the flower. It's basically impossible to smoke enough in that form to overdose. With oils and edibles, who knows? Maybe someone at some point will.

You've got to look long and hard to find it because MJ's just not that dangerous. These guys think they've found the first case(s) of MJ induced death.


While researchers studied 15 people whose deaths were allegedly linked to marijuana use, 13 of those deaths were confirmed to be caused by other factors. Researchers said, however, that the drug was to blame in two isolated cases of two seemingly health people, one 23 years old and another 28. Autopsies found that younger had a serious undetected heart problem, suggesting that people with cardiological issues should be aware of marijuana risks, and the older had a history of alcohol and drug use.

“To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where full post-mortem investigations… were carried out,” researchers said in the study, published in Forensic Science International this month. “After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.”

http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/

[Allereli]

I'm waiting to see what was found in this guy's system http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/showbiz/rapper-severed-penis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Tgo01]

We know for a fact that marijuana turns people into face eating zombies.

[Ashliana]

You absolutely can OD on THC.




So you are saying that if someone ate say.. 1 kilo of pot, they couldn't even remotely get sick and die? That it is just not physically possible to ever under any circumstance?

I don't seem to recall claiming otherwise. Marijuana isn't THC, as you know. THC is the active ingredient, present at levels it's impossible to overdose on through conventional means of using the drug.

"In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette."

"Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality."

"In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."

Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, DOJ/DEA http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php

Some of that info's out of date, as growers have been making marijuana more and more potent over the years, but the same conclusions are true. Again, I'm not a huge proponent of actual use of the drug. I've never done it, and doubt I would. But in any sane universe, if alcohol should be legal, so should marijuana.

[cwolff]

I'm waiting to see what was found in this guy's system http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/16/showbiz/rapper-severed-penis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

He's the next Horsedick.MPEG.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WPxGjCgIamc

[subzero]

You've got to look long and hard to find it because MJ's just not that dangerous. These guys think they've found the first case(s) of MJ induced death.

" While researchers studied 15 people whose deaths were allegedly linked to marijuana use, 13 of those deaths were confirmed to be caused by other factors. Researchers said, however, that the drug was to blame in two isolated cases of two seemingly health people, one 23 years old and another 28. Autopsies found that younger had a serious undetected heart problem, suggesting that people with cardiological issues should be aware of marijuana risks, and the older had a history of alcohol and drug use.

“To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where full post-mortem investigations… were carried out,” researchers said in the study, published in Forensic Science International this month. “After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.”

http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/

In the case of the guy with the heart problem, wouldn't smoking anything present the same risk? Not sure how linked that is to cannabis aside from the fact that it was the substance being smoked around the time of death. Seems more coincidental to me, but I'm no doctor.

[subzero]

We know for a fact that marijuana turns people into face eating zombies.

Damn drugged addled hippie! You've got your drugs all wrong!

[cwolff]

In the case of the guy with the heart problem, wouldn't smoking anything present the same risk? Not sure how linked that is to cannabis aside from the fact that it was the substance being smoked around the time of death. Seems more coincidental to me, but I'm no doctor.

Exactly. It's a weak case for causation. Both people had serious mitigating factors.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm disappointed in you Latrine, you are supposed to be an empiricist. Yet here you believe something that has not been proven at all.Empiricism never "proves" anything, it only shows us the way. What may happen in the brain is very interesting, but what has happened to brains is more so.
How do you feel about breaking laws that you are ignorant of?I'm opposed, damn opposed! Lousy mooching war-widows...
Are you saying if you don't know what might happen as the result of doing something, you should not be accountable for it?I think that our ethical and legal systems justifiably take intent into account. Consider manslaughter vs. murder, venial vs. moral.
MJ is still considered a sin compared to alcohol or other accepted drugs. I'm fascinated at how this view still lingers.What's really fascinating is that decades of ignorant bias might unknowingly have been correct, but said decades encourage the intelligentsia to go against them. Chauncey Billups has a similar problem: his box score stats are not impressive, so his fans dubbed him "Mr. Big Shot" for his clutch accomplishments. Smart people know clutch doesn't exist, so Chauncey must be a bum... but by composite stats Chauncey actually was excellent. Nietzsche was right all along (and not just about NBA point guards), you shouldn't go with or against the crowd.
What is your scientific basis for the claim that marijuana causes brain damage (i.e., permanent reductions of brain function) among adults users?The studies I remember were Lancet 2007 and BMJ 2008, I don't have more specific citations than that at the moment but I can google them if you like. I would like to stress that I did not say "permanent brain damage", I said "harm". I had mental diseases like schizophrenia in mind, and I would like to get that out of the way so you don't have to discuss whether that constitutes a permanent reduction of brain function.
If you think people can't make an informed decision about marijuana (a strange presumption), then why are they able to for alcohol? Alcohol abuse results in the deaths of about 90,000 Americans a year1. Marijuana can't be overdosed on.If you tell people that alcohol hurts their liver, they don't say "I know 50 guys who drink and none of them have liver problems! People have been drinking for thousands of years!!! Get out of your little bubble!!!!!" For whatever reason, the facts about alcohol are socially accepted and the facts about marijuana are not.

[Keller]

I don't seem to recall claiming otherwise. Marijuana isn't THC, as you know. THC is the active ingredient, present at levels it's impossible to overdose on through conventional means of using the drug.

Maybe you don't know what impossible means. Maybe you're just dumb. I think you just can't stand being wrong.

In this case, you're wrong.

[Latrinsorm]

You make it sound like this is some new creation that hasn't been around and used forever. The bottom line is people have been using it for ages and sure seem to be doing ok.People only started washing their hands in the last 100 years, that doesn't mean washing your hands is dumb, or that earlier generations wouldn't have been better off if they didn't dissect corpses and then immediately deliver babies.
Same for alcohol. Sure, it might fuck some people up if they abuse it, but since when has that stopped us? I have yet to meet a single person who has literally smoked themselves retarded as a result of brain damage. It just doesn't happen.Your experience is not representative of empirically demonstrated trends. Perhaps this is because you are not privy to the mental health records of every person you have ever met.
On the other hand, I have seen people die of liver failure because they were alcoholics. People know alcohol can and will ruin them and it's been known for quite some time. The truth of the matter is, despite your belief to the contrary, knowing all the facts about something isn't going to stop some people from harming themselves.If it isn't going to stop some people, that logically entails that it will stop some other people. Even if it only stopped one person, why does that upset you?
The whole concept that people can't make a choice about something because they don't know all the facts is ludicrous. Imagine where we'd be as a species if that was the prevalent belief of people. Thankfully most people aren't afraid to step out of their little protective bubbles.That you feel compelled to mistakenly classify prudence as fear says more about your position than mine.
I just see no reason for it to be treated the way it is when you consider all the other perfectly legal, regardless of the regulations around them, substances we consume.If you would like to read the literature that offers a sensible reason for this, it's out there. I doubt very much that the relevant government officials read that literature, but them being wrong doesn't make you right.

[cwolff]

Chauncey Billups has a similar problem: his box score stats are not impressive, so his fans dubbed him "Mr. Big Shot" for his clutch accomplishments. Smart people know clutch doesn't exist, so Chauncey must be a bum... but by composite stats Chauncey actually was excellent. Nietzsche was right all along (and not just about NBA point guards), you shouldn't go with or against the crowd.

Say that shit in Denver! I dare you. I double dog dare you!

[waywardgs]

Not really related to the topic, but your 'say no to laziness campaign' reminded me of something ridiculous I heard the other day. Apparently the federal government is trying to ban junk food from schools. Ok, sounds good in a commie sort of way. But, uh, why is physical education one of the first things being cut from schools? Why are so many schools eliminating recess periods? Shouldn't they maybe step in and prevent the elimination of those things rather than try to control what people eat?


Minor point here, but the government (public school) has been "controlling" what kids eat at schools for a long time, and by and large it's pure crap. I'm all for improving that diet.

[Warriorbird]

Minor point here, but the government (public school) has been "controlling" what kids eat at schools for a long time, and by and large it's pure crap. I'm all for improving that diet.

It is almost staggeringly bad.

[subzero]

For whatever reason, the facts about alcohol are socially accepted and the facts about marijuana are not.

It's because of all the 'facts' that people were given that were actually flat-out lies. When you're fed lie after lie on a subject, it becomes a lot more difficult to accept what you're being told once you realize the previous lies for what they were. It's also harder to decipher what is actually a legit finding versus something slanted toward one direction or another.

I think a lot of it also is because of the hypocrisy of there being some sort of issue with the terrible dangers of cannabis while we're constantly fed various harmful substances whether they're in our food, water, or medication. It's crazy and there's a growing trend toward people simply being over this whole 'weed is bad' thing. It's past time to properly re-schedule and regulate it so we can move on.

[Latrinsorm]

It's because of all the 'facts' that people were given that were actually flat-out lies. When you're fed lie after lie on a subject, it becomes a lot more difficult to accept what you're being told once you realize the previous lies for what they were. It's also harder to decipher what is actually a legit finding versus something slanted toward one direction or another.I have already gone into why the path of blind rejection is as wrong as the path of blind acceptance. Something about Carmelo carrying that bum Chauncey to a Conference Finals? Help me out here cwolff.
I think a lot of it also is because of the hypocrisy of there being some sort of issue with the terrible dangers of cannabis while we're constantly fed various harmful substances whether they're in our food, water, or medication. It's crazy and there's a growing trend toward people simply being over this whole 'weed is bad' thing. It's past time to properly re-schedule and regulate it so we can move on.You are free to use "I'm tired of talking about it" as your criterion for what is safe, but I must warn you that it is empirically unsound.

[subzero]

People only started washing their hands in the last 100 years, that doesn't mean washing your hands is dumb, or that earlier generations wouldn't have been better off if they didn't dissect corpses and then immediately deliver babies.

The difference being that there are clear benefits that were discovered with regard to cleanliness. We obviously know the dangers of disease and bacteria transmission in unsanitary conditions. In all the time people have used cannabis, where is this great harm? These days there are more and more things coming out about the benefits of cannabis. Keeping this in perspective... alcohol, tobacco (including the hundreds of added chemicals), and pharmaceuticals x1 meeellion, what's the problem?


Your experience is not representative of empirically demonstrated trends. Perhaps this is because you are not privy to the mental health records of every person you have ever met.

I don't need the records. There are simply far greater risks associated with a vast array of things we're legally provided on a daily basis. There is no logic for cannabis to be vilified as it is.


If it isn't going to stop some people, that logically entails that it will stop some other people. Even if it only stopped one person, why does that upset you?

I'm bothered by the fact that we aren't allowed to legally make the decision for ourselves. It's no different than my belief that some asshole mayor shouldn't have the authority to outlaw sodas greater than some magical amount he decided was unfit for the populace or that the federal government shouldn't concern themselves with junk food in schools in order to be more 'health conscious' while allowing physical education to be eliminated.


That you feel compelled to mistakenly classify prudence as fear says more about your position than mine.

Prudence is fine, but not to the degree you propose. Your idea of prudence would lead to stasis; we can't possibly know everything there is to know about everything, can we? Should we expect some divine being to come forth and let us know when we've truly discovered all there is to know about a subject? If that doesn't happen, who's to say we haven't missed something?


If you would like to read the literature that offers a sensible reason for this, it's out there. I doubt very much that the relevant government officials read that literature, but them being wrong doesn't make you right.

Again, perspective. With the sheer amount of harmful substances we thrive on and my own personal experience with cannabis, I find it extremely difficult to believe I'll ever read something that will make me believe cannabis has been rightfully outlawed and vilified for the last ~60 years.

[subzero]

I have already gone into why the path of blind rejection is as wrong as the path of blind acceptance. Something about Carmelo carrying that bum Chauncey to a Conference Finals? Help me out here cwolff.

Basketball has been dead to me since the glory days of Jordan and Shaq.


You are free to use "I'm tired of talking about it" as your criterion for what is safe, but I must warn you that it is empirically unsound.

It's more tired of hearing about dangers when so much of the populace have used this terrible substance and know firsthand that the sky is not falling. You know, crying wolf, falling on deaf ears and all that.

[Parkbandit]

I hope you mean just the two of you and not as part of some birthday party, right?

Yes, we are going to get a house full of people, kids included and have a smoke out.

I think we're also going to get our dog and cat high.. and if anyone has any babies, they need to bring them because babies and kids getting high is funny shit.

...

[Keller]

Yes, we are going to get a house full of people, kids included and have a smoke out.

I think we're also going to get our dog and cat high.. and if anyone has any babies, they need to bring them because babies and kids getting high is funny shit.

...

Seems like a really bad idea.

[Wrathbringer]

Yes, we are going to get a house full of people, kids included and have a smoke out.

I think we're also going to get our dog and cat high.. and if anyone has any babies, they need to bring them because babies and kids getting high is funny shit.

...

Reported to PETA. Because animals are more important than people.

[Parkbandit]

Seems like a really bad idea.

Pot never killed anyone, not even babies.

And you can't OD on pot. It's 100% natural, so it's 100% safe.

[Back]

I was going to post something...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=WeYsTmIzjkw

[Latrinsorm]

The difference being that there are clear benefits that were discovered with regard to cleanliness. We obviously know the dangers of disease and bacteria transmission in unsanitary conditions.
It's more tired of hearing about dangers when so much of the populace have used this terrible substance and know firsthand that the sky is not falling. You know, crying wolf, falling on deaf ears and all that.Ignaz Semmelweis empirically demonstrated that handwashing was correlated with clear benefits. They laughed at him, then put him in an insane asylum where he was beaten to death. Everything before the comma is identical to the present situation. 100% of the population used to not wash their hands, and the sky didn't fall... because they had no frame of reference, 20% child mortality was just the way things were. If Austria's rate jumped from 0.5% to 20% next year, you would absolutely see the sky fall.
In all the time people have used cannabis, where is this great harm? These days there are more and more things coming out about the benefits of cannabis. Keeping this in perspective... alcohol, tobacco (including the hundreds of added chemicals), and pharmaceuticals x1 meeellion, what's the problem?I am also for the banning of tobacco. Alcohol does not have the knifeblade risks of casual use that those two do. I am only for pharmaceuticals as prescribed by a medical professional, who is capable of making informed decisions as to their use. The "great harm" is in the mind, depths that licensed professionals with years of experience have difficulty plumbing. Why would you expect to be able to fathom it on casual inspection?
I'm bothered by the fact that we aren't allowed to legally make the decision for ourselves.Like I said to SHM, and like I have said to you on more than one occasion, it's easy to say "they knew the risks!" but it's almost never the case.
Prudence is fine, but not to the degree you propose. Your idea of prudence would lead to stasis; we can't possibly know everything there is to know about everything, can we? Should we expect some divine being to come forth and let us know when we've truly discovered all there is to know about a subject? If that doesn't happen, who's to say we haven't missed something?Prudence does not demand omniscience, just science.

[subzero]

Heh, this is awesome (someone linked to it earlier):

"Marihuana is Mexican opium, a plant used by Mexicans and cultivated for sale by Indians. "When some beet field peon takes a few rares of this stuff," explained Dr. Fred Fulsher of Mineral County, "He thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico so he starts out to execute all his political enemies. I understand that over in Butte where the Mexicans often go for the winter they stage imaginary bullfights in the 'Bower of Roses' or put on tournaments for the favor of 'Spanish Rose' after a couple of whiffs of Marijuana. The Silver Bow and Yellowstone delegations both deplore these international complications" Everybody laughed and the bill was recommended for passage."


I am also for the banning of tobacco.

Dirty commie!


Alcohol does not have the knifeblade risks of casual use that those two do.

Yet we've gone and made alcoholism a 'disease'. Who can predict when casual use will turn into excessive use and alcoholism? I'm unaware of any similar issue arising from tobacco or cannabis use.


I am only for pharmaceuticals as prescribed by a medical professional, who is capable of making informed decisions as to their use.

Ah, if only your cameras were active to help enforce their proper dispensation and use. Since they aren't and we all know many people do not properly use (or even prescribe) these medications, maybe we should ban them as well.


The "great harm" is in the mind, depths that licensed professionals with years of experience have difficulty plumbing. Why would you expect to be able to fathom it on casual inspection? Like I said to SHM, and like I have said to you on more than one occasion, it's easy to say "they knew the risks!" but it's almost never the case.

So, not knowing all the risks should preclude me from being able to decide for myself if I care or not about the potential risks of using something? If I'm fine with accepting the anecdotal evidence from being around and knowing people who use something, why should someone else tell me I can't make that decision one way or another?

For instance, GHB. I was at a party and someone showed up with some. From what I was told of it, taking it was like getting drunk just a whole lot quicker. I was curious and almost decided to try some. But, I waited. I wanted to see the people who were using it first. It didn't take long for me to lose interest. I've never tried GHB, nor do I ever want to. All I know about it is that I saw a guy drop like a sack of potatoes after taking a cap or two, unable to return to his feet for quite some time. I saw another guy outside on some stairs rocking back and forth, stuck in a G-hole, who would flail and scream if touched. I don't need a goddamn library of information about GHB to let me know it's not for me.

As far as cannabis goes, for a long time when I was younger I knew people who used it and never did myself. Didn't want to. All I'd heard about it was that it's bad for you and all that good 80s stuff. However, knowing people that used it, I saw that the things I was told didn't exactly add up with what I was seeing. Eventually I tried it and found that I liked it. I can smoke it for years at a time and quit without issue whenever I choose. I've never seen anything that proves to me without a doubt that cannabis use alone has ruined any lives or caused some great problem for people aside, perhaps, from legal issues. I should have the right to take the risk of using it if I choose just like I do with alcohol, tobacco, fatty/junk foods, soda, etc.


