The Snowden Pulitzer

[Androidpk]

Do you ever contribute anything to any thread other than "You all are wrong and I'm right, therefore you all are morons"?

Yeah. Didn't think so. You didn't even attempt to refute anything Latrin said up there. You believe marijuana cures cancer and you believe any serious side effect that has been attributed to marijuana usage is exaggerated or is a flat out lie. This isn't hyperbole, you have stated as much.

There is no need to inject your brand of stupidity into every marijuana thread. We got your argument. Thanks.


Lolirony.

I've never downplayed the negative side effects. I've never said it is the cure for everything. I've never said it will fix all of our economic problems. I've never said it will empty half of our prisons. Keep attributing bullshit to me that I've never said, jackass.

[Latrinsorm]

243 (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/36,868,867,133,38/39,40,41/416,417) million adults
* 35% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx) that have used marijuana
* 0.5% increase in schizophrenia
=
425,250

But there aren't a lot of significant figures there so I rounded it to 400,000.

[Tgo01]

Lolirony.

I've never downplayed the negative side effects. I've never said it is the cure for everything. I've never said it will fix all of our economic problems. I've never said it will empty half of our prisons. Keep attributing bullshit to me that I've never said, jackass.

You've never downplayed the negative side effects? Just a few pages ago you didn't laugh at the notion that marijuana use might cause aggression? The other thread you didn't laugh the notion that marijuana edibles caused that one guy to jump out a window?

Enough with your bullshit. Trust me when I say no one is impressed with your ability to ignore facts when they don't suit your argument.

[Androidpk]

You've never downplayed the negative side effects? Just a few pages ago you didn't laugh at the notion that marijuana use might cause aggression? The other thread you didn't laugh the notion that marijuana edibles caused that one guy to jump out a window?

Enough with your bullshit. Trust me when I say no one is impressed with your ability to ignore facts when they don't suit your argument.

Your trolling is worse than wrathbringer's, and that is really saying something. Maybe you can PM him for tips?

[Tgo01]

I've never said it is the cure for everything.

I never said you said it is a cure for everything. Keep attributing bullshit to me that I've never said, jackass.


Your trolling is worse than wrathbringer's, and that is really saying something. Maybe you can PM him for tips?

Why do you think you're in a position to make fun of Wrathbringer? More people would rather have this presence here than yours, and that is saying something.

[Androidpk]

I never said you said it is a cure for everything. Keep attributing bullshit to me that I've never said, jackass.



Why do you think you're in a position to make fun of Wrathbringer? More people would rather have this presence here than yours, and that is saying something.

You are boring.

[elcidcannon]

243 (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/36,868,867,133,38/39,40,41/416,417) million adults
* 35% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx) that have used marijuana
* 0.5% increase in schizophrenia
=
425,250

But there aren't a lot of significant figures there so I rounded it to 400,000.

So you're counting anyone who has "tried" or "experimented with" marijuana, even once, in your figures? What type of users do your quoted studies cover?

[Tgo01]

So you're counting anyone who has "tried" or "experimented with" marijuana, even once, in your figures? What type of users do your quoted studies cover?

According to Latrin using marijuana even once increases your chance of psychosis.

[elcidcannon]

According to Latrin using marijuana even once increases your chance of psychosis.

At the same rate as a habitual user?

Having smoked a handful of times in my life, I'm just as at risk of psychosis as a multiple-times-per-day user?

[Androidpk]

At the same rate as a habitual user?

Having smoked a handful of times in my life, I'm just as at risk of psychosis as a multiple-times-per-day user?

Yes. DARE wasn't joking when they said one puff will destroy your life!

[Tgo01]

At the same rate as a habitual user?

Having smoked a handful of times in my life, I'm just as at risk of psychosis as a multiple-times-per-day user?

Apparently.


Yes. DARE wasn't joking when they said one puff will destroy your life!

pk you really do the legalization movement zero favors. You turned out to be the exact type of person "they" warn us we will turn into: someone who uses others and steals from people to fuel his drug addiction.

[Fallen]

In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or 5.9 percent of all global deaths (7.6 percent for men and 4.0 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption.

Globally, alcohol misuse is the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability; among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first.

But yeah, lets keep worrying about that 0.5% increase in the risk of schizophrenia.

[Androidpk]

Apparently.



pk you really do the legalization movement zero favors. You turned out to be the exact type of person "they" warn us we will turn into: someone who uses others and steals from people to fuel his drug addiction.

Dude, you are a joke. STFU already.

[Tgo01]

Dude, you are a joke. STFU already.

And you prove that marijuana use leads to aggressive and hostile behavior! You're like the poster child for the anti legalization movement. Just plaster your face and your story all over billboards and posters saying "Don't let this happen to you" and I bet marijuana usage will actually take a nose dive.

[Androidpk]

And you prove that marijuana use leads to aggressive and hostile behavior! You're like the poster child for the anti legalization movement. Just plaster your face and your story all over billboards and posters saying "Don't let this happen to you" and I bet marijuana usage will actually take a nose dive.

That would be be pretty funny, considering I don't even use it anymore. Like I said, you are boring.

[Astray]

And you prove that marijuana use leads to aggressive and hostile behavior! You're like the poster child for the anti legalization movement. Just plaster your face and your story all over billboards and posters saying "Don't let this happen to you" and I bet marijuana usage will actually take a nose dive.

I used the Marijuanas once. It drove me insane.

[Tgo01]

I used the Marijuanas once. It drove me insane.

Latrin is right!

[Astray]

Latrin is right!

While on the Marijunas once, I saw the dreaded GAYS and did not publicly chastise them.

[Androidpk]

I used the Marijuanas once. It drove me insane.

How many marijuanas did you snort?

[Astray]

How many marijuanas did you snort?

Due to the Marijuanas, I can no longer count.

[Latrinsorm]

So you're counting anyone who has "tried" or "experimented with" marijuana, even once, in your figures? What type of users do your quoted studies cover?I don't know why this figure sticks in my head but I remember them ranging as high as five times for "ever used". In some cases (e.g. Zammit) they don't require anything more than one use, like Gallup.
At the same rate as a habitual user?One of the other important findings of Zammit is that marijuana use and psychosis follow a dose-response curve, so the more you use it the worse the effects get. They quote a figure that 50+ uses resulted in a 500% increase in risk of schizophrenia vs. the ever use increase of 50%. I haven't really looked into heavy use statistics so I'm not sure how well that quantitative finding held up on review, but I've seen dose-response relationships cited frequently.
In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or 5.9 percent of all global deaths (7.6 percent for men and 4.0 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption. Globally, alcohol misuse is the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability; among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first. But yeah, lets keep worrying about that 0.5% increase in the risk of schizophrenia.Like "incarcerated on drug related charges", "attributable to alcohol consumption" is a rather obvious misdirection. Even if we ignore it, 9 million schizophrenics globally are attributable to marijuana consumption. But yeah, let's keep worrying about that 0.05% increase in the risk of death, eh? Sarcastically comparing a rate to a raw figure is a transparently desperate tactic, and it still doesn't work in your favor.

[Androidpk]

Dr. Sanjay Gupta says we need to legalize medicinal marijuana immediately. I'll take his word, a world famous doctor, over that of latrinsorm, who isn't famous anywhere.

[Tgo01]

Dr. Sanjay Gupta says we need to legalize medicinal marijuana immediately. I'll take his word, a world famous doctor, over that of latrinsorm, who isn't famous anywhere.

Here's a story about what a couple of doctors think about medical marijuana; one is in favor of legalizing medical marijuana, the other is not:

http://www.wpbf.com/news/fla-doctors-give-opposing-opinion-on-medical-marijuana/29423944


Haridopolos and Morgan said overdosing on marijuana is highly unlikely. Neither were familiar with any known overdose cases. They also agree smoking marijuana does come with potential side effects, like bronchitis and increased risk of neck and lung cancer.

Morgan and Haridopolos said marijuana use can also contribute to short-term memory loss.

Addiction, however, is a point of departure.

Haridopolos maintains medical marijuana is addictive, but According to Morgan, medical marijuana is not addictive but can contribute to dependency.

So two doctors, one who opposes legalizing medical marijuana, the other in favor, both say using it can lead to cancer, short-term memory loss, and one says it leads to addiction and the other says it can contribute to dependency.