Prudence does not demand omniscience, just science.

Science certainly can't prove or disprove any God-like beings, so what is prudent there? Should we believe, not believe, or simply withhold judgement because we cannot make that decision without knowing more? Science is great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think we always need to wait until we've got it all perfectly nailed down to act.

[Latrinsorm]

Yet we've gone and made alcoholism a 'disease'. Who can predict when casual use will turn into excessive use and alcoholism? I'm unaware of any similar issue arising from tobacco or cannabis use. Ah, if only your cameras were active to help enforce their proper dispensation and use. Since they aren't and we all know many people do not properly use (or even prescribe) these medications, maybe we should ban them as well.I'm not for banning marijuana because it might not be properly used, I'm for banning it because there is no way to properly use it.
So, not knowing all the risks should preclude me from being able to decide for myself if I care or not about the potential risks of using something? If I'm fine with accepting the anecdotal evidence from being around and knowing people who use something, why should someone else tell me I can't make that decision one way or another?Because your actions have consequences for more people than yourself.
Science certainly can't prove or disprove any God-like beings, so what is prudent there? Should we believe, not believe, or simply withhold judgement because we cannot make that decision without knowing more? Science is great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think we always need to wait until we've got it all perfectly nailed down to act.I have no idea where you just went. I said not to wait for perfect knowledge (omniscience), just use science. You say science is great as you dismiss it out of hand because you know what's right - that is the opposite of science.

[RichardCranium]

Maybe because it is illegal in most places? I'm fascinated that you find it fascinating.

I find it sinful that you accept the fact that something is bad for you because the government says it is illegal. Or in this case, worse for you than something that the government deems legal (but that at one point was also illegal.)

I understand that you are for its legalization, I just don't understand the position of this particular post.

[subzero]

I'm not for banning marijuana because it might not be properly used, I'm for banning it because there is no way to properly use it.

Tell that to these people and others who suffer from multiple sclerosis, cancer, cerebral palsy, and seizures:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pTZmHCyM4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD2b9pAJJKk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGpEixXNx7A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQTiIltWtdg

There are a ton of videos out there you can watch with people suffering from various conditions that use cannabis to treat their symptoms. I suppose they could just be great actors wanting weed to be legal.

Charlotte's Web (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html)

Maybe Sanjay Gupta flip-flopped on the issue because of something other than evidence that there are, in fact, proper ways to utilize it. You are aware that they can use components that are high in CBDs while very low in THC, right? Certainly you also know that means it can be used more as a medicine that does not get people high, but allows them to function. Banning cannabis doesn't allow for that, but they'll be more than happy to feed people all sorts of pills that either work poorly or not at all.

To claim there is no proper use for it is an absolutely asinine, jackass statement.


Because your actions have consequences for more people than yourself.

How so? Even if I were to smoke outside of the house, in a public place designated for smoking, the other people there have made the choice to be present and accept the risks involved. Again, keep in mind that people are allowed this choice with other, more harmful substances. I understand that you personally would outlaw those things, except alcohol because it's beneficial to the user in moderation- forget about the deaths of others at the hands of intoxicated people-, but we clearly have inconsistent laws and policies in place with regard to cannabis.


I have no idea where you just went. I said not to wait for perfect knowledge (omniscience), just use science. You say science is great as you dismiss it out of hand because you know what's right - that is the opposite of science.

How exactly are you proposing we use science if not to get a good understanding of things? Science has provided zero insight into the creation of all things so far as I've been able to determine. I'm curious, if you base your 'prudence' on science, how can you have any belief one way or another since you know so little about the subject?

As far as science and other things, it begins with a theory before it becomes a law. The way you seem to fear the unknown with things such as concussions or the effects of cannabis, we'd never get anywhere with them. We couldn't; no one would be permitted to do anything that could result in a concussion, cannabis could not be consumed to study, etc. because those poor souls simply cannot make the decision to take the path that would lead to science being able to study those things all due to their ignorance of the potential risks they face. It's a bit circular, isn't it?

Sometimes we have to act on beliefs and possibilities without or with very little scientific evidence. You do this, too, if you happen to have faith in some religion or another. I find that curious since I believe you do have faith in a religion, yet you want science to provide answers before people are allowed to decide on something such as using cannabis.

[Warriorbird]

Ignaz Semmelweis empirically demonstrated that handwashing was correlated with clear benefits. They laughed at him, then put him in an insane asylum where he was beaten to death. Everything before the comma is identical to the present situation. 100% of the population used to not wash their hands, and the sky didn't fall... because they had no frame of reference, 20% child mortality was just the way things were. If Austria's rate jumped from 0.5% to 20% next year, you would absolutely see the sky fall.I am also for the banning of tobacco. Alcohol does not have the knifeblade risks of casual use that those two do. I am only for pharmaceuticals as prescribed by a medical professional, who is capable of making informed decisions as to their use. The "great harm" is in the mind, depths that licensed professionals with years of experience have difficulty plumbing. Why would you expect to be able to fathom it on casual inspection?Like I said to SHM, and like I have said to you on more than one occasion, it's easy to say "they knew the risks!" but it's almost never the case.Prudence does not demand omniscience, just science.

Banning increases utilization. Science.

[Laviticas]

Latrinsorm, hope you don't mind if I reference the hand washing analogy at a later date?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't believe Latrin is for banning it from medical use, just from being a legal substance to anyone. Otherwise I'd doubt he'd have made the distinction about prescription drugs he did in the same post. He'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I find it sinful that you accept the fact that something is bad for you because the government says it is illegal. Or in this case, worse for you than something that the government deems legal (but that at one point was also illegal.)

I understand that you are for its legalization, I just don't understand the position of this particular post.

What position are you referring too? I was only answering why people think it's "sinful" (which is not how I would describe people being adverse to using marijuana because it's illegal, but was the word used by Subzero I think) to smoke marijuana.

My position is we should make all drugs legal, and all drug manufacturers not-culpable for the unauthorized (not prescribed by a licensed physician) use of their drugs.

[Jarvan]

I personally think that anyone that feels that they have to smoke MJ, as one person I know put it, just to get thru the day or to make life worthwhile, is a truly pathetic person.

I also find it funny that almost all the people that want to legalize it, are the people that are illegally doing it. No fucking shit. Maybe it's cause I have never done any drugs.. or that I don't really like breaking laws, even when I think they are stupid.. (there is a stop sign on a road near my house in the middle of a farm.. with just a dirt road next to it that NO cars drive down). So I guess I just don't understand how people break the law then feel that they are ok in doing it cause it's a "stupid" law. Get the law changed, then indulge. Indulging before the law is changed just makes you a criminal.

[subzero]

I don't believe Latrin is for banning it from medical use, just from being a legal substance to anyone. Otherwise I'd doubt he'd have made the distinction about prescription drugs he did in the same post. He'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure.

The only reason it is able to be used medically is because the states that have medical laws have essentially told the government to piss off. The federal government, realizing now that they're losing this battle, has simply decided not to continue pressing the issue. They could if they wanted since apparently they haven't yet felt the need to re-schedule it and it is still a banned substance under federal law that has 'no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse'.

I suppose it depends on how we're defining banning here. The way I see it, if it's banned, it's not usable in any form, whatsoever. The Schedule I narcotics are banned. The others are regulated.

[subzero]

I personally think that anyone that feels that they have to smoke MJ, as one person I know put it, just to get thru the day or to make life worthwhile, is a truly pathetic person.

I also find it funny that almost all the people that want to legalize it, are the people that are illegally doing it. No fucking shit. Maybe it's cause I have never done any drugs.. or that I don't really like breaking laws, even when I think they are stupid.. (there is a stop sign on a road near my house in the middle of a farm.. with just a dirt road next to it that NO cars drive down). So I guess I just don't understand how people break the law then feel that they are ok in doing it cause it's a "stupid" law. Get the law changed, then indulge. Indulging before the law is changed just makes you a criminal.

http://www.masonicleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/White_Knight.jpg

[waywardgs]

I also find it funny that almost all the people that want to legalize it, are the people that are illegally doing it. No fucking shit.

This is patently false.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This is patently false.

Really? Anything that supports this statement? I wouldn't know and am genuinely curious what is true.

[Whirlin]

Really? Anything that supports this statement? I wouldn't know and am genuinely curious what is true.

I don't think there's been anything more than assertions on both sides.

[waywardgs]

Really? Anything that supports this statement? I wouldn't know and am genuinely curious what is true.

58% support legalization
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

38% have *tried* it
http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx

And I assume the percentage of folks who actively use it is even less.

[Latrinsorm]

Tell that to these people and others who suffer from multiple sclerosis, cancer, cerebral palsy, and seizures: To claim there is no proper use for it is an absolutely asinine, jackass statement.The fundamental basis of torture is that people will trade anything for the cessation of extreme pain: honor, patriotism, etc. Obviously an increased risk of mental illness falls into the category of "anything".
How so? Even if I were to smoke outside of the house, in a public place designated for smoking, the other people there have made the choice to be present and accept the risks involved.The risks you create do not end with the smoke, in the same way that the risks of an inebriated person do not end when they put down their glass.
Again, keep in mind that people are allowed this choice with other, more harmful substances.I have made it clear that I am for a far more invasive government in general. It does not make sense to assume I would want anything legal. Your best bet would be to list the substances you have in mind and I'll let you know whether my position is consistent, but I can save you some time and just tell you that it is. :)
How exactly are you proposing we use science if not to get a good understanding of things? Science has provided zero insight into the creation of all things so far as I've been able to determine. I'm curious, if you base your 'prudence' on science, how can you have any belief one way or another since you know so little about the subject?Since you ask, I don't have a belief one way or another on the ultimate genesis of reality.
As far as science and other things, it begins with a theory before it becomes a law. The way you seem to fear the unknown with things such as concussions or the effects of cannabis, we'd never get anywhere with them. We couldn't; no one would be permitted to do anything that could result in a concussion, cannabis could not be consumed to study, etc. because those poor souls simply cannot make the decision to take the path that would lead to science being able to study those things all due to their ignorance of the potential risks they face. It's a bit circular, isn't it?

Sometimes we have to act on beliefs and possibilities without or with very little scientific evidence. You do this, too, if you happen to have faith in some religion or another. I find that curious since I believe you do have faith in a religion, yet you want science to provide answers before people are allowed to decide on something such as using cannabis.I probably wasn't clear. Science has provided the answers, what I want is for us (in the form of the federal government) to act on them.

[Latrinsorm]

Banning increases utilization. Science.Strictly speaking handwashing wasn't banned by the authorities of the time. To invoke the pattern what you should do is force someone like me (like me) to smoke marijuana constantly until I develop mental illness and ideally kill a bunch of people, preferably babies.
Latrinsorm, hope you don't mind if I reference the hand washing analogy at a later date?It is one of the most under-appreciated stories of modern history, any dissemination is fine by me. Just wash your hands after.
I don't believe Latrin is for banning it from medical use, just from being a legal substance to anyone. Otherwise I'd doubt he'd have made the distinction about prescription drugs he did in the same post. He'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure.I don't know how the FDA rates side effects. If the risk of marijuana are in line with any other approved prescription drug, it could be a prescription drug. I am reasonably sure it's much higher, though.

[Warriorbird]

Strictly speaking handwashing wasn't banned by the authorities of the time. To invoke the pattern what you should do is force someone like me (like me) to smoke marijuana constantly until I develop mental illness and ideally kill a bunch of people, preferably babies.

Liturgical law was still law.

The modern bans on alcohol and marijuana most definitely increased utilization.

[cwolff]

I'm confused here. Latrin, are you saying MJ is wicked bad like the other drugs in the schedule 1 classification but alcohol is rather benign?

[Warriorbird]

I'm confused here. Latrin, are you saying MJ is wicked bad like the other drugs in the schedule 1 classification but alcohol is rather benign?

I believe he wants everything banned and thinks that we can back up these bans with universal surveillance. It's why physicslosophy majors are so pernicious.

[Thondalar]

I believe he wants everything banned and thinks that we can back up these bans with universal surveillance. It's why physicslosophy majors are so pernicious.

As far as I can tell he wants us all to live in small, empty stone rooms with nothing in them but a toilet and a cot, where perfectly balanced meals are given to us through a slot in the door and electric shock collars insure we get our requisite amount of daily exercise. All under the watchful eye of a self-aware universal surveillance system.

[Latrinsorm]

Liturgical law was still law.In 1850s Austria? That does not appear to be the case.
The modern bans on alcohol and marijuana most definitely increased utilization.They most definitely did not eliminate them, but I have seen no evidence that they increased them. The evidence I see says bans either keep use the same or decrease it. Source? :)

[Latrinsorm]

I'm confused here. Latrin, are you saying MJ is wicked bad like the other drugs in the schedule 1 classification but alcohol is rather benign?I am saying that marijuana use is correlated with severe health issues. I don't know how schedule 1 is classified, nor do I care to discuss it while my first claim is vigorously disputed. I am also saying that alcohol use is not correlated with health issues; rather, excessive alcohol use is. Like the number of bullets you shoot yourself in the head with, there is no use that is not an overuse with marijuana, no nonzero golden mean.
I believe he wants everything banned and thinks that we can back up these bans with universal surveillance. It's why physicslosophy majors are so pernicious.You gotta agree, though, it would definitely make people care about laws more if they were universally punished for transgressing them.
As far as I can tell he wants us all to live in small, empty stone rooms with nothing in them but a toilet and a cot, where perfectly balanced meals are given to us through a slot in the door and electric shock collars insure we get our requisite amount of daily exercise. All under the watchful eye of a self-aware universal surveillance system.Yeah yeah yeah, false dichotomy, absurd exaggeration. You need a new thing, big guy.

[Warriorbird]

In 1850s Austria? That does not appear to be the case.They most definitely did not eliminate them, but I have seen no evidence that they increased them. The evidence I see says bans either keep use the same or decrease it. Source? :)

Medieval/Renaissance England had liturgical laws against bathing. That is not true of every country where bathing was unpopular.


California land dedicated to grape-growing increased by 700% during the first 5 years of Prohibition. By 1928, approximately 27,900 railroad carloads of grapes left California bound for New York alone. The volume was so great that the Pennsylvania Railroad expended its Jersey City freight terminal solely to accommodate the thousands of grape-laden boxcars. Prices increased as well as volume. During the first four years of Prohibition, a ton of grapes went from a pre-Prohibition price of less than $30 to a staggering $375.

Less than 1% of Americans had tried marijuana in 1937. By 2001 nearly 42% had tried it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Usage


You gotta agree, though, it would definitely make people care about laws more if they were universally punished for transgressing them.

That would be totally worthy of our trust.

[cwolff]

I am saying that marijuana use is correlated with severe health issues. I don't know how schedule 1 is classified, nor do I care to discuss it while my first claim is vigorously disputed. I am also saying that alcohol use is not correlated with health issues; rather, excessive alcohol use is. Like the number of bullets you shoot yourself in the head with, there is no use that is not an overuse with marijuana, no nonzero golden mean.

I'm still confused and it starts with the basics.

What dose of alcohol has no health repercussions.
We've got no "high" at all marijuana. Does ingesting this in any amount damage a person?


I still don't get why alcohol can be consumed with no health effect but cannabis can't. Are you referencing some research?

[Warriorbird]

I'm still confused at it starts with the basics.

What dose of alcohol has no health repercussions.
We've got no "high" at all marijuana. Does ingesting this in any amount damage a person?


I still don't get why alcohol can be consumed with no health effect but cannabis can't.

It has less health effects than tobacco too.

[cwolff]

It has less health effects than tobacco too.

It affected this guys health. LOL


Levy Thamba Pongi, 19, consumed a little more than one cookie after his girlfriend legally purchased four of the pot edibles at a shop in downtown Denver — even though a store clerk told her to cut one cookie into six pieces and eat just one piece at a time, according to the reports obtained Thursday.

Back at their hotel, the group of four friends followed the instructions, but when Pongi felt nothing after about 30 minutes, he ate an entire cookie, police said.

Pongi started acting strangely 15 to 30 minutes later, speaking erratically in French, shaking, screaming and throwing things around the hotel room.

"'This is a sign from God that this has happened, that I can't control myself,'" he told his friends, according to the reports. "'It's not because of the weed.'"

Pongi's friends tried to restrain him before he left the room and jumped over a fourth floor railing into the hotel lobby, police said.

An autopsy report from the March 11 incident lists marijuana intoxication as a "significant contributing factor" in the death.

Jesus Christ. Last thing we need are dudes making Reefer Madness look like a quality documentary.

[subzero]

The risks you create do not end with the smoke, in the same way that the risks of an inebriated person do not end when they put down their glass.

What about vaporized or edible cannabis? If the risks you're concerned with are related to impaired driving, I'd say it's a little too late to worry about that. The people who are going to use cannabis and drive are already doing it just as those who drink and drive or use legally prescribed pills and drive do.