This is exactly what Latrin drones on and on about in these threads; people are so quick to latch onto one expert's opinion and say "This guy is an expert! You're just a Latrin!" yet when Latrin provides countless references to experts that back him up you (and yes I mean specifically you, pk) ignore all of that shit and just say Latrin is an idiot.

[Wrathbringer]

Here's a story about what a couple of doctors think about medical marijuana; one is in favor of legalizing medical marijuana, the other is not:

http://www.wpbf.com/news/fla-doctors-give-opposing-opinion-on-medical-marijuana/29423944



So two doctors, one who opposes legalizing medical marijuana, the other in favor, both say using it can lead to cancer, short-term memory loss, and one says it leads to addiction and the other says it can contribute to dependency.

This is exactly what Latrin drones on and on about in these threads; people are so quick to latch onto one expert's opinion and say "This guy is an expert! You're just a Latrin!" yet when Latrin provides countless references to experts that back him up you (and yes I mean specifically you, pk) ignore all of that shit and just say Latrin is an idiot.

I'm bored with this conversation in its umpteenth incarnation with the same players back again for more. Who's writing this stuff? Someone needs canned.

[Androidpk]

Latrin is an idiot.

[elcidcannon]

One of the other important findings of Zammit is that marijuana use and psychosis follow a dose-response curve, so the more you use it the worse the effects get. They quote a figure that 50+ uses resulted in a 500% increase in risk of schizophrenia vs. the ever use increase of 50%. I haven't really looked into heavy use statistics so I'm not sure how well that quantitative finding held up on review, but I've seen dose-response relationships cited frequently.

Does "use" actually quantify an amount? One blunt? One toke of one blunt?

If 50+ uses equates to a 500% increase, what kind of increase do people who smoke daily/multiple times per day (equating to thousands of "uses" over a span of years) see? With that scaled increase, wouldn't nearly every habitual user have a nearly 100% chance of suffering psychosis?

Are there any studies/numbers about current legal medicinal marijuana users, who are dosed multiple times per day, and their 500% or higher increase of psychosis?

[Wrathbringer]

7379

[Wrathbringer]

I don't know why this figure sticks in my head but I remember them ranging as high as five times for "ever used". In some cases (e.g. Zammit) they don't require anything more than one use, like Gallup.One of the other important findings of Zammit is that marijuana use and psychosis follow a dose-response curve, so the more you use it the worse the effects get. They quote a figure that 50+ uses resulted in a 500% increase in risk of schizophrenia vs. the ever use increase of 50%. I haven't really looked into heavy use statistics so I'm not sure how well that quantitative finding held up on review, but I've seen dose-response relationships cited frequently.Like "incarcerated on drug related charges", "attributable to alcohol consumption" is a rather obvious misdirection. Even if we ignore it, 9 million schizophrenics globally are attributable to marijuana consumption. But yeah, let's keep worrying about that 0.05% increase in the risk of death, eh? Sarcastically comparing a rate to a raw figure is a transparently desperate tactic, and it still doesn't work in your favor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0

[~Rocktar~]

In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or 5.9 percent of all global deaths (7.6 percent for men and 4.0 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption.

Globally, alcohol misuse is the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability; among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first.

But yeah, lets keep worrying about that 0.5% increase in the risk of schizophrenia.

Keep that misdirection up, it sure works for you.

So, let's look at this argument:
Substance A causes X amount of harm and is legal.
Substance B causes Y amount of harm and is illegal.
Since X is purportedly (since we don't have exact numbers) more harmful than Y, we should legalize Y because allowing a quantum increase in harm to the people is a good thing.

Yeah, emotional red herring. You are not helping the case for legalization.



Dr. Sanjay Gupta says we need to legalize medicinal marijuana immediately. I'll take his word, a world famous doctor, over that of latrinsorm, who isn't famous anywhere.

I would be OK with moving it to schedule II and all the appropriate regulations associated with that. I would have no issue with cancer patients and some others getting to use it medically. I would also subject it to every tobacco statute for limits on where you can use it and so on. Lettinge every crybaby, whiner and emotionally immature person that cries about something get a prescription for it like California has done isn't good. Legalizing it wholesale is a bad idea in ways we cannot even begin to understand. You aren't helping the case for legalization either.

By the way, exceptional debate skills:
Latrin is an idiot.

[Fallen]

The issue is, Rocktar, that L won't acknowledge how much damage alcohol does in comparison to Marijuana. It makes his arguments completely pointless. No one takes him seriously because he literally hand waves away millions of illnesses and deaths caused by alcohol while continuing to vilify marijuana.

Legalization doesn't need my help. Medical or otherwise, it's an inevitability. We have a whole thread pointing out the medical benefits that the drug can provide, what more can be done?

[Androidpk]

>Legalizing it wholesale is a bad idea in ways we cannot even begin to understand. You aren't helping the case for legalization either.

:lol2:

[tyrant-201]

The issue is, Rocktar, that L won't acknowledge how much damage alcohol does in comparison to Marijuana. It makes his arguments completely pointless. No one takes him seriously because he literally hand waves away millions of illnesses and deaths caused by alcohol while continuing to vilify marijuana.

Legalization doesn't need my help. Medical or otherwise, it's an inevitability. We have a whole thread pointing out the medical benefits that the drug can provide, what more can be done?

Yeah, his claims are obviously not completely illegitimate - but it's kind of a foregone conclusion to most anyone who knows anything about substance abuse and the ramifications of it, knows that alcohol is far more toxic and damaging than marijuana. Really no point in arguing with him on the matter.

[Fallen]

Yeah, his claims are obviously not completely illegitimate - but it's kind of a foregone conclusion to most anyone who knows anything about substance abuse and the ramifications of it, knows that alcohol is far more toxic and damaging than marijuana. Really no point in arguing with him on the matter.

Exactly, pointing out that the substance can be consumed safely by a segment of the population does in no way excuse the massive amount of harm the drug does by the millions of people who cannot and will not consume it safely. Add to this his stance on firearms, which are completely contradictory to his stance on alcohol, being that they can and are used safely by the vast majority of those who own them, and his whole shtick falls to pieces.

[Latrinsorm]

Does "use" actually quantify an amount? One blunt? One toke of one blunt?Not to my knowledge.
If 50+ uses equates to a 500% increase, what kind of increase do people who smoke daily/multiple times per day (equating to thousands of "uses" over a span of years) see? With that scaled increase, wouldn't nearly every habitual user have a nearly 100% chance of suffering psychosis?I don't know of any research done specifically on superheavy users, probably because (1) they're so rare that it would be hard to get a relevant sample size and (2) they're not an interesting topic. Looking at the data we do have, any two points can be fitted to a line, but that does not imply that any two points are generated by a linear function. Dose response curves in general look like CDFs, kind of like a tilted S. In the same way that a person can smoke thousands of cigarettes and not develop cancer, a person can use marijuana thousands of times and not develop schizophrenia. I don't know where exactly the risk function tops out at, and I'm not sure why it matters.
Are there any studies/numbers about current legal medicinal marijuana users, who are dosed multiple times per day, and their 500% or higher increase of psychosis?The only studies I could find on medical marijuana specifically were doctors' opinions on it and pediatric exposure in medical marijuana states. Again, I'm not sure why this matters.
The issue is, Rocktar, that L won't acknowledge how much damage alcohol does in comparison to Marijuana. It makes his arguments completely pointless. No one takes him seriously because he literally hand waves away millions of illnesses and deaths caused by alcohol while continuing to vilify marijuana.I have addressed alcohol explicitly and at great length. You disagree with it, but it still exists. That you refuse to respond to it on its merits does not put your position in a good light.
Exactly, pointing out that the substance can be consumed safely by a segment of the population does in no way excuse the massive amount of harm the drug does by the millions of people who cannot and will not consume it safely. Add to this his stance on firearms, which are completely contradictory to his stance on alcohol, being that they can and are used safely by the vast majority of those who own them, and his whole shtick falls to pieces.You speak of inevitability, but drunk driving is not inevitable. As waywardgs pointed out, fatal car accidents are at a 90 year low. I also have no idea why you think my stance on alcohol and firearms are contradictory, except out of spite I suppose.

Aspirin can be dangerous, but only under implausible circumstances -> lightly regulated.
Guns can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Alcohol can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Marijuana is always dangerous -> outright ban.

Where's the contradiction?

[tyrant-201]

I think you completely gloss over the point being made by dismissing alcohol abuse as "Well, it's heavily regulated and the people who are abusing it aren't using it properly. Thus, the consequences of alcohol abuse can be dismissed because it's legal and there's a proper and improper way to use it."

Am I correct in this assumption, or not?

The fact is, alcohol is one of the most addictive and damaging substances there is available. It's up there with heroin and methamphetamine. Because a substance is legal, and there is deemed a proper and improper way of using it, does not negate the damage it can and will do by abuse.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/12-health-risks-of-chronic-heavy-drinking

Anemia. Cancer. Heart disease. Cirrhosis. Higher chance of dementia. Depression. Seizures from withdrawal, which can and have killed people. Gout. High blood pressure. Released inhibitions which lead to risky behavior. Nerve damage. Pancreatitis.

But marijuana is worse, because it isn't legal, can't be consumed in any "safe" dose or way (which isn't true. If carcinogens are your issue, it's perfectly possible to eat or drink it and avoid any carcinogens whatsoever.)

I don't understand how you think this is a legitimate argument. And I don't smoke pot.

[elcidcannon]

I don't know of any research done specifically on superheavy users, probably because (1) they're so rare that it would be hard to get a relevant sample size and (2) they're not an interesting topic.

You could easily find millions of people who smoke marijuana on a frequent basis, and in their lifetime have "used" WAY more than 50+ times. I'd venture to say that this type of user is, if not the majority, a large portion of users. I'm not sure why they would be ignored.


The only studies I could find on medical marijuana specifically were doctors' opinions on it and pediatric exposure in medical marijuana states. Again, I'm not sure why this matters.

It matters because if psychosis were considered a valid and dangerous side effect/risk of marijuana use, don't you think someone would take advantage of all these registered, legal, users and study them for said side effects?

[tyrant-201]

You could easily find millions of people who smoke marijuana on a frequent basis, and in their lifetime have "used" WAY more than 50+ times. I'd venture to say that this type of user is, if not the majority, a large portion of users. I'm not sure why they would be ignored.



It matters because if psychosis were considered a valid and dangerous side effect/risk of marijuana use, don't you think someone would take advantage of all these registered, legal, users and study them for said side effects?

It is a valid and dangerous side-effect, but only in those genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, and typically younger users.

[elcidcannon]

Marijuana is always dangerous -> outright ban.

How does, according to you, a 5 in 4000 rate of psychosis diagnoses equate to "always dangerous"?

[elcidcannon]

It is a valid and dangerous side-effect, but only in those genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, and typically younger users.

See above post/quote and again.....how does this equate to "always dangerous?"

[Fallen]

We're comparing a drug with its worst side effect of having a less than %1 chance of worsening mental illness to one that kills millions and causes all sorts of life threatening diseases. It is also highly physically addictive. There is also a genetic component which predisposes you to said addiction.

[Wrathbringer]

Not to my knowledge.I don't know of any research done specifically on superheavy users, probably because (1) they're so rare that it would be hard to get a relevant sample size and (2) they're not an interesting topic. Looking at the data we do have, any two points can be fitted to a line, but that does not imply that any two points are generated by a linear function. Dose response curves in general look like CDFs, kind of like a tilted S. In the same way that a person can smoke thousands of cigarettes and not develop cancer, a person can use marijuana thousands of times and not develop schizophrenia. I don't know where exactly the risk function tops out at, and I'm not sure why it matters.The only studies I could find on medical marijuana specifically were doctors' opinions on it and pediatric exposure in medical marijuana states. Again, I'm not sure why this matters.I have addressed alcohol explicitly and at great length. You disagree with it, but it still exists. That you refuse to respond to it on its merits does not put your position in a good light.You speak of inevitability, but drunk driving is not inevitable. As waywardgs pointed out, fatal car accidents are at a 90 year low. I also have no idea why you think my stance on alcohol and firearms are contradictory, except out of spite I suppose.

Aspirin can be dangerous, but only under implausible circumstances -> lightly regulated.
Guns can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Alcohol can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Marijuana is always dangerous -> outright ban.

Where's the contradiction?

I'd just like to know if you'd consider 1936's Reefer Madness required viewing for anyone looking for a casual way to educate themselves about the facts of marijuana use. I'm guessing yes. I'm also having deja vu, now. Great. Thanks for that. Have I asked for your thoughts on that film before? Or your conveniently coincidental slight barely there resemblance to the piano playing stoner depicted therein? Mmhm. Therefore aliens. Checkmate, Latrinsorm. Checkmate.

[waywardgs]

Not to my knowledge.I don't know of any research done specifically on superheavy users, probably because (1) they're so rare that it would be hard to get a relevant sample size and (2) they're not an interesting topic. Looking at the data we do have, any two points can be fitted to a line, but that does not imply that any two points are generated by a linear function. Dose response curves in general look like CDFs, kind of like a tilted S. In the same way that a person can smoke thousands of cigarettes and not develop cancer, a person can use marijuana thousands of times and not develop schizophrenia. I don't know where exactly the risk function tops out at, and I'm not sure why it matters.The only studies I could find on medical marijuana specifically were doctors' opinions on it and pediatric exposure in medical marijuana states. Again, I'm not sure why this matters.I have addressed alcohol explicitly and at great length. You disagree with it, but it still exists. That you refuse to respond to it on its merits does not put your position in a good light.You speak of inevitability, but drunk driving is not inevitable. As waywardgs pointed out, fatal car accidents are at a 90 year low. I also have no idea why you think my stance on alcohol and firearms are contradictory, except out of spite I suppose.

Aspirin can be dangerous, but only under implausible circumstances -> lightly regulated.
Guns can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Alcohol can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Marijuana is always dangerous -> outright ban.

Where's the contradiction?

But I thought you said it was only a .5% increase in the chance to develop schizophrenia? .5% =! 100%...

Yes yes, point is, every activity is always dangerous in that there is ALWAYS a chance of danger in everything anyone ever does. This doesn't mean everything should be banned. It means, as you point out, things should be regulated.

[waywardgs]

Latrin's argument only holds water if he also believes there are absolutely no benefits to marijuana use whatsoever. I drive, I accept that each time I get in the car I may die, those chances are low but they exist. This is acceptable to me because the benefits outweigh the slight chance of injury or death. If driving provided me or anyone else absolutely no benefits, I wouldn't do it- but it does. Convenience, enjoyment, etc. Extrapolate that to anything. Everyone makes judgement calls about what level of risk they're willing to accept. Who do we want making those calls for us? Latrin says the government should do it through prohibition. I say government's only responsibility is to mitigate the risk through regulation, ie seatbelts or age restrictions for those too young to make their own decisions. It's a fundamental philosophical difference regarding the role of government that will never be reconciled.

[~Rocktar~]

>Legalizing it wholesale is a bad idea in ways we cannot even begin to understand. You aren't helping the case for legalization either.

:lol2:


So Thufir Hawat, with your as yet un-demonstrated and undisclosed Mentat powers , project every single harmful effect that general legalization will have over the next 5, 10, 25 and 50 years.

Yep, I thought so. Keep up those excellent debate skills.

[Androidpk]

So Thufir Hawat, with your as yet un-demonstrated and undisclosed Mentat powers , project every single harmful effect that general legalization will have over the next 5, 10, 25 and 50 years.

Yep, I thought so. Keep up those excellent debate skills.

So narrow minded. Humans have been use cannabis and hemp for thousands of years.

:clap:

[Astray]

So narrow minded. Humans have been use cannabis and hemp for thousands of years.

:clap:

Thanks to the Marijuanas, I believed that I transcended time and space. All I did was eat all the Cheetos in my neighbors home.

[Androidpk]

Thanks to the Marijuanas, I believed that I transcended time and space. All I did was eat all the Cheetos in my neighbors home.

Are you sure you weren't in a strangers house, eating buttersticks from their fridge?

[~Rocktar~]

So narrow minded. Humans have been use cannabis and hemp for thousands of years.

:clap:

And that automatically precludes ANY harm that we may not forsee from widespread legalization? WOW! You ARE special, keep it up because you are batting 0.

[Tgo01]

And that automatically precludes ANY harm that we may not forsee from widespread legalization? WOW! You ARE special, keep it up because you are batting 0.

In pk's defense, he's really only an expert in getting high, playing on his computer 20+ hours a day, and stealing from women. Gotta give him some leeway in the debating department.

[Astray]

Are you sure you weren't in a strangers house, eating buttersticks from their fridge?

Yes. Who eats a whole stick of butter?