[Originate]

Lat, I am trying to look at the specifics of the articles but I can't find anything about the sample size, method used, or peer reviews. But I really doubt the credibility of most epidemiological studies regardless, even if there is a correlation between use and psychosis, I don't understand how the possibility of pre existing or extrinsic factors that related which can't necessarily be qualified. The study can't be duplicated, it is merely drawing a correlation based on what I read. As you said it before, it doesn't mean that it is 'harmless,' and I understand that, but do you not believe that people have the liberty to do with themselves as the want? I don't know if you are for regulation or just want more education. As someone else eluded to, who are you to trust in this age where the government is clearly influenced by lobbyists and donating parties who are also the ones who pay for some of the research?
I am kind of unclear of what your message is though, are you saying it shouldn't be legal because it can cause harm to the user? Or that because it can cause harm to those near the user? Or that the 'facts' aren't accepted by society?

[Warriorbird]

Lat, I am trying to look at the specifics of the articles but I can't find anything about the sample size, method used, or peer reviews. But I really doubt the credibility of most epidemiological studies regardless, even if there is a correlation between use and psychosis, I don't understand how the possibility of pre existing or extrinsic factors that related which can't necessarily be qualified. The study can't be duplicated, it is merely drawing a correlation based on what I read. As you said it before, it doesn't mean that it is 'harmless,' and I understand that, but do you not believe that people have the liberty to do with themselves as the want? I don't know if you are for regulation or just want more education. As someone else eluded to, who are you to trust in this age where the government is clearly influenced by lobbyists and donating parties who are also the ones who pay for some of the research?
I am kind of unclear of what your message is though, are you saying it shouldn't be legal because it can cause harm to the user? Or that because it can cause harm to those near the user? Or that the 'facts' aren't accepted by society?

He's saying it shouldn't be legal because universal surveillance.

[Latrinsorm]

Medieval/Renaissance England had liturgical laws against bathing. That is not true of every country where bathing was unpopular.I assume this is correct, but I do not understand what link it has to the stories of Semmelweis or smoking pot.
Less than 1% of Americans had tried marijuana in 1937. By 2001 nearly 42% had tried it.It wasn't repeatedly banned in that period, though, it was only banned once. Surely a trend (that is, no plateau) must have a continuous stimulus involved.
That would be totally worthy of our trust.I don't see how more attention devoted to the government can be a bad thing.
It has less health effects than tobacco too.I am already on record as being pro tobacco ban.
I'm still confused and it starts with the basics.
What dose of alcohol has no health repercussions.
We've got no "high" at all marijuana. Does ingesting this in any amount damage a person?

I still don't get why alcohol can be consumed with no health effect but cannabis can't. Are you referencing some research?I would specify no lingering health effect. Certainly any level of inebriation impacts health, but once the dose is metabolized all effects are gone. As to what the specific dose is, obviously it varies. Various countries have recommendations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommended_maximum_intake_of_alcoholic_beverages) for the maximum, so staying below the lowest of those would be advisable. Marijuana, on the other hand, is correlated with increased risk of lingering (post-metabolization) mental health issues with even one (http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738) use (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61162-3/abstract). The studies do not specify whether the marijuana was high or low, and I don't know of any study that does.

[Latrinsorm]

What about vaporized or edible cannabis? If the risks you're concerned with are related to impaired driving, I'd say it's a little too late to worry about that. The people who are going to use cannabis and drive are already doing it just as those who drink and drive or use legally prescribed pills and drive do.I am also concerned with those risks, but as you say they do not set marijuana apart. Please see above for a more detailed description of my concerns.
But I really doubt the credibility of most epidemiological studies regardless, even if there is a correlation between use and psychosis, I don't understand how the possibility of pre existing or extrinsic factors that related which can't necessarily be qualified.I've said it before and I'll say it again: scientists have no girlfriends and a lot of time on their hands.
As you said it before, it doesn't mean that it is 'harmless,' and I understand that, but do you not believe that people have the liberty to do with themselves as the want?I don't believe we've ever had that liberty.
I don't know if you are for regulation or just want more education. As someone else eluded to, who are you to trust in this age where the government is clearly influenced by lobbyists and donating parties who are also the ones who pay for some of the research?I don't place absolute trust in anyone, that's why I want everyone under surveillance. I trust that a critical mass of scientists are honest (because they're still broke) and so the peer-review system is fundamentally sound. Suspicious funding doesn't bother me.
I am kind of unclear of what your message is though, are you saying it shouldn't be legal because it can cause harm to the user? Or that because it can cause harm to those near the user? Or that the 'facts' aren't accepted by society?It should be illegal because it will increase the risk of harm to the user and anyone around them. I don't expect society to ever universally accept facts about anything, so there will always be a need for such laws.

[subzero]

I am also concerned with those risks, but as you say they do not set marijuana apart. Please see above for a more detailed description of my concerns.

The last little risk tangent was in regard to, "Because your actions have consequences for more people than yourself." I have yet to see any definitive, or even close-to-solid, proof that cannabis use results in the type of mental issues that affect other people. Outliers may exist, but as you said before, we don't exactly have the brain along with its various issues figured out yet. Hard to pin something solely on cannabis considering the sheer number of other potential causes for those outliers.

Certainly edible forms of cannabis don't affect other people. Vaporized... I don't think we know enough yet about the effects there with either cannabis or tobacco.

[Latrinsorm]

The last little risk tangent was in regard to, "Because your actions have consequences for more people than yourself." I have yet to see any definitive, or even close-to-solid, proof that cannabis use results in the type of mental issues that affect other people. Outliers may exist, but as you said before, we don't exactly have the brain along with its various issues figured out yet. Hard to pin something solely on cannabis considering the sheer number of other potential causes for those outliers.Like the Austrian authorities before you, your lack of vision does not indicate a lack of evidence. Like many, you talk a good game about science until it disproves what you know is true, then it's all "definitive proof" and "correlation is not causation" and "I know a smoker who isn't psychotic" and the rest of the litany.

I don't begrudge your not taking science seriously. I just wish you would be honest with yourself about it.

[Warriorbird]

Like the Austrian authorities before you, your lack of vision does not indicate a lack of evidence. Like many, you talk a good game about science until it disproves what you know is true, then it's all "definitive proof" and "correlation is not causation" and "I know a smoker who isn't psychotic" and the rest of the litany.

I don't begrudge your not taking science seriously. I just wish you would be honest with yourself about it.

http://tokesignals.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/o_reefer_madness_wsdw1936.jpeg

Reefer Madness isn't actually a scientific documentary.

[Latrinsorm]

Reefer Madness isn't actually a scientific documentary.
What's really fascinating is that decades of ignorant bias might unknowingly have been correct, but said decades encourage the intelligentsia to go against them.I didn't ask for these powers.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't ask for these powers.

I've just never seen banning as anything but a complete failure. And in spite of my shameless humanities biases, I continue to feel that way. History backs me up quite nicely.

[Latrinsorm]

I've just never seen banning as anything but a complete failure. And in spite of my shameless humanities biases, I continue to feel that way. History backs me up quite nicely.History doesn't teach us that bans don't work, history teaches us the bans that don't work. People never respond well to hammers, you have to use a vise (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr050-07.shtml). Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, and in four measly years the smoking rate dropped to 80% of its previous steady state, then to 67% in the next (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/nyregion/survey-finds-14-percent-of-new-yorkers-smoke-a-decline.html?_r=0) four years.

Marijuana will be more difficult because it has a much higher critical mass than tobacco today, but tobacco cigarettes alone have been as high as 40% (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCPH.pdf) (see Table 1) in the past and that clearly didn't stop us. Critical mass is strong but it only works as inertia after the growth phase; it's not a force that can push in the other direction, it can only resist pushes. You hit it once with a hammer, you might as well whistle Dixie. You put it in the vise? You inevitably, inexorably win.

[Jeril]

History doesn't teach us that bans don't work, history teaches us the bans that don't work. People never respond well to hammers, you have to use a vise (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr050-07.shtml). Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, and in four measly years the smoking rate dropped to 80% of its previous steady state, then to 67% in the next (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/nyregion/survey-finds-14-percent-of-new-yorkers-smoke-a-decline.html?_r=0) four years.

Marijuana will be more difficult because it has a much higher critical mass than tobacco today, but tobacco cigarettes alone have been as high as 40% (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCPH.pdf) (see Table 1) in the past and that clearly didn't stop us. Critical mass is strong but it only works as inertia after the growth phase; it's not a force that can push in the other direction, it can only resist pushes. You hit it once with a hammer, you might as well whistle Dixie. You put it in the vise? You inevitably, inexorably win.

Legalizing drugs has sounded like a good idea but any time I talk to anyone who actually does them on a regular basis I quickly go back to rethinking it. The absurdities you hear from those people is just too much and if you legalizes it you'd have a lot more of it floating around. Most people already do plenty of dumb things on their own they don't really need any help in that department.

[Warriorbird]

History doesn't teach us that bans don't work, history teaches us the bans that don't work. People never respond well to hammers, you have to use a vise (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr050-07.shtml). Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, and in four measly years the smoking rate dropped to 80% of its previous steady state, then to 67% in the next (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/nyregion/survey-finds-14-percent-of-new-yorkers-smoke-a-decline.html?_r=0) four years.

Marijuana will be more difficult because it has a much higher critical mass than tobacco today, but tobacco cigarettes alone have been as high as 40% (http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCPH.pdf) (see Table 1) in the past and that clearly didn't stop us. Critical mass is strong but it only works as inertia after the growth phase; it's not a force that can push in the other direction, it can only resist pushes. You hit it once with a hammer, you might as well whistle Dixie. You put it in the vise? You inevitably, inexorably win.

It's some nice thoughts. Unfortunately, you ignore some massive other factors that occurred during the time period. What global priorities might tobacco have pushed towards?

[Latrinsorm]

It's some nice thoughts. Unfortunately, you ignore some massive other factors that occurred during the time period. What global priorities might tobacco have pushed towards?...Communism? Terrorism? I thought marijuana was the drug that supported terrorists, that's what the government told me and therefore it must be true.

[Warriorbird]

...Communism? Terrorism? I thought marijuana was the drug that supported terrorists, that's what the government told me and therefore it must be true.

Communism going oligarchy capitalism would certainly be part of it.

[Originate]

Here is a follow up...
http://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/does-researching-casual-marijuana-use-cause-brain-abnormalities/

[cwolff]

Legalizing drugs has sounded like a good idea but any time I talk to anyone who actually does them on a regular basis I quickly go back to rethinking it. The absurdities you hear from those people is just too much and if you legalizes it you'd have a lot more of it floating around. Most people already do plenty of dumb things on their own they don't really need any help in that department.

See what you think of this video. It's long but not boring.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8yYJ_oV6xk


...Communism? Terrorism? I thought marijuana was the drug that supported terrorists, that's what the government told me and therefore it must be true.

You've got to maintain some perspective. We had a terrible problem with wolves back then. They were at the door. Canis and Cannabis? They're almost the same thing.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought it was bears, and that's why student loans (aka usury/ursus) were bad.
Here is a follow up...If I can offer counter-counter-points:

1. There's no evidence that Dr. Breiter claimed to be a mathematician. To me, some journalist deciding to call him one is more plausibly explained by journalists not being good at the fine arts.

2. A small sample size is not ideal, but it does not mean the practice of case studies is intellectually bankrupt.

3. The majority of users not being casual does not disprove the claim that some were.

4. Correlation vs. causation is a problem with literally every empirical observation ever made. Therefore, your only two choices when citing it are (1) dismissing literally every empirical observation ever made or (2) being a hypocrite.

The issues with the data itself are well put.

[subzero]

A bottle of wine a day is harmless? The evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2014/apr/22/drinking-wine-health-evidence-alcohol-units)

[Latrinsorm]

A bottle of wine a day is harmless? The evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2014/apr/22/drinking-wine-health-evidence-alcohol-units)Speaking of hypocrisy...

[Jeril]

A bottle of wine a day is harmless? The evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2014/apr/22/drinking-wine-health-evidence-alcohol-units)

I am too lazy to click that link but I have always been told a glass or two, nothing about the whole bottle.

[Jarvan]

I am too lazy to click that link but I have always been told a glass or two, nothing about the whole bottle.

But the Finnish Professor looked at "Decades of Evidence".

of course he won't produce the evidence.

[Thondalar]

Legalizing drugs has sounded like a good idea but any time I talk to anyone who actually does them on a regular basis I quickly go back to rethinking it. The absurdities you hear from those people is just too much and if you legalizes it you'd have a lot more of it floating around. Most people already do plenty of dumb things on their own they don't really need any help in that department.

In every other country that has decriminalized it, usage has went down across the board. There's no reason to think it would do otherwise here. Humans have a bad problem with doing what they're told not to do simply because they're told not to do it. Take away the rebellious sensationalism of it and you take away a lot of the desire to do it.

Instead of spending billions on incarceration, we could spend a fraction of that on more treatment options. Addiction is a disease, not a crime. States would save tons of money, and we could return thousands of non-violent "criminals" to their friends, family, and jobs.

Just like prohibition and the mob, the war on drugs created the cartels. Although that ship has sailed, it would go a long way towards diminishing their power and profits.

Full decriminalization has absolutely zero negative effects that anyone can prove. Everyone's terrified that if we legalize it, our nation will suddenly turn into a cesspool of crazed drug addicts. It's completely illogical.

[Jeril]

Oh I know, but the idiots do make you think twice, it isn't exactly their fault either, we as a country find nothing wrong with people being complete idiots and often applaud them.

The whole moral argument is an interesting one, I wonder how those people feel about legalizing prostitution, assisted suicide, and removing all the welfare programs, as they are other forms of law enforced morality.

Maybe if we legalizing everything we can get to fixing some of our major social issues and less people would feel inclined to use such substances. As it stands a guy can walk into a room and say "I'm fucking drunk and stoned off my ass", to which he'd receive a standing ovation. If, however, he said "I just got back from seeing a psychiatrist so that I'll never feel the need to drink or smoke again", he'd maybe get a golf clap and several people would likely call him a quitter.

Latrin, about the whole surveillance thing, have you ever considered the full implications of it? The surveillance you want will lead to absolute law which will eliminate adversity and diversity. It is only through these two things that we really grow, how animalistic of us. When you apply that to the United States it would slow our growth as a nation and allow someone to surpass us and we'd likely end up conquered in one form or another. If you applied that to the world, we as a species would stagnate and would be unable to cope with catastrophic change and we'd never reach our full potential.

I also seem to recall you have a christian upbringing of some sort. If that is the case your surveillance and the absolute law that would follow would crush free will, which is one of the things that is supposed to be held most sacred by those of the christian faith.

[Jarvan]

In every other country that has decriminalized it, usage has went down across the board. There's no reason to think it would do otherwise here. Humans have a bad problem with doing what they're told not to do simply because they're told not to do it. Take away the rebellious sensationalism of it and you take away a lot of the desire to do it.

Instead of spending billions on incarceration, we could spend a fraction of that on more treatment options. Addiction is a disease, not a crime. States would save tons of money, and we could return thousands of non-violent "criminals" to their friends, family, and jobs.

Just like prohibition and the mob, the war on drugs created the cartels. Although that ship has sailed, it would go a long way towards diminishing their power and profits.

Full decriminalization has absolutely zero negative effects that anyone can prove. Everyone's terrified that if we legalize it, our nation will suddenly turn into a cesspool of crazed drug addicts. It's completely illogical.

Very few countries have "fully" decriminalized it. A lot that have decriminalized consumption, still has it illegal to sell, transport, or grow. Also, I can't find very many hard numbers on usage before and after decriminalization.

Alcohol is legal, yet we still have insanely high rates for kids drinking. Making it easier to obtain, will cause an increase in usage in the short term. In the long term, it likely will drop. You can't tell me that there are not people out there that don't do it because it's illegal, that will do it once it is legal. Unless you think that a large number of people do it now only because it's illegal. Some, I am sure, but I would doubt that the first group is smaller then the second.

Decriminalization has absolutely zero positive effects that anyone can prove really (other then the people that smoke pot won't be criminals anymore). And we are already a cesspool of crazed drug addicts compared to most of the world.. and the reason why? We have the money.

[Latrinsorm]

In every other country that has decriminalized it, usage has went down across the board.I certainly agree that humans are spiteful, but the only evidence I can find says that usage stayed pretty much the same (and invariably contains justified caveats about cross-country comparisons). Do you have a source for your claim?
Latrin, about the whole surveillance thing, have you ever considered the full implications of it? The surveillance you want will lead to absolute law which will eliminate adversity and diversity.Aha, but the disproportionate and disgusting rates of police brutality towards minorities would be caught on tape and punished, therefore diversity would not only survive but prosper. I don't know exactly what you mean by eliminate adversity, can you elaborate?
I also seem to recall you have a christian upbringing of some sort. If that is the case your surveillance and the absolute law that would follow would crush free will, which is one of the things that is supposed to be held most sacred by those of the christian faith.I promise USA isn't an elaborate way of studying it, but the interaction of free will and surveillance is absolutely fascinating. Is it possible to dance like no one's watching? There is definitely a chilling effect on criminal behavior, how far does that effect extend to non-criminal behavior? How far before the trade isn't worth it? Like I've asked Methais (and I'm still waiting on the answer), how many times would you poop in public if it meant a child wouldn't be raped?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but I can say with certainty that farting about the Fourth Amendment and calling it a day is the wrong answer. Our Founding Fathers never considered farting a communicative act protected by the First Amendment, and I defy anyone to provide a source showing otherwise.

[Warriorbird]

Oh I know, but the idiots do make you think twice, it isn't exactly their fault either, we as a country find nothing wrong with people being complete idiots and often applaud them.

The whole moral argument is an interesting one, I wonder how those people feel about legalizing prostitution, assisted suicide, and removing all the welfare programs, as they are other forms of law enforced morality.

Maybe if we legalizing everything we can get to fixing some of our major social issues and less people would feel inclined to use such substances. As it stands a guy can walk into a room and say "I'm fucking drunk and stoned off my ass", to which he'd receive a standing ovation. If, however, he said "I just got back from seeing a psychiatrist so that I'll never feel the need to drink or smoke again", he'd maybe get a golf clap and several people would likely call him a quitter.

Latrin, about the whole surveillance thing, have you ever considered the full implications of it? The surveillance you want will lead to absolute law which will eliminate adversity and diversity. It is only through these two things that we really grow, how animalistic of us. When you apply that to the United States it would slow our growth as a nation and allow someone to surpass us and we'd likely end up conquered in one form or another. If you applied that to the world, we as a species would stagnate and would be unable to cope with catastrophic change and we'd never reach our full potential.

I also seem to recall you have a christian upbringing of some sort. If that is the case your surveillance and the absolute law that would follow would crush free will, which is one of the things that is supposed to be held most sacred by those of the christian faith.

I'm quite all right with legalized prostitution and assisted suicide. I think that programs that give government benefits offer more than just moral rewards. If we'd let Paul Ryan starve and not go to college we might not have a Representative, for example.

[Jarvan]

I'm quite all right with legalized prostitution and assisted suicide. I think that programs that give government benefits offer more than just moral rewards. If we'd let Paul Ryan starve and not go to college we might not have a Representative, for example.

I agree, if we hadn't given assistance to Obama as a foreign student, we may not have had the first black president.

[Warriorbird]

I certainly agree that humans are spiteful, but the only evidence I can find says that usage stayed pretty much the same (and invariably contains justified caveats about cross-country comparisons). Do you have a source for your claim?Aha, but the disproportionate and disgusting rates of police brutality towards minorities would be caught on tape and punished, therefore diversity would not only survive but prosper. I don't know exactly what you mean by eliminate adversity, can you elaborate?I promise USA isn't an elaborate way of studying it, but the interaction of free will and surveillance is absolutely fascinating. Is it possible to dance like no one's watching? There is definitely a chilling effect on criminal behavior, how far does that effect extend to non-criminal behavior? How far before the trade isn't worth it? Like I've asked Methais (and I'm still waiting on the answer), how many times would you poop in public if it meant a child wouldn't be raped?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but I can say with certainty that farting about the Fourth Amendment and calling it a day is the wrong answer. Our Founding Fathers never considered farting a communicative act protected by the First Amendment, and I defy anyone to provide a source showing otherwise.

Soon we'll have universal surveillance in cars. It'll be interesting.

[cwolff]

A bottle of wine a day is harmless? The evidence suggests otherwise (http://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2014/apr/22/drinking-wine-health-evidence-alcohol-units)

The Dr. my brother met through his heart attack debunked this for my bro. His opinion is that a glass or two can be healthy but the same benefits can be realized with non-alcoholic grape juice.

If we decriminalize the drugs we might be able to get rid of the private prison industry. I like this idea because prison for profit gives me the shivers.

[Warriorbird]

Aha, but the disproportionate and disgusting rates of police brutality towards minorities would be caught on tape and punished, therefore diversity would not only survive but prosper.

This is unfortunately not represented by actual evidence.

[cwolff]

This is unfortunately not represented by actual evidence.

I'm becoming a universal surveillance fan. I used to hate the idea. I always felt like I'd be on the run someday and that a strong, efficient law enforcement presence could only hurt me. I don't expect I'll have any trouble anymore.

This kind of thing makes me sick (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9441539). If we have to get cameras everywhere just to keep our eyes on the authorities then I guess I'm for it. Besides, do we even know what the NSA is looking at anyway? We might get universal surveillance to a degree without the benefit of keeping an eye on the people policing us.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9441539

[Warriorbird]

I'm becoming a universal surveillance fan. I used to hate the idea. I always felt like I'd be on the run someday and that a strong, efficient law enforcement presence could only hurt me. I don't expect I'll have any trouble anymore.

This kind of thing makes me sick (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9441539). If we have to get cameras everywhere just to keep our eyes on the authorities then I guess I'm for it. Besides, do we even know what the NSA is looking at anyway? We might get universal surveillance to a degree without the benefit of keeping an eye on the people policing us.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9441539

Most of the abuses of stop and frisk occurred under a great deal of surveillance. Terrible things occur under surveillance every day and nothing is done. Those who perform this surveillance frequently and wantonly abuse it to intrude on the privacy of those connected to them and it is laughed off and ignored. The belief that surveillance is a benefit is like the belief that Communism or libetarianism will result in a utopia. The weakness is people, companies, and how I imagine artificial intelligence will act if and when we create it. Their very nature makes it a terrible idea.

[cwolff]

That article isn't a stop and frisk issue. He was pulled over for speeding and ended up charged with felonies for fighting the cops. He faces a long prison stretch until his lawyers realized that a different police car had video too. When they reviewed the video charges were dropped and the cops got indicted.

I agree that people can be real shits. I'm willing to be surveilled to a greater degree than I am today because I think it will help.

It's also very scary. The idea the government has that much power is unsettling. The thing is though, we may not be able to stop government from taking this power and we might as well get something for ourselves.

[Warriorbird]

That article isn't a stop and frisk issue. He was pulled over for speeding and ended up charged with felonies for fighting the cops. He faces a long prison stretch until his lawyers realized that a different police car had video too. When they reviewed the video charges were dropped and the cops got indicted.

I agree that people can be real shits. I'm willing to be surveilled to a greater degree than I am today because I think it will help.

It's also very scary. The idea the government has that much power is unsettling. The thing is though, we may not be able to stop government from taking this power and we might as well get something for ourselves.

The government is like a corporation. It feels no inclination to give you any power unless you force it. We haven't done that since the Progressive Era that all the Republicans whine about so much (even though Republicans were often the central figures). It's great that surveillance can help some people in court. For most people it doesn't do a damn thing.

[cwolff]

The government is like a corporation. It feels no inclination to give you any power unless you force it. We haven't done that since the Progressive Era that all the Republicans whine about so much (even though Republicans were often the central figures). It's great that surveillance can help some people in court. For most people it doesn't do a damn thing.

That's the truth. Once the government gets power it'll be hard pressed to relinquish it either. What I'm saying is that surveillance is empowering for the people. Not to the 1984 extremes of course but it can empower us.

[cwolff]

Looks like the War on Drugs is one more conservative War that Obama will have to finish.

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/state-and-federal-prison-population-1925-2010-number-of-people-nixon-launches-war-on-drugs-source-bureau-of-justice-statistics-prisoner-series.jpg

[Tgo01]

Looks like the War on Drugs is one more conservative War that Obama will have to finish.

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/state-and-federal-prison-population-1925-2010-number-of-people-nixon-launches-war-on-drugs-source-bureau-of-justice-statistics-prisoner-series.jpg

A) That chart is stupid.
B) Nixon "launched" the war on drugs? Really? Launched the war on drugs? One could say Nixon "declared" a war on drugs at that time (although technically he never used that phrase) but the US had been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades before Nixon showed up.

Also part of Nixon's plan was to prevent new people from getting addicted to drugs and to help those already addicted. But it's much more fun to pretend that Nixon was some sort of monster and is solely responsible for more people being in prison today.

[Warriorbird]

A) That chart is stupid.
B) Nixon "launched" the war on drugs? Really? Launched the war on drugs? One could say Nixon "declared" a war on drugs at that time (although technically he never used that phrase) but the US had been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades before Nixon showed up.

Also part of Nixon's plan was to prevent new people from getting addicted to drugs and to help those already addicted. But it's much more fun to pretend that Nixon was some sort of monster and is solely responsible for more people being in prison today.

I personally would also blame different Republicans.

[cwolff]

A) That chart is stupid.
B) Nixon "launched" the war on drugs? Really? Launched the war on drugs? One could say Nixon "declared" a war on drugs at that time (although technically he never used that phrase) but the US had been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades before Nixon showed up.

Also part of Nixon's plan was to prevent new people from getting addicted to drugs and to help those already addicted. But it's much more fun to pretend that Nixon was some sort of monster and is solely responsible for more people being in prison today.

"America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse," Nixon declared in a June 17, 1971 press conference. "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

What's wrong with the chart? Is it incorrect? What Nixon may or may not have done for addicts isn't the question. Not even sure why you're bringing it up. Is there evidence that he curbed addiction?

I think I see what you guys are saying. You're defending Nixon. I didn't post this an attack on Nixon per se. Just a timeline.

[subzero]

I am too lazy to click that link but I have always been told a glass or two, nothing about the whole bottle.

Yeah, apparently is was in response to some 'new' information someone thinks they found. First sentence from that link, "Both the Daily Mail and the Independent reported over the weekend that a bottle of wine a day might not be bad for you."

The point of linking that was that people are always claiming they've discovered something or other. It's almost like the people putting out these reports are competing for recognition similar to the way we tend to get bogus news stories because they pull shit from twitter and other social media outlets in an effort to be the first to report it. Because being first is fucking important!

[Warriorbird]

The whole two glasses of wine a day thing is more marketing than science.

[Tgo01]

"America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse," Nixon declared in a June 17, 1971 press conference. "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

"Launched" makes it sound like there was no war on drugs until Nixon showed up. Nixon "declaring" a war on drugs just makes it sound like Nixon made it official. I'm sure whoever created that chart knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to use the word "launched."

And yes everyone knows what Nixon said at that press conference (well actually that's not true because everyone thinks he declared a war on drugs yet it was the Media that came up with that.)

This is part of what Nixon proposed to Congress:


I am proposing the appropriation of additional funds to meet the cost of rehabilitating drug users, and I will ask for additional funds to increase our enforcement efforts to further tighten the noose around the necks of drug peddlers, and thereby loosen the noose around the necks of drug users.


Therefore, I propose the establishment of a central authority with overall responsibility for all major Federal drug abuse prevention, education, treatment, rehabilitation, training, and research programs in all Federal agencies. This authority would be known as the Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention. It would be located within the Executive Office of the President and would be headed by a Director accountable to the President. Because this is an emergency response to a national problem which we intend to bring under control, the Office would be established to operate only for a period of three years from its date of enactment, and the President would have the option of extending its life for an additional two years if desirable.

This Office would provide strengthened Federal leadership in finding solutions to drug abuse problems. It would establish priorities and instill a sense of urgency in Federal and federally-supported drug abuse programs, and it would increase coordination between Federal, State, and local rehabilitation efforts.

More specifically, the Special Action Office would develop overall Federal strategy for drug abuse prevention programs, set program goals, objectives and priorities, carry out programs through other Federal agencies, develop guidance and standards for operating agencies, and evaluate performance of all programs to determine where success is being achieved. It would extend its efforts into research, prevention, training, education, treatment, rehabilitation, and the development of necessary reports, statistics, and social indicators for use by all public and private groups. It would not be directly concerned with the problems of reducing drug supply, or with the law enforcement aspects of drug abuse control.

But it's much easier to pin the prison population on Nixon if we just pretend he enacted laws that sent everyone to jail because they looked at a joint.


What's wrong with the chart? Is it incorrect?

I have no idea if it's incorrect. It's stupid because it looks at the prison population as a whole instead of as a percentage of the US population. Again the person who created the chart knew exactly what they were doing.


What Nixon may or may not have done for addicts isn't the question.

The fact that Nixon suggested trying to prevent people from abusing drugs in the first place and wanting to help those already on drugs doesn't matter?

[Warriorbird]

Nixon had a different philosophy than Hoover, Reagan, or the many others involved.

[cwolff]

"Launched" makes it sound like there was no war on drugs until Nixon showed up. Nixon "declaring" a war on drugs just makes it sound like Nixon made it official. I'm sure whoever created that chart knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to use the word "launched."

And yes everyone knows what Nixon said at that press conference (well actually that's not true because everyone thinks he declared a war on drugs yet it was the Media that came up with that.)

This is part of what Nixon proposed to Congress:





But it's much easier to pin the prison population on Nixon if we just pretend he enacted laws that sent everyone to jail because they looked at a joint.



I have no idea if it's incorrect. It's stupid because it looks at the prison population as a whole instead of as a percentage of the US population. Again the person who created the chart knew exactly what they were doing.



The fact that Nixon suggested trying to prevent people from abusing drugs in the first place and wanting to help those already on drugs doesn't matter?

Why are you sucking Nixon's dick so hard? I don't even know what point you're trying to make. You're not making a statement as much as just being defensive for no reason.

Does this help?

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/20/356796-12508038205389-Carneades_origin.jpg

Oh, here's another good graph for the WoD era.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/legacy/news/feature/2008/07/prison_population_growth.jpg

[Tgo01]

Why are you sucking Nixon's dick so hard?

Because Nixon was the best president this country ever had!


You're not making a statement as much as just being defensive for no reason.

You don't have a problem with misleading charts and information?


Does this help?

I can post charts too:

http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/24/75/cb36abd748f14c81253c7cfe7a7afbfa.jpg

From this chart we can conclude that the color Red is the largest color in the universe.

[cwolff]

You still haven't addressed how the charts are misleading. I see them as showing a dramatic rise in incarceration rates that coincides with the "War on Drugs". Are the charts wrong? Is the increase due to non-drug related crimes? What's your issue with them?

[Jarvan]

Looks like the War on Drugs is one more conservative War that Obama will have to finish.

http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/state-and-federal-prison-population-1925-2010-number-of-people-nixon-launches-war-on-drugs-source-bureau-of-justice-statistics-prisoner-series.jpg

Well... it was FDR that signed the The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. This is what pretty much started the "war on Pot". There were earlier things that started the war on drugs itself. Then again, I would hope that people wouldn't want cocaine in coke, and opium in over the counter treatments.

Then again.. maybe some would.

[Warriorbird]

Well... it was FDR that signed the The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. This is what pretty much started the "war on Pot". There were earlier things that started the war on drugs itself. Then again, I would hope that people wouldn't want cocaine in coke, and opium in over the counter treatments.

Then again.. maybe some would.

They would. They call themselves Libertarians.

[Jarvan]

They would. They call themselves Libertarians.

True.. I can see their point, I really can. Doesn't mean I agree with it though.

I guess my biggest problem with the idea of legalizing drugs, some, most or all, is the fact that some people then want to consider the use of said drugs as an addiction, which would then be a medical or mental health issue.

Then they want to treat these people.. likely for free since most people with a major drug addiction don't generally have money. Which means in a sense.. because some weak willed fucktard feels that he can't make it thru the day without getting high.. I have to pay more money.

[subzero]

Everyone's terrified that if we legalize it, our nation will suddenly turn into a cesspool of crazed drug addicts. It's completely illogical.

Indeed. We are already a virtual cesspool of crazed drug addicts. The amount of pharmaceuticals this country consumes compared to the rest of the world is insane. Not sure how we compare with illegal drug use or how illegal use here compares with legal use, but I'm guessing we have far more people addicted to legal drugs than illegal. Those drugs are no less dangerous than the illegal ones.


The whole moral argument is an interesting one, I wonder how those people feel about legalizing prostitution, assisted suicide, and removing all the welfare programs, as they are other forms of law enforced morality.

Prostitution and assisted suicide should be legal options. I'm not a big fan of welfare programs, especially with how easily they're abused these days, but I do think if they're used properly they can be a good thing.


Latrin, about the whole surveillance thing, have you ever considered the full implications of it? The surveillance you want will lead to absolute law which will eliminate adversity and diversity. It is only through these two things that we really grow, how animalistic of us. When you apply that to the United States it would slow our growth as a nation and allow someone to surpass us and we'd likely end up conquered in one form or another. If you applied that to the world, we as a species would stagnate and would be unable to cope with catastrophic change and we'd never reach our full potential.

Latrin is the real world Bolivar Trask. He wants to build these guys and have them keep us safe:

http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2011/07/31610-ComicCon-Sentinel-out_1309982929.jpg


I also seem to recall you have a christian upbringing of some sort. If that is the case your surveillance and the absolute law that would follow would crush free will, which is one of the things that is supposed to be held most sacred by those of the christian faith.

Heh. Free will and religion don't mix. That's exactly what they don't want. They want people to do things they way they've been told by their big guy in the sky.


If we decriminalize the drugs we might be able to get rid of the private prison industry. I like this idea because prison for profit gives me the shivers.

Private prisons are definitely a blight that needs to be cleansed.


I agree that people can be real shits. I'm willing to be surveilled to a greater degree than I am today because I think it will help.

It's also very scary. The idea the government has that much power is unsettling. The thing is though, we may not be able to stop government from taking this power and we might as well get something for ourselves.

That is some very wishful thinking. It would be used to further the agenda of those in power and nothing more.

[cwolff]

Well... it was FDR that signed the The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. This is what pretty much started the "war on Pot". There were earlier things that started the war on drugs itself. Then again, I would hope that people wouldn't want cocaine in coke, and opium in over the counter treatments.

Then again.. maybe some would.

Check out this chart. Interesting spike right around the passage of this law. I wonder if they are connected.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png

[subzero]

I guess my biggest problem with the idea of legalizing drugs, some, most or all, is the fact that some people then want to consider the use of said drugs as an addiction, which would then be a medical or mental health issue.