[Androidpk]

Yes. Who eats a whole stick of butter?

Depends on what kind of butter..

[Astray]

Depends on what kind of butter..

Forget the Marijuanas, you're gonna die of clogged arteries.

[Androidpk]

Lando O'Lakes sweet whipped butter is the devil. :drool:

[waywardgs]

And that automatically precludes ANY harm that we may not forsee from widespread legalization? WOW! You ARE special, keep it up because you are batting 0.

Well, Washington and Colorado aren't in cinders... YET.

[Androidpk]

In pk's defense, he's really only an expert in getting high, playing on his computer 20+ hours a day, and stealing from women. Gotta give him some leeway in the debating department.

:lol:

[Androidpk]

Well, Washington and Colorado aren't in cinders... YET.

Give it time. Tax revenue is up, new schools are being built, crime is down.. It's only a matter of time until
something really, really bad happens!

[Fallen]

And that automatically precludes ANY harm that we may not forsee from widespread legalization? WOW! You ARE special, keep it up because you are batting 0.

A large percentage of individuals already use marijuana, and will continue to do so whether or not it is legalized. We simply see none of the profit from this usage, and instead spend vast amounts of money in a largely impotent attempt to control what people choose to do with their own body. Will there be some sort of negative aspects to legalization? Undoubtedly. How could something be universally positive? A growing majority simply believe that those consequences, whatever they may be, are far outweighed by the ending of prohibition, and the generation of taxable revenue from the sale of MJ (as well as the tax on the associated businesses). I would gladly see a portion of the proceeds from the sale of these drugs go towards research and funding of our mental health system in the US. IMO, that money far better spent than fighting a fruitless drug war.

[Tgo01]

Give it time. Tax revenue is up, new schools are being built crime is down..


I've never said it is the cure for everything. I've never said it will fix all of our economic problems.

:baa:

[Archigeek]

A large percentage of individuals already use marijuana, and will continue to do so whether or not it is legalized. We simply see none of the profit from this usage, and instead spend vast amounts of money in a largely impotent attempt to control what people choose to do with their own body. Will there be some sort of negative aspects to legalization? Undoubtedly. How could something be universally positive? A growing majority simply believe that those consequences, whatever they may be, are far outweighed by the ending of prohibition, and the generation of taxable revenue from the sale of MJ (as well as the tax on the associated businesses). I would gladly see a portion of the proceeds from the sale of these drugs go towards research and funding of our mental health system in the US. IMO, that money far better spent than fighting a fruitless drug war.

I think this is pretty close to my point of view, but what does all this pot talk have to do with Snowden?

[Latrinsorm]

You could easily find millions of people who smoke marijuana on a frequent basis, and in their lifetime have "used" WAY more than 50+ times. I'd venture to say that this type of user is, if not the majority, a large portion of users. I'm not sure why they would be ignored.They're not ignored, as I said they were mentioned specifically in the Zammit study. They're just not specifically sought out as the topic of a study.
It matters because if psychosis were considered a valid and dangerous side effect/risk of marijuana use, don't you think someone would take advantage of all these registered, legal, users and study them for said side effects?Sure, but it takes years to do this kind of cohort research. The Christchurch study for instance was started in 1977 and didn't publish until 1994. It's also possible these researchers have already considered a cohort of Californian or whoever patients and abandoned it: there could be too many confounders (due to medicinal patients by definition having some significant illness), too little participation, any number of reasons.

You're looking for evidence that disproves the theory, and that's healthy. What you have to keep in mind is that the possibility of evidence is not as weighty as actual evidence. Actual evidence has been produced by a dozen people that marijuana causes schizophrenia. Someone could publish a 10,000 cohort study tomorrow and find no link... but until they do, the unbiased thing to do is to side with the evidence that exists.
How does, according to you, a 5 in 4000 rate of psychosis diagnoses equate to "always dangerous"?In the same way that Russian roulette is always dangerous. Dangerous is defined as able or likely to cause harm, it is predictive. If you're one of the 995 who don't pull the short straw, it was still dangerous for you.
I think you completely gloss over the point being made by dismissing alcohol abuse as "Well, it's heavily regulated and the people who are abusing it aren't using it properly. Thus, the consequences of alcohol abuse can be dismissed because it's legal and there's a proper and improper way to use it."I would put it this way. A person who uses a gun in a certain way does no harm to anyone, so they should be allowed to do so. A person who uses alcohol in a certain way does no harm to anyone, so they should be allowed to do so. A person cannot use marijuana without doing harm to someone, so they should not be allowed to do so.
Because a substance is legal, and there is deemed a proper and improper way of using it, does not negate the damage it can and will do by abuse.Except that damage can be negated to a very large degree with a robust law enforcement body. 60% (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html) of traffic fatalities were alcohol-related in 1982, by 2011 that number declined to 40%. I would also like to point out that your link refers specifically to "heavy" drinking, whereas the research I've linked to refers to any marijuana use at all. You make my point for me.
But marijuana is worse, because it isn't legal, can't be consumed in any "safe" dose or way (which isn't true. If carcinogens are your issue, it's perfectly possible to eat or drink it and avoid any carcinogens whatsoever.)I'm really at a loss as to how you think that's my position.
It is a valid and dangerous side-effect, but only in those genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, and typically younger users.Fair enough, anyone on this graph with a 0% risk of schizophrenia can use marijuana:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sz.images/gengraph.gif

[Latrinsorm]

If only it had merits.Hey, I wouldn't mind it if he had dismissed the response. That he ignored it while accusing me of dismissing things... that's a little annoying, no?
We're comparing a drug with its worst side effect of having a less than %1 chance of worsening mental illness to one that kills millions and causes all sorts of life threatening diseases. It is also highly physically addictive. There is also a genetic component which predisposes you to said addiction.I'm comparing a drug with a less than 1% chance of causing mental illness to a drug with a less than 0.001% chance of causing death. For reasons that remain unclear you insist on comparing rates and raw numbers.
Yes yes, point is, every activity is always dangerous in that there is ALWAYS a chance of danger in everything anyone ever does. This doesn't mean everything should be banned. It means, as you point out, things should be regulated.As I said earlier, there's an arbitrary line above which the danger posed by a substance is too dangerous to tolerate. You either accept this or you join Thondalar in the "get rid of the FDA" camp. It so happens that marijuana is above the line we have currently settled on in America. If you want to raise the line, that's a different discussion entirely, and I for one would be interested to see what else you would have to allow to get there.
Latrin's argument only holds water if he also believes there are absolutely no benefits to marijuana use whatsoever. I drive, I accept that each time I get in the car I may die, those chances are low but they exist. This is acceptable to me because the benefits outweigh the slight chance of injury or death. If driving provided me or anyone else absolutely no benefits, I wouldn't do it- but it does. Convenience, enjoyment, etc. Extrapolate that to anything. Everyone makes judgement calls about what level of risk they're willing to accept. Who do we want making those calls for us? Latrin says the government should do it through prohibition. I say government's only responsibility is to mitigate the risk through regulation, ie seatbelts or age restrictions for those too young to make their own decisions. It's a fundamental philosophical difference regarding the role of government that will never be reconciled.That's a comforting thought, but as explained above it's entirely false.

[elcidcannon]

In the same way that Russian roulette is always dangerous. Dangerous is defined as able or likely to cause harm, it is predictive. If you're one of the 995 who don't pull the short straw, it was still dangerous for you.


Guns can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Alcohol can be dangerous under plausible circumstances -> heavily regulated.
Marijuana is always dangerous -> outright ban.

Every time you use a gun, there's a chance (no matter how small) it could go off and hurt someone, to include the user.
Every time you drink alcohol, there's a chance (no matter how small) that you can develop a liver/heart disease.
Every time you smoke marijuana, there's a chance (no matter how small) that you can develop psychosis.

Using your logic, how can you say any of these is more dangerous that the other?

[Tgo01]

They're not ignored, as I said they were mentioned specifically in the Zammit study. They're just not specifically sought out as the topic of a study.Sure, but it takes years to do this kind of cohort research. The Christchurch study for instance was started in 1977 and didn't publish until 1994. It's also possible these researchers have already considered a cohort of Californian or whoever patients and abandoned it: there could be too many confounders (due to medicinal patients by definition having some significant illness), too little participation, any number of reasons.

You're looking for evidence that disproves the theory, and that's healthy. What you have to keep in mind is that the possibility of evidence is not as weighty as actual evidence. Actual evidence has been produced by a dozen people that marijuana causes schizophrenia. Someone could publish a 10,000 cohort study tomorrow and find no link... but until they do, the unbiased thing to do is to side with the evidence that exists.In the same way that Russian roulette is always dangerous. Dangerous is defined as able or likely to cause harm, it is predictive. If you're one of the 995 who don't pull the short straw, it was still dangerous for you.I would put it this way. A person who uses a gun in a certain way does no harm to anyone, so they should be allowed to do so. A person who uses alcohol in a certain way does no harm to anyone, so they should be allowed to do so. A person cannot use marijuana without doing harm to someone, so they should not be allowed to do so.Except that damage can be negated to a very large degree with a robust law enforcement body. 60% (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html) of traffic fatalities were alcohol-related in 1982, by 2011 that number declined to 40%. I would also like to point out that your link refers specifically to "heavy" drinking, whereas the research I've linked to refers to any marijuana use at all. You make my point for me.I'm really at a loss as to how you think that's my position.Fair enough, anyone on this graph with a 0% risk of schizophrenia can use marijuana:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sz.images/gengraph.gif

But pk insists tax revenue is up, schools are being built, and crime is down in Colorado all thanks to the legalization of marijuana. How do you explain this?

[Fallen]

For a drug that only kills .001% of people that use it, it's funny that it still is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. We also want to keep glossing over the millions of other people that develop AUDs each year from alcohol, about 7% to be exact. It's SAFE! ....except for the millions of people who are hurt and/or die from it.

Here's your fun fact for the day:

A recent study in The Lancet suggests that the 25 percent of Russian men who die before they are 55 do so because of alcohol use. The causes of death from alcohol — particularly vodka — include liver disease, alcohol poisoning, accidents and brawls. Jan 31, 2014

[Fallen]

But pk insists tax revenue is up, schools are being built, and crime is down in Colorado all thanks to the legalization of marijuana. How do you explain this?

I suppose it could be explained by the 63 million dollars of tax revenue raised from recreational marijuana sales in Colorado, 17 million of which is being spent on upkeep/construction of schools. Up from a total of 0 dollars before the MJ tax. Crime is down, but as L will spend 7 paragraphs explaining, that cannot be directly linked to the legalization of marijuana. It seems silly with all the things to harp on PK about you'd pick the things he's fairly correct about.


In the first full year of sales, however, the state expects to collect only about $17 million in special school taxes levied on the marijuana industry. Still, it's better than what the state collected the year before: nothing ... Overall, Colorado collected about $63 million in marijuana taxes in 2014 on an industry worth about $700 million. Much of that tax money goes directly into the state's general fund, not into the specific school-construction account. The school-construction money comes from a 15% tax levied on wholesale sales from growers to recreational marijuana retailers. Much of the rest of the tax money is being dedicated toward drug-abuse education, research and substance abuse treatment.

[Latrinsorm]

Every time you use a gun, there's a chance (no matter how small) it could go off and hurt someone, to include the user.
Every time you drink alcohol, there's a chance (no matter how small) that you can develop a liver/heart disease.
Every time you smoke marijuana, there's a chance (no matter how small) that you can develop psychosis.

Using your logic, how can you say any of these is more dangerous that the other?Because there's no evidence that casual alcohol use causes liver/heart disease, and the rate of gun accidents is under 1 per 100,000 (https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). Like the rate of alcohol poisoning, the rate of aspirin fatalities, the rate of schizophrenia caused by anti-depressants, etc., it is much smaller than the rate of schizophrenia caused by marijuana. To be clear, this is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of fact: only empiricism will do. This can be difficult for people who were never trained to work with numbers, but I have faith in you.
But pk insists tax revenue is up, schools are being built, and crime is down in Colorado all thanks to the legalization of marijuana. How do you explain this?No sane person could believe that. Therefore, psychosis.
For a drug that only kills .001% of people that use it, it's funny that it still is responsible for the deaths of millions of people. We also want to keep glossing over the millions of other people that develop AUDs each year from alcohol. It's SAFE! ....except for the millions of people who are hurt and/or die from it.I hold neither cars nor alcohol responsible for drunk driving deaths, only the combination, thus only the combination is and should be illegal. I don't see how this is so outrageous, or how my repeatedly saying it counts as "glossing over". I also don't see why you feel global statistics are relevant to a discussion about United States law. If you're asking whether I think the globe should be subjected to United States law, I would say on net that would be a good thing, yes.

[Fallen]

I also don't see why you feel global statistics are relevant to a discussion about United States law. If you're asking whether I think the globe should be subjected to United States law, I would say on net that would be a good thing, yes.

Oh, good! You can shut the fuck up about that Zammit study now, seeing how it was based out of people from another country.

[Tgo01]

I suppose it could be explained by the 53 million dollars of tax revenue raised from recreational marijuana sales in Colorado, most of which is being spent on education. Crime is down, but as L will spend 7 paragraphs explaining, that cannot be directly linked to the legalization of marijuana. It seems silly with all the things to harp on PK about you'd pick the things he's fairly correct about.

Colorado has a yearly budget of ~27 billion dollars, 53 million dollars in tax revenue is about 1/5th of 1%. Inflation for the year of 2014 was 1.6%, the revenue from marijuana isn't even helping Colorado keep up with inflation. Total revenue collected in Colorado for the year of 2013 was 11,524,522,932 for the year of 2014 it was 12,163,520,452, about a 6% increase, of that $638,997,520 increase marijuana accounted for about 8% of it.

Saying "tax revenue" is up because of marijuana is a bit short sighted: tax revenue would be up in Colorado regardless.

Also Colorado said marijuana revenue would go towards education? They used the same tactic most states use to sucker voters into passing a state lottery by promising the money would go towards education when in reality all the state usually ends up doing is not increasing the budget for schools as much as they used to and instead uses the lottery money to make up the difference?

It's a shell game and it's kind of funny that Colorado used this tactic again to fool voters into thinking the tax money is going towards education.

[Warriorbird]

Because there's no evidence that casual alcohol use causes liver/heart disease

There's evidence that casual use causes non casual use, however. And what does that cause?

[Fallen]

Colorado has a yearly budget of ~27 billion dollars, 53 million dollars in tax revenue is about 1/5th of 1%. Inflation for the year of 2014 was 1.6%, the revenue from marijuana isn't even helping Colorado keep up with inflation. Total taxes collected in Colorado for the year of 2013 was 11,524,522,932 for the year of 2014 it was 12,163,520,452, about a 6% increase, of that $638,997,520 increase marijuana accounted for about 8% of it.

Saying "tax revenue" is up because of marijuana is a bit short sighted: tax revenue would be up in Colorado regardless.

Also Colorado said marijuana revenue would go towards education? They used the same tactic most states use to sucker voters into passing a state lottery by promising the money would go towards education when in reality all the state usually ends up doing is not increasing the budget for schools anymore and instead uses the lottery money to make up the difference?

It's a shell game and it's kind of funny that Colorado used this tactic again to fool voters into thinking the tax money is going towards education.

So they'd be better off ....without the sudden presence of a $700 million dollar industry, and 50+ million in taxes because it isn't enough to completely fund the government? I would imagine the Colorado school system is better off with the 17 million dollars they get than without it. Millions of dollars, from pot, are going into the school system. If your argument is that it should be a greater percentage of the money, that's fine, but to say that the millions being generated for schools is pointless, then we simply disagree.

[Tgo01]

So they'd be better off ....without the sudden presence of a $700 million dollar industry, and 50+ million in taxes because it isn't enough to completely fund the government? I would imagine the Colorado school system is better off with the 17 million dollars they get than without it. Millions of dollars, from pot, are going into the school system. If your argument is that it should be a greater percentage of the money, that's fine, but to say that the millions being generated for schools is pointless, then we simply disagree.

I'm willing to bet the money is pointless because just like lottery revenue "going towards education" the state is just not going to increase the education budget by as much as they used to and the difference will come from marijuana sales. In other words while the state is getting more money, education is receiving the same amount. States always do this, they make it sound like the revenue will go directly towards education, as in the state will pretend the lottery revenue doesn't exist, do their budget like always, then tack on the lottery revenue afterwards, they don't.