Then they want to treat these people.. likely for free since most people with a major drug addiction don't generally have money. Which means in a sense.. because some weak willed fucktard feels that he can't make it thru the day without getting high.. I have to pay more money.

So your problem is with the medical industry. It would make more sense to argue against shitty medical practices, laws, and regulations than the laws and regulations pertaining to drugs.

[Warriorbird]

True.. I can see their point, I really can. Doesn't mean I agree with it though.

I guess my biggest problem with the idea of legalizing drugs, some, most or all, is the fact that some people then want to consider the use of said drugs as an addiction, which would then be a medical or mental health issue.

Then they want to treat these people.. likely for free since most people with a major drug addiction don't generally have money. Which means in a sense.. because some weak willed fucktard feels that he can't make it thru the day without getting high.. I have to pay more money.

Portugal actually did pretty well with sentencing people to treatment in essence. Cost less than prison too.

[Thondalar]

True.. I can see their point, I really can. Doesn't mean I agree with it though.

I guess my biggest problem with the idea of legalizing drugs, some, most or all, is the fact that some people then want to consider the use of said drugs as an addiction, which would then be a medical or mental health issue.

Then they want to treat these people.. likely for free since most people with a major drug addiction don't generally have money. Which means in a sense.. because some weak willed fucktard feels that he can't make it thru the day without getting high.. I have to pay more money.

It is a mental health issue. Besides, you're paying way more money to keep them locked up than you would to treat their addiction. Also, the trends in Portugal show a much lower rate of usage in teens and young adults, so even that cost would diminish over time.

The fact is, the opposition to this is strictly emotional. People are opposed to it because they "don't think it's a good idea".

I was kinda hoping we, as humans, had progressed to the point where we could leave such childish ways of thinking out of our decision-making process and just go with what has the best results, regardless of how it fits with our preconceived notions.

[Jeril]

Aha, but the disproportionate and disgusting rates of police brutality towards minorities would be caught on tape and punished, therefore diversity would not only survive but prosper.

Diversity would disappear because over time major crime would be stopped, then everything down to petty crime, then deviant, rebellious behavior, and outside thinking. Once those have been eliminated everyone will be the same and there would be no more diversity or adversity.

Laws are good but like anything else they need moderation. I am sure we can all agree that total chaos wasn't exactly good for us and absolute law won't be good for us either. With as much as you know about math it is rather odd that you don't seem to understand balance. People thrive the most in an environment balanced between chaos and order.

Take a look good look around you, see all the good and beautiful things, then try to understand that without all the evil and ugly things, they wouldn't be there.

[Thondalar]

Well... it was FDR that signed the The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. This is what pretty much started the "war on Pot". There were earlier things that started the war on drugs itself. Then again, I would hope that people wouldn't want cocaine in coke, and opium in over the counter treatments.

Then again.. maybe some would.


They would. They call themselves Libertarians.

Well, in a sense...yes.

What we have to get away from is this idea that companies and organizations only do the right thing if there is some over-paid government agency to make sure they're doing it. It seems like most of the occurrences of misconduct or liability I can think of were either fixed before the bureaucrats even found out about it or happened despite strict oversight anyway, so what the hell are they good for? Slaughtering your cattle because they don't like where you graze them? Raiding your farm and having a SWAT team detain your children at gunpoint because you won't pasteurize your milk?

During the time of the robber-barons, and the above-mentioned 1937, we didn't have nearly the sort of information-sharing we have now. There was no YouTube or Twitter. Hell, there weren't even televisions. What do you think would happen to Coca-cola's stock prices if cocaine was decriminalized and they added it back into the ol' recipe?

[Warriorbird]

Well, in a sense...yes.

What we have to get away from is this idea that companies and organizations only do the right thing if there is some over-paid government agency to make sure they're doing it. It seems like most of the occurrences of misconduct or liability I can think of were either fixed before the bureaucrats even found out about it or happened despite strict oversight anyway, so what the hell are they good for? Slaughtering your cattle because they don't like where you graze them? Raiding your farm and having a SWAT team detain your children at gunpoint because you won't pasteurize your milk?

During the time of the robber-barons, and the above-mentioned 1937, we didn't have nearly the sort of information-sharing we have now. There was no YouTube or Twitter. Hell, there weren't even televisions. What do you think would happen to Coca-cola's stock prices if cocaine was decriminalized and they added it back into the ol' recipe?

The Communists thought that over time the dictators would disappear too.

[Thondalar]

The Communists thought that over time the dictators would disappear too.

Well that's just silly.

[Warriorbird]

Well that's just silly.

Because you're not at all being naive.

[Thondalar]

Because you're not at all being naive.

No, I'm not at all. There is no perfect answer, only the best one. The problem with things like this is that ultimately you're putting the job into the hands of a human. And humans are flawed creatures. There is absolutely no difference between the suits in Washington and the suits on Wall Street. To tell yourself otherwise is naive, at best.

So who truly has your best interest in mind? You do. Taking the power away from yourself and giving it to either Washington or Wall Street has terrible consequences.

[Warriorbird]

No, I'm not at all. There is no perfect answer, only the best one. The problem with things like this is that ultimately you're putting the job into the hands of a human. And humans are flawed creatures. There is absolutely no difference between the suits in Washington and the suits on Wall Street. To tell yourself otherwise is naive, at best.

So who truly has your best interest in mind? You do. Taking the power away from yourself and giving it to either Washington or Wall Street has terrible consequences.

An entertaining advocacy of anarchy. You're actually falling squarely in the camp of the people who've shown that they have no compunction with driving our economy off the cliff for short term gains though. There is no noblesse oblige of stock prices.

[Jarvan]

Well, in a sense...yes.

What we have to get away from is this idea that companies and organizations only do the right thing if there is some over-paid government agency to make sure they're doing it. It seems like most of the occurrences of misconduct or liability I can think of were either fixed before the bureaucrats even found out about it or happened despite strict oversight anyway, so what the hell are they good for? Slaughtering your cattle because they don't like where you graze them? Raiding your farm and having a SWAT team detain your children at gunpoint because you won't pasteurize your milk?

During the time of the robber-barons, and the above-mentioned 1937, we didn't have nearly the sort of information-sharing we have now. There was no YouTube or Twitter. Hell, there weren't even televisions. What do you think would happen to Coca-cola's stock prices if cocaine was decriminalized and they added it back into the ol' recipe?

To a degree you are right. Company X isn't afraid of a fine of a few million dollars for dumping toxins into a river/lake/ocean if it saves them money. They ARE afraid of people finding out and boycotting them, protesting them, or tanking their stock. Now, some companies are better at hiding then others, but eventually it all gets out now a days.

I do think there needs to be some regulation. But no where near what we have now.

As for what you said earlier about health issues with taking drugs.. my solution is simple. Eliminate all drugs. I can't believe our country hasn't been working on a retro virus for these drugs to destroy the production of them for all time. There is no drug war if there are no drugs.

[subzero]

As for what you said earlier about health issues with taking drugs.. my solution is simple. Eliminate all drugs. I can't believe our country hasn't been working on a retro virus for these drugs to destroy the production of them for all time. There is no drug war if there are no drugs.

http://robinbrown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/double-facepalm1.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Most of the abuses of stop and frisk occurred under a great deal of surveillance. Terrible things occur under surveillance every day and nothing is done. Those who perform this surveillance frequently and wantonly abuse it to intrude on the privacy of those connected to them and it is laughed off and ignored. The belief that surveillance is a benefit is like the belief that Communism or libetarianism will result in a utopia. The weakness is people, companies, and how I imagine artificial intelligence will act if and when we create it. Their very nature makes it a terrible idea.Of course stop and frisk abuses occurred without official action, it wasn't ruled unconstitutional for 15 years. You might as well criticize police for not Mirandizing witnesses pre-Miranda, or using the practice to demonstrate flaws in some other system. If surveillance is such a terrible idea, how does even a Stone Age system like London's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6083476/CCTV-cameras-If-they-do-not-stop-crime-or-catch-criminals-what-are-they-for.html) catch 1,000 criminals a year? Are we more or less safe with the mass murderers of the Boston bombing killed/apprehended? You know me, I'm a pro/con guy. What are the cons for Londoners, Bostonians? I don't have to believe the plan results in a utopia to believe it's net useful.
Yeah, apparently is was in response to some 'new' information someone thinks they found. First sentence from that link, "Both the Daily Mail and the Independent reported over the weekend that a bottle of wine a day might not be bad for you."

The point of linking that was that people are always claiming they've discovered something or other. It's almost like the people putting out these reports are competing for recognition similar to the way we tend to get bogus news stories because they pull shit from twitter and other social media outlets in an effort to be the first to report it. Because being first is fucking important!The report you linked was debunked in under a week. I've linked you two studies that have gone without rebuttal for 5+ years. This is the part where you say "oh you can find studies that prove anything", then don't bother to do so or back up that claim in any way.
Latrin is the real world Bolivar Trask. He wants to build these guys and have them keep us safe:You're comparing a camera to a 20 foot tall killing machine and I'm the one who's irrationally afraid?

[Latrinsorm]

The fact is, the opposition to this is strictly emotional. People are opposed to it because they "don't think it's a good idea". I was kinda hoping we, as humans, had progressed to the point where we could leave such childish ways of thinking out of our decision-making process and just go with what has the best results, regardless of how it fits with our preconceived notions.Let's talk results. Does marijuana use result in an increased risk of psychosis? Is avoiding the risk of psychosis emotional or rational?
So who truly has your best interest in mind? You do. Taking the power away from yourself and giving it to either Washington or Wall Street has terrible consequences.You have no power to give away as an individual. To tell yourself otherwise is... well, you know the rest. Your only hope is to pit those who do have power (Washington, Wall Street, etc.) against each other such that none of them get what is in their best interests.
Diversity would disappear because over time major crime would be stopped, then everything down to petty crime, then deviant, rebellious behavior, and outside thinking. Once those have been eliminated everyone will be the same and there would be no more diversity or adversity.

Laws are good but like anything else they need moderation. I am sure we can all agree that total chaos wasn't exactly good for us and absolute law won't be good for us either. With as much as you know about math it is rather odd that you don't seem to understand balance. People thrive the most in an environment balanced between chaos and order.I've never argued for absolute law, just absolute identification of those who break the laws we have. Note how universal surveillance doesn't even imply absolute enforcement of current laws, in the same way that police aren't obligated to cite every instance of speeding they witness.
Take a look good look around you, see all the good and beautiful things, then try to understand that without all the evil and ugly things, they wouldn't be there.Okay, what wouldn't you trade for an end to child molestation? What is so beautiful to you that it justifies a 7 year old being raped?

[Jeril]

I've never argued for absolute law, just absolute identification of those who break the laws we have. Note how universal surveillance doesn't even imply absolute enforcement of current laws, in the same way that police aren't obligated to cite every instance of speeding they witness.

Your surveillance would lead to absolute law whether you wanted it to or not though and it would be quite ignorant of you to think other wise.


Okay, what wouldn't you trade for an end to child molestation? What is so beautiful to you that it justifies a 7 year old being raped?

Life is beautiful and you aren't going to have that without free will. And obviously I won't trade free will to put an end to child molestation, I wouldn't trade peoples lives for it either, dead is dead while a child can recover from the trauma of rape and manage to live a happy life. Rape is a deplorable act and that of a child even more so, nothing wrong with wanting to put an end to it but your way is not the way to do it. The way to end it would be through knowledge and understanding, you as a scientist should should get that.

[Latrinsorm]

Your surveillance would lead to absolute law whether you wanted it to or not though and it would be quite ignorant of you to think other wise.If absolute surveillance leads to absolute law, it follows that partial surveillance leads partway there. What invasive and totalitarian laws have been enacted in London, a famously surveillant city? If none have, surely this suggests that the initial claim is false, right? Either the slope is slippery or it isn't.
Life is beautiful and you aren't going to have that without free will. And obviously I won't trade free will to put an end to child molestation, I wouldn't trade peoples lives for it either, dead is dead while a child can recover from the trauma of rape and manage to live a happy life. Rape is a deplorable act and that of a child even more so, nothing wrong with wanting to put an end to it but your way is not the way to do it. The way to end it would be through knowledge and understanding, you as a scientist should should get that.My taking your picture doesn't actually take your soul, and knowledge is exactly what I'm looking for.

[Jeril]

If absolute surveillance leads to absolute law, it follows that partial surveillance leads partway there. What invasive and totalitarian laws have been enacted in London, a famously surveillant city? If none have, surely this suggests that the initial claim is false, right? Either the slope is slippery or it isn't.My taking your picture doesn't actually take your soul, and knowledge is exactly what I'm looking for.

There is a big difference between partial and total surveillance and I think you are smart enough to understand the things that I have pointed out will take time, they won't happen over night and would likely take several life times to come to pass. London has had its surveillance programs for how long? And how likely do you think you are to hear about any of its abuses?

You are wanting to punish people for their wrong doing instead of trying to stop them from wanting to do the wrong thing in the first place, at least that is the stance you appear to be taking on this issue.

[Latrinsorm]

There is a big difference between partial and total surveillance and I think you are smart enough to understand the things that I have pointed out will take time, they won't happen over night and would likely take several life times to come to pass. London has had its surveillance programs for how long? And how likely do you think you are to hear about any of its abuses?I didn't ask for you to demonstrate abuses, though. Every law enforcement tool is abused, that's not the question. I asked you to show any evidence of totalitarian leanings. I think I'm pretty smart too, but bro, 200 years? I'm happy to include an automatic 200 year sunset provision in the system. London has had its modern CCTV system for 20 years, can you find even one law that demonstrates the slow slide to totalitarianism?
You are wanting to punish people for their wrong doing instead of trying to stop them from wanting to do the wrong thing in the first place, at least that is the stance you appear to be taking on this issue.I don't care about punishment. I care about stopping the epidemic. A parent can't molest their child if they're physically removed from the vicinity.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't ask for you to demonstrate abuses, though. Every law enforcement tool is abused, that's not the question. I asked you to show any evidence of totalitarian leanings. I think I'm pretty smart too, but bro, 200 years? I'm happy to include an automatic 200 year sunset provision in the system. London has had its modern CCTV system for 20 years, can you find even one law that demonstrates the slow slide to totalitarianism?

Just because he's lazy doesn't mean you can't easily find examples.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/gaza-protests-inquiry-police-cctv

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4609746.stm

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-27087936

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2284452/ico-slams-police-for-invading-motorists-privacy-with-unlawful-anpr-camera-use

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23636462


Of course stop and frisk abuses occurred without official action, it wasn't ruled unconstitutional for 15 years. You might as well criticize police for not Mirandizing witnesses pre-Miranda, or using the practice to demonstrate flaws in some other system. If surveillance is such a terrible idea, how does even a Stone Age system like London's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6083476/CCTV-cameras-If-they-do-not-stop-crime-or-catch-criminals-what-are-they-for.html) catch 1,000 criminals a year? Are we more or less safe with the mass murderers of the Boston bombing killed/apprehended? You know me, I'm a pro/con guy. What are the cons for Londoners, Bostonians? I don't have to believe the plan results in a utopia to believe it's net useful.

In your "everything is grand" concept the city should have stopped that racist nonsense a lot sooner than in 15 years. If you hyper obsess on the Boston bombing you ignore all the crimes that don't get solved through Boston's surveillance.

[subzero]

The report you linked was debunked in under a week. I've linked you two studies that have gone without rebuttal for 5+ years. This is the part where you say "oh you can find studies that prove anything", then don't bother to do so or back up that claim in any way.

Eh. The link I posted was debunking something else that hadn't even been mentioned here. As for the studies you linked, I don't recall what they were or if I ever looked at them. Not particularly interested in digging around to see if they've had a response one way or the other. I do, however, much like the followers of the great and mighty Jesus, know that mari-j-wana is good for you! Much like beer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQrOHpJKvQ


You're comparing a camera to a 20 foot tall killing machine and I'm the one who's irrationally afraid?

What good are cameras if you don't have 24/7 support that can travel at super-sonic speeds and crush any evil-doer that needs a good crushing?!

[subzero]

Let's talk results. Does marijuana use result in an increased risk of psychosis?

It's impossible to determine this. You simply cannot find enough test subjects completely void of other potential psychosis causing substances, issues, etc.


Okay, what wouldn't you trade for an end to child molestation? What is so beautiful to you that it justifies a 7 year old being raped?

So, denying X is justifying Y because Y MIGHT not happen had we allowed X? That's some twisted logic.

[Latrinsorm]

Just because he's lazy doesn't mean you can't easily find examples.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/gaza-protests-inquiry-police-cctv"These charges were later dropped when Smith's solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage" Now suppose there was no surveillance, and the police had simply said Jake "the Snake" Smith was violently disorderly. They're gonna lie either way, how would you prove they did without the tapes? Do you see how my mind works? It's like a laser.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4609746.stm

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-27087936

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2284452/ico-slams-police-for-invading-motorists-privacy-with-unlawful-anpr-camera-use

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23636462Except for the teacher one all of these cases involve a governing body reprimanding underlings who abused their power. This is the exact opposite of what Jeril is claiming will happen, and thus your examples make my case rather than his. Good day, sir!
In your "everything is grand" concept the city should have stopped that racist nonsense a lot sooner than in 15 years. If you hyper obsess on the Boston bombing you ignore all the crimes that don't get solved through Boston's surveillance.I said good day! I hardly think focusing on the worst terrorist attack on American soil in a decade is "hyper obsess"ive, and if I may toot my own horn I know a little something about obsession. And of course present-day surveillance can't solve all crimes, it can't see everything. There is about 1 surveillance camera for every 10 people in America, would you send the Army to war with 1 gun for every 10 soldiers? No! Therefore you must acquit.