Let me try to explain this with made up numbers:

Let's say the education budget is 1 million in 2010 and the increase to the education budget is always 10%. so in 2011 the budget is 1.1 billion, in 2012 it's 1.21 billion, 2013 it's 1.331 billion

People think, well gee, that means in 2014 the education budget will be 1,464,100,000 because of the yearly 10% increase plus 53 million dollars from marijuana sales so the new education budget is now 1,517,100,000. In reality the state looks at the figures, says "Okay, we normally raise school budget by 10% but we have this 53 million dollar windfall from marijuana taxes, so we'll increase the school budget by 6%, add the 53 million dollars and now it'll be 10% like always."

The money "went towards" education, but not really.

Also I never said Colorado was "better off" without the marijuana revenue, I just found it funny that I was saying pk was the exact type of person to claim legalizing marijuana is going to fix all sorts of budget woes for governments and he said "I never said that!!!!" then a few posts later claims marijuana revenue is "building schools."

But let's just assume that the 100% of the marijuana sales is going towards education in Colorado, it's going to be tacked on after the yearly budget increase as well, 53 million dollars, free and clear to education. A new high school costs, what, about 25 million dollars? That's just to build the school, not to mention staffing it and any other fees and bills that comes with building and running a school. Colorado's education budget is 5.9 billion dollars, once again inflation is 1.6% and 1.6% of 5.6 billion dollars is about 95 million dollars. Once again the revenue from marijuana isn't even covering the inflation for Colorado's education budget, yet the marijuana revenue is "building schools." pk and his entire argument is a joke. I happen to agree with his position (legalizing marijuana) but I don't fall for these bullshit bullet points one would find in a "Legalize It Now!" brochure that pk apparently fell for.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh, good! You can shut the fuck up about that Zammit study now, seeing how it was based out of people from another country. [/COLOR]Biology is biology everywhere. Law isn't. There are no drunk driving laws in Kenya, for example, which makes it pretty silly to lump their alcohol-related fatalities in with ours. I get it, you're annoyed that the evidence is universally against marijuana, but getting upset isn't helping you. Keep calm! :)
There's evidence that casual use causes non casual use, however. And what does that cause?I'll be happy to see it! :)

[Fallen]

I'm willing to bet the money is pointless because just like lottery revenue "going towards education" the state is just not going to increase the education budget by as much as they used to and the difference will come from marijuana sales. In other words while the state is getting more money, education is receiving the same amount. States always do this, they make it sound like the revenue will go directly towards education, as in the state will pretend the lottery revenue doesn't exist, do their budget like always, then tack on the lottery revenue afterwards, they don't.

Let me try to explain this with made up numbers:

Let's say the education budget is 1 million in 2010 and the increase to the education budget is always 10%. so in 2011 the budget is 1.1 billion, in 2012 it's 1.21 billion, 2013 it's 1.331 billion

People think, well gee, that means in 2014 the education budget will be 1,464,100,000 because of the yearly 10% increase plus 53 million dollars from marijuana sales so the new education budget is now 1,517,100,000. In reality the state looks at the figures, says "Okay, we normally raise school budget by 10% but we have this 53 million dollar windfall from marijuana taxes, so we'll increase the school budget by 6%, add the 53 million dollars and now it'll be 10% like always."

The money "went towards" education, but not really.

Also I never said Colorado was "better off" without the marijuana revenue, I just found it funny that I was saying pk was the exact type of person to claim legalizing marijuana is going to fix all sorts of budget woes for governments and he said "I never said that!!!!" then a few posts later claims marijuana revenue is "building schools."

But let's just assume that the 100% of the marijuana sales is going towards education in Colorado, it's going to be tacked on after the yearly budget increase as well, 53 million dollars, free and clear to education. A new high school costs, what, about 25 million dollars? That's just to build the school, not to mention staffing it and any other fees and bills that comes with building and running a school. Colorado's education budget is 5.9 billion dollars, once again inflation is 1.6% and 1.6% of 5.6 billion dollars is about 95 million dollars. Once again the revenue from marijuana isn't even covering the inflation for Colorado's education budget, yet the marijuana revenue is "building schools." pk and his entire argument is a joke. I happen to agree with his position (legalizing marijuana) but I don't fall for these bullshit bullet points one would find in a "Legalize It Now!" brochure that pk apparently fell for.

That sounds more like a tax problem than any specific problem with marijuana. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a problem with the tax code, but that isn't the pot industry's fault.

[Fallen]

Biology is biology everywhere. Law isn't. There are no drunk driving laws in Kenya, for example, which makes it pretty silly to lump their alcohol-related fatalities in with ours. I get it, you're annoyed that the evidence is universally against marijuana, but getting upset isn't helping you. Keep calm! :)I'll be happy to see it! :)

Dead people are dead people, regardless of their country of origin, but you just keep on overlooking the piles of dead bodies in order to make your case for how awesome liquor is. Honestly L, your stance on alcohol is actually a blessing for the legalization argument on this forum. It makes you look like a man willing to overlook millions dead and dying to point out the 5 out of 4000 who will develop mental health issues. Don't you go changing.

[Androidpk]

Colorado has a yearly budget of ~27 billion dollars, 53 million dollars in tax revenue is about 1/5th of 1%. Inflation for the year of 2014 was 1.6%, the revenue from marijuana isn't even helping Colorado keep up with inflation. Total revenue collected in Colorado for the year of 2013 was 11,524,522,932 for the year of 2014 it was 12,163,520,452, about a 6% increase, of that $638,997,520 increase marijuana accounted for about 8% of it.

Saying "tax revenue" is up because of marijuana is a bit short sighted: tax revenue would be up in Colorado regardless.

Also Colorado said marijuana revenue would go towards education? They used the same tactic most states use to sucker voters into passing a state lottery by promising the money would go towards education when in reality all the state usually ends up doing is not increasing the budget for schools as much as they used to and instead uses the lottery money to make up the difference?

It's a shell game and it's kind of funny that Colorado used this tactic again to fool voters into thinking the tax money is going towards education.

I thought I told you that none of us are impressed with your stupidity?

[Tgo01]

I thought I told you that none of us are impressed with your stupidity?

Tell us again how marijuana revenue in Colorado is building schools. That one is never gonna get old :D

[Androidpk]

Tell us again how marijuana revenue in Colorado is building schools. That one is never gonna get old :D

It is a fact that an amendment dictates that a certain percentage goes towards schools and drug education every year. Nothing I said was false. Meanwhile you keep trying to prove some point that can't be proven. "Pk said this! Pk said that!"
It's like you're obsessed with my opinion on this. Kind of creepy to be honest.

[Tgo01]

It is a fact that an amendment dictates that a certain percentage goes towards schools and drug education every year. Nothing I said was false.

Everything you said was false you tool. If you managed to pull your head out of your ass for 2 seconds and read the facts people are providing for you then you wouldn't look like such a tool. You tool.


Meanwhile you keep trying to prove some point that can't be proven. "Pk said this! Pk said that!"
It's like you're obsessed with my opinion on this. Kind of creepy to be honest.

This coming from a man who follows Latrin around in arguments such as this to say things like:


Latrin is an idiot.

To almost every post of his.

As a tool once said:


Lolirony.

[Latrinsorm]

Dead people are dead people, regardless of their country of origin, but you just keep on overlooking the piles of dead bodies in order to make your case for how awesome liquor is. Honestly L, your stance on alcohol is actually a blessing for the legalization argument on this forum. It makes you look like a man willing to overlook millions dead and dying to point out the 5 out of 4000 who will develop mental health issues. Don't you go changing.I mean, what can I do? I've told you over and over that I am for the ban on drunk driving, you tell me drunk driving kills millions of people around the world. If the only way for you to debate this issue is to mischaracterize my position (see also 5 in 1000 somehow becoming 5 in 4000), how am I the bad guy?
Feel free to drop by for a tasting any time. On the house.Knowing you Rebels you'll probably slip a reefer joint in my wine. Ha! Nice try, Johnny.

[Androidpk]

Everything you said was false you tool. If you managed to pull your head out of your ass for 2 seconds and read the facts people are providing for you then you wouldn't look like such a tool. You tool.



This coming from a man who follows Latrin around in arguments such as this to say things like:



To almost every post of his.

As a tool once said:

Nope. Nothing I said was false. Troll harder, loser.

[Tgo01]

Nope. Nothing I said was false. Troll harder, loser.

I'm feeling optimistic today so I'll play along: please provide proof showing that the legalization of marijuana can be credited for crime reduction, schools being built, and revenue in Colorado being up.