[Latrinsorm]

It's impossible to determine this. You simply cannot find enough test subjects completely void of other potential psychosis causing substances, issues, etc.You're free to think so, even with a webcam in front of you and a listening device you helpfully carry everywhere you go. They call those "confounding factors" in the biz, and it turns out they're not that hard to deal with.
So, denying X is justifying Y because Y MIGHT not happen had we allowed X? That's some twisted logic.You forget, in the context of that discussion Jeril guaranteed me an end to crime. I think that's a little optimistic even in 300 years, but if he'll grant it I'll take it.

[Warriorbird]

"These charges were later dropped when Smith's solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage" Now suppose there was no surveillance, and the police had simply said Jake "the Snake" Smith was violently disorderly. They're gonna lie either way, how would you prove they did without the tapes? Do you see how my mind works? It's like a laser.Except for the teacher one all of these cases involve a governing body reprimanding underlings who abused their power. This is the exact opposite of what Jeril is claiming will happen, and thus your examples make my case rather than his. Good day, sir!I said good day! I hardly think focusing on the worst terrorist attack on American soil in a decade is "hyper obsess"ive, and if I may toot my own horn I know a little something about obsession. And of course present-day surveillance can't solve all crimes, it can't see everything. There is about 1 surveillance camera for every 10 people in America, would you send the Army to war with 1 gun for every 10 soldiers? No! Therefore you must acquit.

Those actions are the nature of the system. The abuses far out number the Chechnyans.

[Jeril]

You forget, in the context of that discussion Jeril guaranteed me an end to crime. I think that's a little optimistic even in 300 years, but if he'll grant it I'll take it.

I also said we'd lose free will, which I think is the point of being human. And I said, we as a species would stagnate. Me, personally, I'd rather see us evolve to the point where people have no reason to commit crime. Will that ever really happen? Who can say but I'd prefer that we try it instead of just giving up and surrendering.

And you sadden me, you talk about removing a child from a parent who would potentially molest the child and mention nothing about providing mental help for that parent. Do you have no compassion for that poor broken soul who would do such a thing to their own child?

[Back]

I also said we'd lose free will, which I think is the point of being human. And I said, we as a species would stagnate. Me, personally, I'd rather see us evolve to the point where people have no reason to commit crime. Will that ever really happen? Who can say but I'd prefer that we try it instead of just giving up and surrendering.

Too late for that. Everything we do, say, text, and search is being recorded. It may not be Minority Report, with human precogs... it will be an algorithm with text pattern, voice, retina, and face recognition that will catch the real criminals in the present.


And you sadden me, you talk about removing a child from a parent who would potentially molest the child and mention nothing about providing mental help for that parent. Do you have no compassion for that poor broken soul who would do such a thing to their own child?

I don't see where he said that.

[Jeril]

I don't care about punishment. I care about stopping the epidemic. A parent can't molest their child if they're physically removed from the vicinity.

You mean that?

[Back]

You mean that?

Can you blame him for that?

[Jeril]

Can you blame him for that?

I can understand it, but at the same time yes, I can very well blame him for it. Poor actions/choices made by someone else are no excuse for your own.

[cwolff]

I also said we'd lose free will, which I think is the point of being human. And I said, we as a species would stagnate. Me, personally, I'd rather see us evolve to the point where people have no reason to commit crime. Will that ever really happen? Who can say but I'd prefer that we try it instead of just giving up and surrendering.

And you sadden me, you talk about removing a child from a parent who would potentially molest the child and mention nothing about providing mental help for that parent. Do you have no compassion for that poor broken soul who would do such a thing to their own child?

You're talking about treating the core cause of our cultural problems. I don't think this ever gains momentum because it's hard work, expensive, requires change and patience while being very difficult to document. It's really a multi-generational change that has to be consistent and concious. At least that the way I see. If you're thinking of something else or have other ideas let us know. You're right though. If we could increase positive citizenship (including government) we'd not need to talk about the possibility/practicality of universal surveillance.

[Latrinsorm]

Those actions are the nature of the system. The abuses far out number the Chechnyans.Abuses are the nature of every human system, but with surveillance the abuses are caught and punished, as your own citation demonstrates. Jeril's claim is not merely that the system will be abused, but that it inevitably leads to the annihilation of free will. That's the claim I'm waiting to see backed up in any way.
I also said we'd lose free will, which I think is the point of being human. And I said, we as a species would stagnate. Me, personally, I'd rather see us evolve to the point where people have no reason to commit crime. Will that ever really happen? Who can say but I'd prefer that we try it instead of just giving up and surrendering.One way to inarguably lose your free will is to be shot in the head and killed, and the police kill hundreds of innocent people every year in America. Do you accept an armed police force? If so, how?
And you sadden me, you talk about removing a child from a parent who would potentially molest the child and mention nothing about providing mental help for that parent. Do you have no compassion for that poor broken soul who would do such a thing to their own child?If a house is on fire the first priority is to get the people out, even if you have to kick down the door and drag them out (which without the extenuating circumstances would be quite an unreasonable thing for the government to do). Once we've satisfied that we can talk about fire codes, wiring, arson, whatever. You don't send a psychiatrist into a burning building. You send a fire fighter, and you send him with the tools he needs to do his job even though axes have been used to murder, fire hoses have been turned on civil rights activists, etc.

[AnticorRifling]

The axe adopted as a fire fighting tool it wasn't designed for it you sir are trying to twist things and I am on to you.

[Jeril]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, to think that such a power as universal surveillance wouldn't be abused is just plain silly. Of course, to most it wouldn't be abuse because the laws that would slowly be put in place would all be for the 'greater good'.

The burning building is kind of cute but you are distracting from the point. And you never did answer the question, not too surprising though.

I have never said there was anything wrong with an armed police force, I wish ours was better funded and better trained so that there would be less shootings. And having an armed police force is obviously not a guarantee I'll be shot. Your way, everyone will lose their right to choose between good and evil, you don't really have a choice when someone is holding a gun to your head and says be good or else, and when punishment is a certainty that is exactly what you are doing.

[Warriorbird]

Abuses are the nature of every human system, but with surveillance the abuses are caught and punished, as your own citation demonstrates.

I think it demonstrates that we use such power poorly. Corporations and artificial intelligence would too. Your "not one child abused" concept drifts farther and farther from anything but philosophical conceit when you see how badly we use this power.

[Latrinsorm]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, to think that such a power as universal surveillance wouldn't be abused is just plain silly. Of course, to most it wouldn't be abuse because the laws that would slowly be put in place would all be for the 'greater good'.Who has claimed it wouldn't be abused?
The burning building is kind of cute but you are distracting from the point. And you never did answer the question, not too surprising though.I absolutely answered the question by pointing out that it was irrelevant. You can demand that the cart goes in front of the horse all you like, but I'll burn your fucking house down. What's up now? Huh?
I have never said there was anything wrong with an armed police force, I wish ours was better funded and better trained so that there would be less shootings. And having an armed police force is obviously not a guarantee I'll be shot. Your way, everyone will lose their right to choose between good and evil, you don't really have a choice when someone is holding a gun to your head and says be good or else, and when punishment is a certainty that is exactly what you are doing.Surveillance does not entail capital punishment. Look again at London - they haven't executed anyone in 40 years. Surely they would have executed at least one person by now, no? Or at least tried? Plenty of people have accepted (non-capital) judicial sentences in the name of a greater good: MLK, Gandhi, etc. Plenty of somewhat less recent people even accepted gruesome death rather than compromise their beliefs: Roman Christians, etc. Heck, look at the entire history of Judaism.

I've given you multiple citations of people believing how they want regardless of the government consequences. I respectfully suggest that you can't give me any citations of people believing how they want after the police have murdered them. Given these two facts, how can you tell me with a straight face that free will can survive perfectly fine in the present environment, but would be catastrophically impaired by cameras?
I think it demonstrates that we use such power poorly. Corporations and artificial intelligence would too. Your "not one child abused" concept drifts farther and farther from anything but philosophical conceit when you see how badly we use this power.We use every power poorly, from the halls of Nagasaki to the shores of Berlin. (Wait... strike that, reverse it.) The only chance we have is if the abuses are objectively recorded. The expression is "sunlight is the best disinfectant", not "sunlight will be abused to some degree therefore we should live in caves".

[Warriorbird]

We use every power poorly, from the halls of Nagasaki to the shores of Berlin. (Wait... strike that, reverse it.) The only chance we have is if the abuses are objectively recorded. The expression is "sunlight is the best disinfectant", not "sunlight will be abused to some degree therefore we should live in caves".

The very notion that this is sunlight is laughable. A quote from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind.


"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

This is at best the light leaking out of that locked filing cabinet.

[Alfster]

If we've learned anything from Colorado - it's that weed can be big business and bring in some serious tax dollars.

[Jeril]

I absolutely answered the question by pointing out that it was irrelevant.

It is very relevant and I will ask you again.


Do you have no compassion for that poor broken soul who would do such a thing to their own child?


You can demand that the cart goes in front of the horse all you like, but I'll burn your fucking house down. What's up now? Huh?

Do try and be an adult about this, please.


Surveillance does not entail capital punishment. Look again at London - they haven't executed anyone in 40 years. Surely they would have executed at least one person by now, no? Or at least tried? Plenty of people have accepted (non-capital) judicial sentences in the name of a greater good: MLK, Gandhi, etc. Plenty of somewhat less recent people even accepted gruesome death rather than compromise their beliefs: Roman Christians, etc. Heck, look at the entire history of Judaism.

I didn't say it did, go back and read my words for what they meant.


I've given you multiple citations of people believing how they want regardless of the government consequences. I respectfully suggest that you can't give me any citations of people believing how they want after the police have murdered them. Given these two facts, how can you tell me with a straight face that free will can survive perfectly fine in the present environment, but would be catastrophically impaired by cameras?.

The point is that it won't just stop at cameras and the laws we have today won't be set in stone they'd continue to 'evolve' for the 'greater good'. If you can't see that you are being willfully blind and ignorant.

You ask for examples but the only places I can think of that have what would be considered universal surveillance are prisons. One of the countries in Europe, and I forget which one, has this for every prison and they've got one of the lowest repeat offender rates, and a good portion of former prisoners site the complete lack of privacy in the prison as a reason why they don't repeat and risk going back.


Okay, what wouldn't you trade for an end to child molestation?

A while ago you asked this as if to you there is nothing you wouldn't trade for an end to it. Do I have the right of it? And if not, what then wouldn't you trade?

[Archigeek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL_C29H-bYo

The chicks, cannot hold de smoke, dat's what it is.

[Wrathbringer]

It is very relevant and I will ask you again.





Do try and be an adult about this, please.



I didn't say it did, go back and read my words for what they meant.



The point is that it won't just stop at cameras and the laws we have today won't be set in stone they'd continue to 'evolve' for the 'greater good'. If you can't see that you are being willfully blind and ignorant.

You ask for examples but the only places I can think of that have what would be considered universal surveillance are prisons. One of the countries in Europe, and I forget which one, has this for every prison and they've got one of the lowest repeat offender rates, and a good portion of former prisoners site the complete lack of privacy in the prison as a reason why they don't repeat and risk going back.



A while ago you asked this as if to you there is nothing you wouldn't trade for an end to it. Do I have the right of it? And if not, what then wouldn't you trade?

But but but MOLESTATION!!!!1!11onetyone 1

[Latrinsorm]

The very notion that this is sunlight is laughable. A quote from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind.

This is at best the light leaking out of that locked filing cabinet.Bro, bro. Bro. Your own source mentioned how defense attorneys had access to the footage, and they're not even human beings. Logically citizens will have even more access. QED.
It is very relevant and I will ask you again.What did I just tell you about carts, horses, and housefires? Police officers don't consider the sentence a gunman might receive while in the act, they neutralize the threat. When we neutralize this threat, we can talk about what to do with offenders. We have no way of knowing how many there are or how severe their transgressions, what the heck would be the point in hypothesizing punishments?
The point is that it won't just stop at cameras and the laws we have today won't be set in stone they'd continue to 'evolve' for the 'greater good'. If you can't see that you are being willfully blind and ignorant.I do see a trend of laws evolving towards the greater good, yes, and that includes certain freedoms. What specifically makes you think that surveillance would push us towards totalitarianism rather than along the current trajectory? What specifically distinguishes surveillance from forensics, or other breakthroughs in capture rate?
You ask for examples but the only places I can think of that have what would be considered universal surveillance are prisons. One of the countries in Europe, and I forget which one, has this for every prison and they've got one of the lowest repeat offender rates, and a good portion of former prisoners site the complete lack of privacy in the prison as a reason why they don't repeat and risk going back.Well yeah, privacy will be gone by definition. If you had said that in the beginning we could have avoided this whole deal. You mentioned Christianity before: a Christian by definition has no privacy from God whose judgment is inescapable, yet they have free will. The two just are not linked in any way, you can have both, neither, one or the other.
A while ago you asked this as if to you there is nothing you wouldn't trade for an end to it. Do I have the right of it? And if not, what then wouldn't you trade?I wouldn't trade an end to the human race. Universal surveillance does not in any way represent an increase in that threat, therefore I would accept it as a solution.

[Jeril]

The fact that you can't answer a simple question like that is rather suspect, is it really that hard for you to type out the words, "Yes, I feel compassion towards these people", or "No, I don't"?

Privacy is the least of what we'd lose. And if you want to bring up Christianity again you'd also know that God gave people the free will to believe in him or not, and to basically do whatever they wanted. Your system of surveillance doesn't and won't allow for that freedom. The fact that you think we will still be free with such a thing is mind boggling.


I wouldn't trade an end to the human race.

That is quite open ended. So, you'd be alright with brutally murdering someone with your own hands every day if that would end child molestation?

You say you wouldn't trade an end to the human race but to be human means you face the choice between good and evil all the time. People are able to make that choice because punishment for any wrong doing is never a certain thing.

[subzero]

a Christian by definition has no privacy from God whose judgment is inescapable, yet they have free will.

Irrelevant. Their god will forgive them for absolutely anything they've done so long as they're really sorry by the time they die. Also, since this judgement doesn't come until they're dead, it has no bearing on their will as a living being.

[Latrinsorm]

The fact that you can't answer a simple question like that is rather suspect, is it really that hard for you to type out the words, "Yes, I feel compassion towards these people", or "No, I don't"?I have made my motivations for not answering explicit. A scientist is only compelled to offer assent to any side of a position when evidence has been presented on its behalf. Until then, the only scientific thing to do is withhold assent from them all. You may as well leave off demanding that I speculate on the matter.
Privacy is the least of what we'd lose. And if you want to bring up Christianity again you'd also know that God gave people the free will to believe in him or not, and to basically do whatever they wanted. Your system of surveillance doesn't and won't allow for that freedom. The fact that you think we will still be free with such a thing is mind boggling.

You say you wouldn't trade an end to the human race but to be human means you face the choice between good and evil all the time. People are able to make that choice because punishment for any wrong doing is never a certain thing.God is the original universal surveillance. Matthew 6: "your Heavenly Father sees what is done in secret." ...yet people are able to believe in him or not. Therefore, universal surveillance has no impact on what you can believe.

Innumerable people have made the choice to commit a criminal act with the absolute knowledge (and the explicit intent) of receiving punishment. Your theory just doesn't hold empirical water.

You keep saying how obvious it is that surveillance annihilates free will. If you can't explain the mechanism of this causation, and you can't demonstrate correlation, maybe what is obvious is not actually the case.
Irrelevant. Their god will forgive them for absolutely anything they've done so long as they're really sorry by the time they die. Also, since this judgement doesn't come until they're dead, it has no bearing on their will as a living being.This explanation is inconsistent with Christian behavior.

[Warriorbird]

Bro, bro. Bro. Your own source mentioned how defense attorneys had access to the footage, and they're not even human beings. Logically citizens will have even more access. QED.

This is like thinking that FOIA requests actually entitle us to all of the information. It's sort of cute.

I feel like I'm responding to Blanche Dubois

"I'm always depending on the kindness of strangers."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSTd1LuiVUs

[subzero]

This explanation is inconsistent with Christian behavior.

Of course. Most of them are walking contradictions. Which means now is a perfect time for some Green Day!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc

[Back]

God is the original universal surveillance. Matthew 6: "your Heavenly Father sees what is done in secret."

This is your best argument yet! Well done, sir! Well done!

[cwolff]

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1897916_644154055639582_4755405813798516142_n.jpg

[Jeril]

While wanting an end to child molestation and crime is a noble goal, what is scientific about it?


This explanation is inconsistent with Christian behavior.

Subzero's explanation was quite accurate, it obviously doesn't apply to all Christians but it does apply to a good number of them and you dismiss his words just because they don't fit with your narrative. Proof for that is quite easy to find, how often do we find things on the news about Christians doing the wrong thing? And those are only the cases that people find news worthy, the tip of the ice berg so to speak.

[Jarvan]

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1897916_644154055639582_4755405813798516142_n.jpg

This got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Why didn't they just say.. "We want there to be legal marijuana therefor we won't even have a debate".

[Latrinsorm]

This is like thinking that FOIA requests actually entitle us to all of the information. It's sort of cute.Sah, I say Sah, I didn't say unlimited access, I just said moah. I do declayuh!
While wanting an end to child molestation and crime is a noble goal, what is scientific about it?Not believing that the means will produce a certain result is scientific when no evidence has been presented.
Subzero's explanation was quite accurate, it obviously doesn't apply to all Christians but it does apply to a good number of them and you dismiss his words just because they don't fit with your narrative. Proof for that is quite easy to find, how often do we find things on the news about Christians doing the wrong thing? And those are only the cases that people find news worthy, the tip of the ice berg so to speak.If subzero's explanation was accurate, Christians would rather renounce their Christianity than suffer worldly punishments.
We have evidence of thousands of Christians choosing brutal death over renouncing Christianity, from Rome to Russia to Obama's America.
Therefore, subzero's explanation is not accurate.

That Christians commit wrongs is the entire point of my argument. They have no privacy from God, but they willfully break his laws. You cannot demonstrate how privacy is required for free will, either in a theological or mundane scenario.

[Jeril]

That Christians commit wrongs is the entire point of my argument. They have no privacy from God, but they willfully break his laws. You cannot demonstrate how privacy is required for free will, either in a theological or mundane scenario.

They commit wrongs because god will forgive them in the afterlife, we aren't going to forgive them in this one. And there is a big difference between dying for your religious beliefs and getting punished for doing real wrong.


Not believing that the means will produce a certain result is scientific when no evidence has been presented.

So your claim is that you are motivated from a purely scientific view? There is absolutely no emotional investment in this for you?

[Latrinsorm]

They commit wrongs because god will forgive them in the afterlife, we aren't going to forgive them in this one.If that was true, why did Roman Christians choose not to sin?
And there is a big difference between dying for your religious beliefs and getting punished for doing real wrong.Would you say that the difference is that when motivated by true good, the laws have no impact on behavior? That people will break any law, no matter how severe or guaranteed the punishment, if they believe they are right? In short, that free will overcomes any judicial punishment?
So your claim is that you are motivated from a purely scientific view? There is absolutely no emotional investment in this for you?There is and isn't, because I can take it off and put it on the umbrella rack to review evidence to the contrary. I wish I could prove this to you, but as of yet there has been no such evidence presented. Why don't you go ahead and cite some, and we'll see how scientific my reaction is. :)

[Jeril]

You bring up true good and then you bring up zealotry, which is it? You also bring the extreme into this when every day normal people aren't. There is also the point that with the exception of suicide bombers the outcomes that these people will face is rarely a certainty.

There are many types of Christians, you can't just point to one group and say, "Well, this is how they do things", and ignore the rest because it doesn't help your cause. And regardless of any doctrine they may have there are likely many who choose to sin anyway.


There is and isn't, because I can take it off and put it on the umbrella rack to review evidence to the contrary. I wish I could prove this to you, but as of yet there has been no such evidence presented. Why don't you go ahead and cite some, and we'll see how scientific my reaction is. :)

How can you make a claim that there is and there isn't? You either have an emotional investment in this or you don't. You dance around this question when it is likely the most important one of them all. WHY is the most important thing. So, why do you want this done? Please, answer this fully and completely and without guile.

[Warriorbird]

How can you make a claim that there is and there isn't? You either have an emotional investment in this or you don't. You dance around this question when it is likely the most important one of them all. WHY is the most important thing. So, why do you want this done? Please, answer this fully and completely and without guile.

He's a philosophy major. He and Tgo01 live for this sort of thing.

[Latrinsorm]

You bring up true good and then you bring up zealotry, which is it? You also bring the extreme into this when every day normal people aren't. There is also the point that with the exception of suicide bombers the outcomes that these people will face is rarely a certainty.Clearly we agree that the rarelies demonstrate free will surviving surveillance. Why shouldn't we believe that free will survives in cases where the punishments are so much less severe? If free will can overcome the fear of torture and death, surely it can overcome the fear of a $20 fine.
There are many types of Christians, you can't just point to one group and say, "Well, this is how they do things", and ignore the rest because it doesn't help your cause. And regardless of any doctrine they may have there are likely many who choose to sin anyway.I "ignore the rest" because they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The only relevant people are four categories:
free will YES, privacy YES - us
free will YES, privacy NO - martyrs
free will NO, privacy YES - ???
free will NO, privacy NO - ???
To back up your claim you need to find someone in category #4, or at least explain how the two dimensions are linked despite there being non-zero populations in categories #1 and #2.
How can you make a claim that there is and there isn't? You either have an emotional investment in this or you don't. You dance around this question when it is likely the most important one of them all. WHY is the most important thing. So, why do you want this done? Please, answer this fully and completely and without guile.I want this done because the benefits far outweigh the costs of the solution. Certainly I have an emotional response to abused children and other victims of major crimes, but I am capable of putting it aside and weighing the facts dispassionately. It's easy in this case because the facts are so dramatically on one side. You've criticized me for being naive, but I would say that believing without evidence is the very definition.

[subzero]

This got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Why didn't they just say.. "We want there to be legal marijuana therefor we won't even have a debate".

Do you not think it's possible that they truly were unable to find someone to write an opposing article? People are seeing the old lies for what they are and as the saying goes, "The dominoes are falling". Nearly half the states in this country now have laws in place defying the federal stance on the issue and it's hard not to believe that number will grow annually.

[subzero]

If subzero's explanation was accurate, Christians would rather renounce their Christianity than suffer worldly punishments.
We have evidence of thousands of Christians choosing brutal death over renouncing Christianity, from Rome to Russia to Obama's America.
Therefore, subzero's explanation is not accurate.

You're expecting consistency from people who are, by and large, inconsistent.

As for the ancient ones choosing death... those people weren't all that far removed from believing that the sun was drawn across the sky by a titan and Poseidon ruled the seas. I wouldn't trust their judgement on the subject, so if they chose to die rather than just agree that their religion is wrong, oh well.


That Christians commit wrongs is the entire point of my argument. They have no privacy from God, but they willfully break his laws. You cannot demonstrate how privacy is required for free will, either in a theological or mundane scenario.

You missed my point that there is no punishment for breaking their god's laws. All they have to do is tell themselves they're really sorry for their sins before they die and all is forgiven. They go live with angels in heaven for eternity. That doesn't work with the laws of man.

[Jeril]

Clearly we agree that the rarelies demonstrate free will surviving surveillance. Why shouldn't we believe that free will survives in cases where the punishments are so much less severe? If free will can overcome the fear of torture and death, surely it can overcome the fear of a $20 fine.I "ignore the rest" because they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The only relevant people are four categories:
free will YES, privacy YES - us
free will YES, privacy NO - martyrs
free will NO, privacy YES - ???
free will NO, privacy NO - ???
To back up your claim you need to find someone in category #4, or at least explain how the two dimensions are linked despite there being non-zero populations in categories #1 and #2.I want this done because the benefits far outweigh the costs of the solution. Certainly I have an emotional response to abused children and other victims of major crimes, but I am capable of putting it aside and weighing the facts dispassionately. It's easy in this case because the facts are so dramatically on one side. You've criticized me for being naive, but I would say that believing without evidence is the very definition.

Your situation number 2 is wrong because you are forgetting something. These people are sacrificing themselves for a group win, they are giving up their ability to win as an individual for a chance that their group can. Against your surveillance there is no winning.

I am glad you can admit to an emotional response. Now stop and think, which did you have first regarding the situation, an emotional response or a scientific one?

[Latrinsorm]

You're expecting consistency from people who are, by and large, inconsistent. As for the ancient ones choosing death... those people weren't all that far removed from believing that the sun was drawn across the sky by a titan and Poseidon ruled the seas. I wouldn't trust their judgement on the subject, so if they chose to die rather than just agree that their religion is wrong, oh well.No one's asking you to trust their judgment, only to make the bolded observation. They chose, which is to say they exercised their free will. You can find that exercise stupid, misguided, whatever. It doesn't change the fact that people who believed themselves to have absolutely no privacy made such an exercise. (Note how you also don't have to believe in the same God they do, because neither your beliefs nor facts are relevant to their motivation.)
You missed my point that there is no punishment for breaking their god's laws. All they have to do is tell themselves they're really sorry for their sins before they die and all is forgiven. They go live with angels in heaven for eternity. That doesn't work with the laws of man.Again, this is manifestly not what those Christians believed. Your contempt for Christianity is seriously impairing your ability to participate in this part of the discussion.
Your situation number 2 is wrong because you are forgetting something. These people are sacrificing themselves for a group win, they are giving up their ability to win as an individual for a chance that their group can. Against your surveillance there is no winning.Of course there is. MLK would rack up wins like nobody's business because he never intended to avoid prison; "Letter from a Birmingham Motel 6" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
I am glad you can admit to an emotional response. Now stop and think, which did you have first regarding the situation, an emotional response or a scientific one?As a child I was not yet trained for science, obviously the emotional response came first. I'm not sure what my emotion has to do with your inability to produce evidence, though.

[Jeril]

For Christians, god will forgive their sins, that is the foundation of the religion, while justice here isn't so forgiving. Why do you find this so hard to grasp?

You also seemed to miss the point of what I said. Under your system of surveillance how would anyone be able to beat it? Because that is why people commit wrong in this world, they believe that they can beat the system one way or another. For most it is faulty reasoning but there are those who can beat the system which leads others to the mistaken belief that they are one of those few.

Take a good look inside yourself at those emotions, are they based in love and compassion? Or is there fear, anger, and possibly hatred in them?

[subzero]

For Christians, god will forgive their sins, that is the foundation of the religion, while justice here isn't so forgiving. Why do you find this so hard to grasp?

Actually, he might be right. Those were old testament Christians. I think all that forgiveness shit came later. Those people probably did fear terrible consequences in the afterlife if they were to turn from their faith. For those horribly misguided people, death would have been the better option. Is it really free will, though, to choose to either fall in line with the good book or burn and suffer eternal pain?

[Latrinsorm]

Actually, he might be right. Those were old testament Christians. I think all that forgiveness shit came later. Those people probably did fear terrible consequences in the afterlife if they were to turn from their faith. For those horribly misguided people, death would have been the better option. Is it really free will, though, to choose to either fall in line with the good book or burn and suffer eternal pain?Yes, by definition. I personally wouldn't blame someone for a coerced choice, but it is by definition a choice.
For Christians, god will forgive their sins, that is the foundation of the religion, while justice here isn't so forgiving. Why do you find this so hard to grasp?Because it is factually incorrect. Neither salvation nor forgiveness are guaranteed to Christians. Some Christians (most notoriously Calvin) even believed that certain Christians were guaranteed Hell, and the interaction between that belief and the belief in free will has spurred debate for over a thousand years.
You also seemed to miss the point of what I said. Under your system of surveillance how would anyone be able to beat it? Because that is why people commit wrong in this world, they believe that they can beat the system one way or another. For most it is faulty reasoning but there are those who can beat the system which leads others to the mistaken belief that they are one of those few.I think I see your point more clearly than you do. You are conflating the results with the motives: if one can't get away with a crime, they won't want to, therefore no free will. This is why the MLK example so comprehensively undermines your case: he fully expected to be arrested for his crimes, but committed them anyway. Schematically:

1. wanting to do something
2. being able to do something
3. being able to avoid repercussions for that act

We agree that surveillance impacts #3. I disagree that this impact trickles all the way down to #1, because I see people who gladly accept repercussions. If Christian martyrs "beat" the Roman system by being subject to the full weight of law, then anyone else can "beat" the universal surveillance system by doing the same.

.

Bottom line, even if I'm wrong about everything, that only puts us at even: no evidence for either side. I'm probably not wrong about literally everything, so until you provide any kind of evidence my side is probably correct.

[cwolff]

Neither salvation nor forgiveness are guaranteed to Christians. Some Christians (most notoriously Calvin) even believed that certain Christians were guaranteed Hell, and the interaction between that belief and the belief in free will has spurred debate for over a thousand years.

You're so sectist. How do you think that makes the methodists feel?

[Jeril]

Latrin, I'll make it simple, tell me how any one person or group can beat your system of surveillance? MLK did what he did for his group to win, and I think the results of that speak for themselves.

And are you still contemplating my last line?

[Latrinsorm]

You're so sectist. How do you think that makes the methodists feel?At least I don't carry around a stuffed tiger!!!
Latrin, I'll make it simple, tell me how any one person or group can beat your system of surveillance? MLK did what he did for his group to win, and I think the results of that speak for themselves.What MLK did is willfully break a law and go to prison. Universal surveillance would only have helped him achieve that goal. The individual/group dichotomy you've come up with only explains the why of a choice, it does nothing to change whether there was a choice at all.
And are you still contemplating my last line?I was going to put this in the last post but once I said "bottom line" it felt silly to put anything after it. As a child I never knew real fear or real hate. I was well versed in anger, but maturation and therapy have helped with that. I honestly can't tell you the source of this or any other emotional response, which is why I make sure to put them aside when doing any science.

I also want to reiterate something: even if my entire argument was based on negative emotion, this does nothing to demonstrate evidence for your convictions. You are very keen to dissect my point of view, perhaps you should turn the scalpel on yourself: what makes you believe that free will can't survive surveillance? You've taken a very vehement stand on this, based on what?

[cwolff]

At least I don't carry around a stuffed tiger!!!

That's el Tigre to you. And he's Campeon!

[Jeril]

At least I don't carry around a stuffed tiger!!!What MLK did is willfully break a law and go to prison. Universal surveillance would only have helped him achieve that goal. The individual/group dichotomy you've come up with only explains the why of a choice, it does nothing to change whether there was a choice at all.I was going to put this in the last post but once I said "bottom line" it felt silly to put anything after it. As a child I never knew real fear or real hate. I was well versed in anger, but maturation and therapy have helped with that. I honestly can't tell you the source of this or any other emotional response, which is why I make sure to put them aside when doing any science.

I also want to reiterate something: even if my entire argument was based on negative emotion, this does nothing to demonstrate evidence for your convictions. You are very keen to dissect my point of view, perhaps you should turn the scalpel on yourself: what makes you believe that free will can't survive surveillance? You've taken a very vehement stand on this, based on what?

You failed to address my first question. And he was able to make his choice because there was a chance for his group to win. Please explain to me how such a choice would be possible against your surveillance.

[Latrinsorm]

You failed to address my first question. And he was able to make his choice because there was a chance for his group to win. Please explain to me how such a choice would be possible against your surveillance.Without universal surveillance:
King breaks the law.
King goes to jail.
King writes a letter.
National opinion swings in his favor.
Laws are changed.
Blacks win.

With universal surveillance:
King breaks the law, is caught on tape doing so.
King goes to jail.
King writes a letter.
National opinion swings in his favor.
Laws are changed.
Blacks win.

People like him beat the system the same way he beat the old one, because what makes disobedience civil is accepting the consequences of the law you're trying to change. Black people didn't win the civil rights movement by getting away with crimes, individually or as a whole.

[SHAFT]

Blacks win.

Why they gotta be black???

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/ilovenandn/72hq8hu.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/ilovenandn/media/72hq8hu.gif.html)

[Jeril]

You are still missing the point. When a person breaks or goes against the law it is because there is the chance they can "win". A group functions much the same way, they are trying to win, the fact that a group member maybe sacrificed for those ends is irrelevant. You, as a scientist should be able to understand that, you are refusing to see it because your emotions are getting in the way, whether you want to admit it or not. And my point has always been that there is no chance for evil to win against your surveillance, so there is no choice, that choice between good and evil is free will. People won't realize it right away and there would likely be some who act out but over time that wouldn't be the case, much like shocking an animal every time it tried to get food.

You pointing out how King would likely win in either case is also misleading, he won because his cause was good. A person who has an evil cause has no chance to win against your surveillance, on an individual level or a group level.

You also argue for progress, your way isn't progress.

You're talking about treating the core cause of our cultural problems. I don't think this ever gains momentum because it's hard work, expensive, requires change and patience while being very difficult to document. It's really a multi-generational change that has to be consistent and concious. At least that the way I see. If you're thinking of something else or have other ideas let us know. You're right though. If we could increase positive citizenship (including government) we'd not need to talk about the possibility/practicality of universal surveillance.

That would be progress.

You ask why I am against you, it is plain and simple enough. You are wrong. If you don't believe that is all the motivation I need, I can likely find many people to back up that claim, I've spent a good deal of time pointing out lesser wrongs.

[subzero]

Yes, by definition. I personally wouldn't blame someone for a coerced choice, but it is by definition a choice.

This is essentially the same thing as the 'letter of the law' and the 'spirit of the law'. Sure, technically it's a choice, but in practice it isn't.

[subzero]

Without universal surveillance:
King breaks the law.
King goes to jail.
King writes a letter.
National opinion swings in his favor.
Laws are changed.
Blacks win.

With universal surveillance:
King breaks the law, is caught on tape doing so.
King goes to jail.
King writes a letter.
National opinion swings in his favor.
Laws are changed.
Blacks win.

People like him beat the system the same way he beat the old one, because what makes disobedience civil is accepting the consequences of the law you're trying to change. Black people didn't win the civil rights movement by getting away with crimes, individually or as a whole.

I think it's more likely to be something like this:

With universal surveillance:
King plans to break the law, is caught on tape doing so and arrested, possibly under the guise of homegrown terrorism.
King goes to jail.
King tries writing a letter, but is being watched and is prevented from writing his terrorist letter.
National opinion says that King is an evil man, because terrah.
Laws are not changed.
Blacks do not win.