And no, saying "LOL! GOOGLE IT!" isn't proof.

[Androidpk]

I'm feeling optimistic today so I'll play along: please provide proof showing that the legalization of marijuana can be credited for crime reduction, schools being built, and revenue in Colorado being up.

And no, saying "LOL! GOOGLE IT!" isn't proof.

You're the one denying it. Clearly you must be basing your assumptions off evidence, right?

[Tgo01]

You're the one denying it. Clearly you must be basing your assumptions off evidence, right?

And this is exactly why everyone on this forum thinks you're a joke, dude :)

[Androidpk]

And this is exactly why everyone on this forum thinks you're a joke, dude :)

You and yourself != everyone. I've already posted this stuff before. You are the one refuting my statements with nothing to back yourself up besides your piss poor attempts to troll. Grow up, kid.

[Warriorbird]

Knowing you Rebels you'll probably slip a reefer joint in my wine. Ha! Nice try, Johnny.

We've made plans to take advantage of legalization already!

[Tgo01]

You and yourself != everyone.

No, trust me, it's everyone. You've proven yourself to be a liar and a thief and you turn into a raging maniac when anyone dares to disagree with anything that enters your pea sized brain.

People humor you by replying to your posts because they are waiting with bated breath to witness your next self destructive post. Going by your last few replies in this thread it looks like you're almost there :)

[Androidpk]

No, trust me, it's everyone. You've proven yourself to be a liar and a thief and you turn into a raging maniac when anyone dares to disagree with anything that enters your pea sized brain.

People humor you by replying to your posts because they are waiting with bated breath to witness your next self destructive post. Going by your last few replies in this thread it looks like you're almost there :)

Whatever you say, loser.

[elcidcannon]

How can you say:


In the same way that Russian roulette is always dangerous. Dangerous is defined as able or likely to cause harm, it is predictive. If you're one of the 995 who don't pull the short straw, it was still dangerous for you.

Right before saying:


...the rate of gun accidents is under 1 per 100,000 (https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). Like the rate of alcohol poisoning, the rate of aspirin fatalities, the rate of schizophrenia caused by anti-depressants, etc., it is much smaller than the rate of schizophrenia caused by marijuana


??? "Numbers don't matter, except when they matter." ???

----


To be clear, this is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of fact: only empiricism will do. This can be difficult for people who were never trained to work with numbers, but I have faith in you.

I enjoy the fact you felt the need to take a personal jab.

[elcidcannon]

Because there's no evidence that casual alcohol use causes liver/heart disease

Say again?


Researchers find that even moderate drinking, one and a half drinks per day, can be attributed to nearly 6,000 cancer deaths annually in the US.


If you're a middle-aged or younger adult, some evidence shows that even moderate alcohol use may cause more harm than good.]If you're a middle-aged or younger adult, some evidence shows that even moderate alcohol use may cause more harm than good.

[Latrinsorm]

How can you say:
Right before saying:
??? "Numbers don't matter, except when they matter." ???As I've said previously on several occasions, the line we draw between safe and dangerous is arbitrary. The numbers tell us marijuana is much, much, much more dangerous than alcohol and firearms; that is, the quantitative risk it entails is much larger. This in and of itself does not imply that marijuana should be banned and the others shouldn't, but it does tell us that a situation where marijuana is banned and the others aren't is on those grounds internally coherent. Further investigation shows us that every currently legal substance poses less of a risk than marijuana, and so it is coherent for marijuana to be illegal.
I enjoy the fact you felt the need to take a personal jab.A person's training is not a source of shame or credit to them personally, it is an accident of circumstance. If you thought I was implying otherwise, I apologize. That you don't handle scientific numbers well is no more your fault than your not handling plumbing well, or aeronautical engineering, or floristry, or any other trade for which you have not received training. It would be ridiculous to hold yourself personally accountable for not knowing everything about everything, no?

[Androidpk]

As I've said previously on several occasions, the line we draw between safe and dangerous is arbitrary. The numbers tell us marijuana is much, much, much more dangerous than alcohol and firearms; that is, the quantitative risk it entails is much larger. This in and of itself does not imply that marijuana should be banned and the others shouldn't, but it does tell us that a situation where marijuana is banned and the others aren't is on those grounds internally coherent. Further investigation shows us that every currently legal substance poses less of a risk than marijuana, and so it is coherent for marijuana to be illegal.A person's training is not a source of shame or credit to them personally, it is an accident of circumstance. If you thought I was implying otherwise, I apologize. That you don't handle scientific numbers well is no more your fault than your not handling plumbing well, or aeronautical engineering, or floristry, or any other trade for which you have not received training. It would be ridiculous to hold yourself personally accountable for not knowing everything about everything, no?

What is your training on schizophrenia?

[Latrinsorm]

Say again?Moderate isn't casual, and neither of those links reference cohort studies. The first gives a lower limit of 1.5 drinks a day, the second cites no studies at all, says you shouldn't drink and drive, and closes with "if you do drink alcohol and you're healthy, there's probably no need to stop as long as you drink responsibly and in moderation."

[Latrinsorm]

What is your training on schizophrenia?What I am trained in is interpreting numbers in a scientific context, so I can understand why studies that strike non-scientists as dissenting are actually agreeing. The actual diagnosis of schizophrenia I leave to the trained professionals, obviously.

[Androidpk]

What I am trained in is interpreting numbers in a scientific context, so I can understand why studies that strike non-scientists as dissenting are actually agreeing. The actual diagnosis of schizophrenia I leave to the trained professionals, obviously.

So you have no training at all in regards to schizophrenia?

[Latrinsorm]

I thought that was made clear, but yes. As a physicist I have no training in diagnosing schizophrenia, or lung cancer, or ruptured(?) carburetor.

[Androidpk]

I didn't say anything about diagnosing it but thanks for admitting that you actually don't know what you are talking about.

[Androidpk]

President Barack Obama is to signal his approval of a Senate bill (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/10/us-senators-medical-marijuana-bill-legalize-rand-paul-gillibrand-booker) that seeks to lessen constrictions around the use of medical marijuana, saying the US should “follow the science as opposed to the ideology” on the issue.
Asked about the bill by CNN’s chief medical correspondent (http://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2015/04/16/history-medical-marijuana-orig-nws.cnn), Sanjay Gupta (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/cnns-sanjay-gupta-a-burning-white-hot-medical-marijuana-revolution-is-coming/), in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday at 9pm ET (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/opinions/medical-marijuana-revolution-sanjay-gupta/index.html), the president said: “You know, I think I’d have to take a look at the details.
But he added: “I’m on record as saying that not only do I think carefully prescribed medical use of marijuana may in fact be appropriate and we should follow the science as opposed to ideology on this issue, but I’m also on record as saying that the more we treat some of these issues related to drug abuse from a public health model and not just from an incarceration model, the better off we’re going to be.”

[elcidcannon]

As I've said previously on several occasions, the line we draw between safe and dangerous is arbitrary.

Except for when you clearly define that line by making blanket statement that claims something is a "dangerous" activity if it poses any level of risk. In the context of the topics we're discussing, that's pretty black and white.

[Androidpk]

Except for when you make a blanket statement claiming something is a "dangerous" activity if it poses any level of risk. In the context of the topics we're discussing, that's pretty black and white.

We should totally ban cheeseburgers then.

[Tgo01]

We should totally ban cheeseburgers then.

Why? Because cheeseburgers can clog arteries? Are you an expert on arteries? No? Then shut the fuck up!

am i doin thiz rite?

[tyrant-201]

Why? Because cheeseburgers can clog arteries? Are you an expert on arteries? No? Then shut the fuck up!

am i doin thiz rite?

There is a 4/1000 chance you might choke on a cheeseburger. Thus, all cheeseburgers are unsafe and must be illegal.

[Androidpk]

Why? Because cheeseburgers can clog arteries? Are you an expert on arteries? No? Then shut the fuck up!

am i doin thiz rite?

Because unlike schizophrenia obesity is considered an issue of national security.

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say anything about diagnosing it but thanks for admitting that you actually don't know what you are talking about.I would characterize my transmittal of the literature as "thorough", myself.
Except for when you clearly define that line by making blanket statement that claims something is a "dangerous" activity if it poses any level of risk. In the context of the topics we're discussing, that's pretty black and white.That's not what I said. I said dangerous was 5 per 1000 (marijuana) or 1 per 6 (Russian roulette). In my very first post on the subject, and I have taken the liberty of bolding a word:

"Currently illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.) are more inherently dangerous than any currently legal drug except tobacco."