[Latrinsorm]

You are still missing the point. When a person breaks or goes against the law it is because there is the chance they can "win". A group functions much the same way, they are trying to win, the fact that a group member maybe sacrificed for those ends is irrelevant. You, as a scientist should be able to understand that, you are refusing to see it because your emotions are getting in the way, whether you want to admit it or not.I admit to missing the point. I thought we were talking about free will, now you've got this group/individual thing going that doesn't seem to be related to it at all. I am reasonably sure that emotion isn't playing into it; I know what emotion feels like, what I feel now is just perplexed.
And my point has always been that there is no chance for evil to win against your surveillance, so there is no choice, that choice between good and evil is free will. People won't realize it right away and there would likely be some who act out but over time that wouldn't be the case, much like shocking an animal every time it tried to get food.There's nothing incorrect about your theory of conditioning, but you're selectively applying it. Your bias is that everything we have today is okay (guns, DNA evidence, warrantless surveillance, interrogation, prison, execution) and any deviation from that is bad (surveillance with a broader scope). I mean, you earlier described surveillance as holding a figurative gun to someone's head, with no apparent appreciation of the irony that police are currently allowed to hold a literal gun to your head and pull the trigger if they're pretty sure they ought to.

You have also made one logical leap: a conditioned animal (including a human) will in general not act a certain way, but acts and wills are not the same thing. I can will myself to hit a home run, but it isn't going to happen because we are already subjected to laws we cannot break: the laws of physics. This does not prevent me from wanting, trying, willing what cannot be, why would it prevent me from doing so against laws I have some small control over in the form of elections? Am I such an incredible glorious overman that I alone am uncowed? That seems pretty unlikely, given my lack of abdominal definition.
You pointing out how King would likely win in either case is also misleading, he won because his cause was good. A person who has an evil cause has no chance to win against your surveillance, on an individual level or a group level.He won because he garnered popular support. It is not the case that such garnishment can only be obtained for good causes.
You ask why I am against you, it is plain and simple enough. You are wrong. If you don't believe that is all the motivation I need, I can likely find many people to back up that claim, I've spent a good deal of time pointing out lesser wrongs.I understand very clearly that you disagree, and I understand very clearly that you disagree with the data I've cited. What I don't understand is what data led you to that disagreement. You are vehement and sure of yourself, how did you get there?

[Latrinsorm]

I think it's more likely to be something like this:

With universal surveillance:
King plans to break the law, is caught on tape doing so and arrested, possibly under the guise of homegrown terrorism.
King goes to jail.
King tries writing a letter, but is being watched and is prevented from writing his terrorist letter.
National opinion says that King is an evil man, because terrah.
Laws are not changed.
Blacks do not win.As Warriorbird has helpfully cited, surveillance states don't necessarily keep that surveillance from defense attorneys. He could very well be accused of terrorism, and probably would have if 9/11 happened in 1951. In 1951 he would have nothing but his word to fall back on against government lies. In 2051 (or whenever) he could hold up the tape and say "look, I'm a pacifist".

It could be that surveillance has a causal link with totalitarianism, in the sense that it's not an inherent contradiction. I'll be happy to look at any data you can find in that vein.

.

If we outlaw surveillance, only black Mexican trophy girlfriends and Warrior assistant coaches will have surveillance. Is that the America you want to live in?

[Jeril]

I admit to missing the point. I thought we were talking about free will, now you've got this group/individual thing going that doesn't seem to be related to it at all. I am reasonably sure that emotion isn't playing into it; I know what emotion feels like, what I feel now is just perplexed.

You can't understand how the why of someone breaking the law is important? Isn't that the first question a scientist is supposed to ask? If your emotions weren't getting in the way, how would you fail to understand that?


There's nothing incorrect about your theory of conditioning, but you're selectively applying it. Your bias is that everything we have today is okay (guns, DNA evidence, warrantless surveillance, interrogation, prison, execution) and any deviation from that is bad (surveillance with a broader scope). I mean, you earlier described surveillance as holding a figurative gun to someone's head, with no apparent appreciation of the irony that police are currently allowed to hold a literal gun to your head and pull the trigger if they're pretty sure they ought to.


If I agree with this:

You're talking about treating the core cause of our cultural problems. I don't think this ever gains momentum because it's hard work, expensive, requires change and patience while being very difficult to document. It's really a multi-generational change that has to be consistent and concious. At least that the way I see. If you're thinking of something else or have other ideas let us know. You're right though. If we could increase positive citizenship (including government) we'd not need to talk about the possibility/practicality of universal surveillance.

How does what you said make sense?


You have also made one logical leap: a conditioned animal (including a human) will in general not act a certain way, but acts and wills are not the same thing. I can will myself to hit a home run, but it isn't going to happen because we are already subjected to laws we cannot break: the laws of physics. This does not prevent me from wanting, trying, willing what cannot be, why would it prevent me from doing so against laws I have some small control over in the form of elections? Am I such an incredible glorious overman that I alone am uncowed? That seems pretty unlikely, given my lack of abdominal definition.

And what are the consequences if you fail to hit that home run? There is a big difference between that and willing preforming an act that you know you will most certainly be punished for.

The point is, you are wanting to remove a choice from people. You act like the parents who don't want their eighteen year old daughter to date. You know why they do that? Fear, they fear her growing up, they fear her making unwise decisions or other people making unwise decisions that will affect her negatively. Just like those parents are wrong, you are wrong. Their fear and yours is understandable but people still have to be free to make their choices.

[Latrinsorm]

You can't understand how the why of someone breaking the law is important? Isn't that the first question a scientist is supposed to ask? If your emotions weren't getting in the way, how would you fail to understand that?Whether they choose to break the law is important in the context of this discussion. Why they choose to do so is not. The freedom of a will is not related to the nobility of the intent.
If I agree with this: How does what you said make sense?It wouldn't, but you don't agree with that. You're all for giving police lethal weapons, DNA testing, locking people in boxes. These are all exactly like surveillance: they treat symptoms, not the cause. These are all exactly like surveillance: they impinge on peoples' ability to commit crimes, but in no way impinge their ability to want to.
The point is, you are wanting to remove a choice from people.Like I said before, you're more optimistic about surveillance's success than I am. What I want is for people who break the law to be caught.

But let's say you're right, and this is all about fear, and my being for surveillance is entirely wrong. Does that make you being against it right? Suppose I insist that 2+2=3 and you insist that 2+2=6, and you incontrovertibly demonstrate that the result of 2+2 must be even. I would therefore be wrong, but that doesn't make 2+2=6. All the effort to disprove my case doesn't get yours anywhere until you've put some effort into proving it.

So here's the last thing I'll say about this: show me one piece of evidence that supports your claims. You must agree I've made a good faith effort to show you some for my side, even if you don't agree with them. Do you have anything but theory and reasoning?

[subzero]

As Warriorbird has helpfully cited, surveillance states don't necessarily keep that surveillance from defense attorneys.

I'm not willing to give up my privacy for "don't necessarily". They will keep quiet the things they want to keep quiet. Operation Northwoods was concocted in the early 60s. That was obviously kept rather quiet. More recently, our drone program was also kept quiet despite people seeming to know it already existed. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-i-had-gag-order-on-drone-program/) And then there's the whole NSA ordeal. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/pulitzer-prizes-journalism/) Nothing makes me think they would do otherwise with whatever surveillance they happen to have.


He could very well be accused of terrorism, and probably would have if 9/11 happened in 1951. In 1951 he would have nothing but his word to fall back on against government lies. In 2051 (or whenever) he could hold up the tape and say "look, I'm a pacifist".

You're assuming King would have access to and control of the government surveillance on him. He wouldn't. To believe he would is naive at best.


It could be that surveillance has a causal link with totalitarianism, in the sense that it's not an inherent contradiction. I'll be happy to look at any data you can find in that vein.

The data we need is that which shows the government cannot be trusted, therefore we cannot trust that their surveillance would be properly used. Totalitarianism or not, your miracle tool will not be so miraculous in the hands of corrupt people.


If we outlaw surveillance, only black Mexican trophy girlfriends and Warrior assistant coaches will have surveillance. Is that the America you want to live in?

Yes. Go Clippers!

[Jeril]

Latrin, you are trying to make the claim that if I stick you in a box with absolutely no way out that you are free, this is incorrect. Just like that box the surveillance you want will be inescapable. Even if I allow you to do whatever you want within the box you still aren't free. You are wanting to trade your, and our, freedom for safety. People have fought and died for that freedom for a couple hundred years and still do to this day. Just because you want to give up and crawl into a nice safe box doesn't mean that the rest of us have given up on trying, on fighting.

I also fail to see how me living in the world of now and wanting better trained police who make better decisions has any baring on me wanting progress for us as a people.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not willing to give up my privacy for "don't necessarily". They will keep quiet the things they want to keep quiet. Operation Northwoods was concocted in the early 60s. That was obviously kept rather quiet. More recently, our drone program was also kept quiet despite people seeming to know it already existed. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-i-had-gag-order-on-drone-program/) And then there's the whole NSA ordeal. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/us/pulitzer-prizes-journalism/) Nothing makes me think they would do otherwise with whatever surveillance they happen to have.I hope you see the humor in citing multiple cases of publicly known surveillance operations to demonstrate that surveillance operations won't be publicly known.
You're assuming King would have access to and control of the government surveillance on him. He wouldn't. To believe he would is naive at best.I'm not assuming either way, I'm citing WB's case where a lawyer had that very access. If you would like to cite a counter-case, feel free.
The data we need is that which shows the government cannot be trusted, therefore we cannot trust that their surveillance would be properly used. Totalitarianism or not, your miracle tool will not be so miraculous in the hands of corrupt people.You don't believe this, and I'll prove it:
-Our government has a nuclear arsenal that can kill everyone on the planet.
-Our government cannot be trusted, therefore we cannot trust that this power will be properly used.
-But you don't care.

Why not? Because a nuclear powered America is the status quo. It's how things have always been (from your perspective), so it's okay. You aren't objecting to the potential for abuse or the loss of privacy, you're objecting to change.

And to really put a bow on this, that's also why you believe tobacco has health risks but marijuana doesn't. Everyone has always known tobacco had health risks (from your perspective), so it's true. That these risks were demonstrated by the exact same methodology as has been used to demonstrate those of marijuana is irrelevant, because you aren't objecting to methodology. You're objecting to change.
Latrin, you are trying to make the claim that if I stick you in a box with absolutely no way out that you are free, this is incorrect.My last question stands.

[Warriorbird]

I hope you see the humor in citing multiple cases of publicly known surveillance operations to demonstrate that surveillance operations won't be publicly known.I'm not assuming either way, I'm citing WB's case where a lawyer had that very access.

Some knowledge does not equal full knowledge or full access.

[Latrinsorm]

Some knowledge does not equal full knowledge or full access.See? A Democrat and Republican agreeing across the aisle. Universal surveillance brings us together! :)

[Tgo01]

See? A Democrat and Republican agreeing across the aisle. Universal surveillance brings us together! :)

Which of you is which?

[subzero]

I hope you see the humor in citing multiple cases of publicly known surveillance operations to demonstrate that surveillance operations won't be publicly known.

Wat? Knowing surveillance exists has nothing to do with who has access to and control of that surveillance.


I'm not assuming either way, I'm citing WB's case where a lawyer had that very access. If you would like to cite a counter-case, feel free.

And here I thought we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which King was living in a world with universal surveillance.


You don't believe this, and I'll prove it:
-Our government has a nuclear arsenal that can kill everyone on the planet.
-Our government cannot be trusted, therefore we cannot trust that this power will be properly used.
-But you don't care.

Why not? Because a nuclear powered America is the status quo. It's how things have always been (from your perspective), so it's okay. You aren't objecting to the potential for abuse or the loss of privacy, you're objecting to change.

Necessary evils will always exist. I don't believe having weapons capability whose very existence helps keep people and countries in check is a bad thing. These weapons, and not just ours, might very well be responsible for saving a whole lot of lives. I also don't believe it's in any way comparable to something used to eliminate privacy from a country. To believe that our government is rife with lying, corrupt bastards does not mean those same people are psychotic men bent on obliterating millions of people. They've been lying to us forever. How many bombs have they recklessly dropped on our own country? I'd say even those used against others has been very minimal.


And to really put a bow on this, that's also why you believe tobacco has health risks but marijuana doesn't. Everyone has always known tobacco had health risks (from your perspective), so it's true. That these risks were demonstrated by the exact same methodology as has been used to demonstrate those of marijuana is irrelevant, because you aren't objecting to methodology. You're objecting to change.

I've never claimed cannabis has no health risks. I don't necessarily believe the brain damage claims. You do remember the older study performed on monkeys to show it caused brain damage, right? You know... the one that deprived their brains of oxygen? I'm going to need something more than one little study claiming it might do this or that. I simply cannot recall seeing something with definitive results. It's all, "May cause" or "May have".

I'm also not sure that the risks outweigh the benefits which haven't been fully explored either. Take our good buddy Willie Nelson who was recently shown on the forums... how functional should this guy be if brain damage was a serious issue resulting from cannabis use?

[Latrinsorm]

Necessary evils will always exist. I don't believe having weapons capability whose very existence helps keep people and countries in check is a bad thing. These weapons, and not just ours, might very well be responsible for saving a whole lot of lives. I also don't believe it's in any way comparable to something used to eliminate privacy from a country. To believe that our government is rife with lying, corrupt bastards does not mean those same people are psychotic men bent on obliterating millions of people. They've been lying to us forever. How many bombs have they recklessly dropped on our own country? I'd say even those used against others has been very minimal.When General Dwight D. Eisenhower disputes your analysis of military necessity, it might be time to reconsider. As he was known to say: let's get busy! You couldn't make it any easier for me:

"I don't believe having a capability whose very existence helps keep people in check is a bad thing."
"It might very well be responsible for saving a whole lot of lives." Smash cut to "I'm not willing to give up my privacy for 'don't necessarily'."
"...does not mean those same people are psychotic men bent on obliterating free will."

Please note how I am pro-nuclear and pro-surveillance, pro-armed police, pro-DNA testing. This is an internally consistent position.
I've never claimed cannabis has no health risks. I don't necessarily believe the brain damage claims. You do remember the older study performed on monkeys to show it caused brain damage, right? You know... the one that deprived their brains of oxygen? I'm going to need something more than one little study claiming it might do this or that. I simply cannot recall seeing something with definitive results. It's all, "May cause" or "May have".I don't remember that study. Hey, hey, who cares about monkeys? I remember the two studies I've already linked to you that definitively link any marijuana use with increased risk of psychosis. You don't find them definitive because of various flaws you think exist in the methodology, which is my whole point. The methodology is identical to that used to demonstrate tobacco being linked with lung damage etc., which you believe without a second thought.
I'm also not sure that the risks outweigh the benefits which haven't been fully explored either. Take our good buddy Willie Nelson who was recently shown on the forums... how functional should this guy be if brain damage was a serious issue resulting from cannabis use?Keith Richards being alive (in a sense) does not indicate that heroin is no big deal.

[Jeril]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will?s=t

[Thondalar]

I'm going to need something more than one little study claiming it might do this or that. I simply cannot recall seeing something with definitive results. It's all, "May cause" or "May have".

Cool thing about Latrin is...scientific method goes out the window if it's any topic where the reality of the situation goes against his emotional beliefs. He has no problem at all making ridiculously unscientific grandiose statements based on little actual science, if any.




edit: changed "think" to "thing"....spell check still can't assume intent...wtf, isn't this like 2014?

[Warriorbird]

Cool thing about Latrin is...scientific method goes out the window if it's any topic where the reality of the situation goes against his emotional beliefs. He has no problem at all making ridiculously unscientific grandiose statements based on little actual science, if any.




edit: changed "think" to "thing"....spell check still can't assume intent...wtf, isn't this like 2014?

Sounds like a conservative on climate change. He's just a conservative on marijuana. You shouldn't be surprised. Most of us around here, left or right, have a liberty bent. Latrin just has an authoritarian one. So we're all Rorshachs of some stripe and he's Adrian Veidt. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Veidts of the world usually win.

http://www.zoom-comics.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2011/01/rorschach-says-DO-IT.jpg

https://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/ozydidit.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Cool thing about Latrin is...scientific method goes out the window if it's any topic where the reality of the situation goes against his emotional beliefs. He has no problem at all making ridiculously unscientific grandiose statements based on little actual science, if any.That could be. Do you have any data to support that assertion? For instance, LeBron James isn't on the Mount Rushmore (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88736-NBA-True-Award-Shares-and-Mount-Rushmore) that I based on science. If I'm more emotionally attached to LeBron James than marijuana, which seems a fair claim (in bed), how is it that I didn't disregard the scientific method there but did here? Plus that was my own personal research, rather than merely observing someone else's. Surely that would have offered me more ability to skew the results, no?

And even if my method is totally wrong, does that have any impact on the studies I linked? Surely their correctness stands on its own. What did you think of them, especially in relation to the studies that convinced you of the health dangers of tobacco?
Sounds like a conservative on climate change. He's just a conservative on marijuana. You shouldn't be surprised. Most of us around here, left or right, have a liberty bent. Latrin just has an authoritarian one. So we're all Rorshachs of some stripe and he's Adrian Veidt. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the Veidts of the world usually win.Dude, was he wrong?