You are welcome to try and find an actual quote of me saying what you believe I said, and I think it would be a fruitful exercise for you.

[Tgo01]

There is a 4/1000 chance you might choke on a cheeseburger. Thus, all cheeseburgers are unsafe and must be illegal.

Just 4/1000 chance? This is why all cheeseburgers should have bacon on them. If I don't have a 1/100 chance of dying while eating then the food I'm eating just ain't worth it!


Because unlike schizophrenia obesity is considered an issue of national security.

And drugs and mental health aren't considered issues of national security? Just how high are you right now b the way?

[Androidpk]

And drugs and mental health aren't considered issues of national security? Just how high are you right now b the way?

Has anyone in the federal government declared schizophrenia to be a national security issue?

[Tgo01]

Has anyone in the federal government declared schizophrenia to be a national security issue?

Schizophrenia = mental health = matters of national security, yes.

[Androidpk]

Schizophrenia = mental health = matters of national security, yes.

Who said that?

[waywardgs]

Look, guys. We're dealing with a scientist. We can't win. Look what they're doing these days:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-create-toe-belly-button-cheese-from-human-bacteria/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/japanese-scientists-creates-meat-out-of-feces/

[waywardgs]

Schizophrenia = mental health = matters of national security, yes.

It's a public health issue, not a national security issue- at least, no more than seatbelts or boogers under theater seats might be.

[Tgo01]

It's a public health issue, not a national security issue- at least, no more than seatbelts or boogers under theater seats might be.

Public health issue = schizophrenia = mental health = matters of national security, yes.

[waywardgs]

Public health issue = schizophrenia = mental health = matters of national security, yes.

That's dumb. And you know it.

[Tgo01]

That's dumb. And you know it.

You're dumb!

Obesity is considered a matter of national security, why is it crazy to think mental health is as well?

It's even a question one must fill out in order to gain certain security clearances:

"Are you crazy? Please check one of the following:

Yes
No
Rumpelstiltskin
"

[waywardgs]

You're dumb!

Obesity is considered a matter of national security, why is it crazy to think mental health is as well?

It's even a question one must fill out in order to gain certain security clearances:

"Are you crazy? Please check one of the following:

Yes
No
Rumpelstiltskin
"

Alright, well... then admit climate change is a matter of national security, as well. Because the pentagon says it is... I mean... right???

[Androidpk]

You're dumb!

Obesity is considered a matter of national security, why is it crazy to think mental health is as well?

It's even a question one must fill out in order to gain certain security clearances:

"Are you crazy? Please check one of the following:

Yes
No
Rumpelstiltskin
"

Keep grasping at straws.

[Tgo01]

Alright, well... then admit climate change is a matter of national security, as well.

I'm admittin 'nuthin, just going by what the government says. Listening to anything the government says only matters when it helps pk's position.


Keep grasping at straws.

Why do you hate facts so much? Where do facts touch you? On your no no spot?

[waywardgs]

Climate change --> obesity --> schizo "bush follows me on twitter" phrenia --> marijuana --> boogers on theater seats --> obama --> ISIS --> national security --> public health

[waywardgs]

I may have mixed up the order... but does it really matter?

EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_dOWYHS7I

[waywardgs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFVeSefg72U

[Tgo01]

Climate change --> obesity --> schizo "bush follows me on twitter" phrenia --> marijuana --> boogers on theater seats --> obama --> ISIS --> national security --> public health

I don't make the rules; I just enforce them when it's hilarious to do so.

[waywardgs]

I don't make the rules; I just enforce them when it's hilarious to do so.

Lol fair enough.

[Androidpk]

I'm admittin 'nuthin, just going by what the government says. Listening to anything the government says only matters when it helps pk's position.



Why do you hate facts so much? Where do facts touch you? On your no no spot?

What facts? The fact that you think schizophrenia is an issue of national security even though no one, asides from yourself, has said so? Or how your only rebuttals are personal attacks because your trolling is that weak?

[Tgo01]

What facts? The fact that you think schizophrenia is an issue of national security even though no one, asides from yourself, has said so? Or how your only rebuttals are personal attacks because your trolling is that weak?

You deny mental health is an issue of national security?

Why does one need to answer if they have sought professional help for for mental health issues for security clearances if it's not an issue of national security? Do they ask if you're a lard ass when applying for security clearances? If not, why not?

[Androidpk]

You deny mental health is an issue of national security?

Why does one need to answer if they have sought professional help for for mental health issues for security clearances if it's not an issue of national security? Do they ask if you're a lard ass when applying for security clearances? If not, why not?

You're conflating national security risk with secret clearances for starters. And those questions have been revised to provide greater protection to those with mental health problems.

Obesity has been stated as a national security issue. It has been well documented and there was a thread about it here on the pc.

So where are your facts? It's like you are perpetually wrong about everything.

[Tgo01]

You're conflating national security risk with secret clearances for starters.

Granting someone a security clearance who has no business having a security clearance has nothing to do with national security? I would think that's like the number one threat to our national security :/

Look at what's his name who is now what's her name.


And those questions have been revised to provide greater protection to those with mental health problems.

You only have to answer no if the treatment was for sexual assault or had to do with your military deployment, everything else is still fair game. That would include schizophrenia.


Obesity has been stated as a national security issue. It has been well documented and there was a thread about it here on the pc.

The mental health question for a security clearance is so well documented you even knew what I was talking about without me having to specifically spell out the question for you. How much more well documented can it be?


So where are your facts?

I...like...just...gave them...to you...

[Androidpk]

Granting someone a security clearance who has no business having a security clearance has nothing to do with national security? I would think that's like the number one threat to our national security :/

Look at what's his name who is now what's her name.



You only have to answer no if the treatment was for sexual assault or had to do with your military deployment, everything else is still fair game. That would include schizophrenia.



The mental health question for a security clearance is so well documented you even knew what I was talking about without me having to specifically spell out the question for you. How much more well documented can it be?



I...like...just...gave them...to you...

You have only given your ill informed opinion and no facts but hey, don't let sound logic prevent you from looking like a fool.

[Tgo01]

You have only given your ill informed opinion and no facts but hey, don't let sound logic prevent you from looking like a fool.

I just want to make sure you're going on record as saying giving the wrong person a security clearance has nothing to do with national security. Cause like, that tops your earlier claim of marijuana sales building schools.

[Androidpk]

I just want to make sure you're going on record as saying giving the wrong person a security clearance has nothing to do with national security. Cause like, that tops your earlier claim of marijuana sales building schools.

And you say Latrin twists peoples words.. wow.

[Tgo01]

And you say Latrin twists peoples words.. wow.

So you're saying giving the wrong person a security clearance does have to do with national security? I don't want to put words in your mouth, that's why I want to make sure I understand what you're saying before I proceed because so far you're not making much sense.

Use your words, pk.

[Androidpk]

I'm saying you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and as usual cluttering up a thread with your asinine bullshit.

[Tgo01]

I'm saying you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and as usual cluttering up a thread with your asinine bullshit.

Of course that's what you're saying ;)

[drauz]

I will also go point by point for clarity's sake, but the upshot is that my points stand: supporters of decriminalization claim it as a magic wand that will solve enormous, often completely unrelated problems. These problems must be addressed, and awkwardly shoe-horning the war on drugs into them is counter-productive and frankly kind of silly.

1. The 'war on drugs' is insanely expensive
We spend over $150b (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downloadsrs_gs.php?codes=751_B62_E62_F62_FLE_G62&units=b&group=&fy=fy16) on police. Even if ending the war on drugs did knock $15b off that in no way addresses the fundamental problem of police being expensive, and I say "even if" because I haven't seen any evidence that those police wouldn't be merely reassigned as opposed to fired.

2. All that money is in practice a complete and total waste
This is a common error that luckily is pretty easy to illustrate. Suppose you go skydiving. You jump out of the airplane, and your altitude decreases. Some time later you open your parachute, and your altitude keeps decreasing. Did your parachute do anything? Obviously the answer is yes. What does this analogy remind us? That a quantity continuing to decrease (or increase) does not mean no forces are acting on it in the opposite direction.

3. That wasted money could be spent on programs that actually matter
Austerity programs are very stupid, and those foreign governments who employ them shouldn't. Obviously this isn't a point about the United States, and in general foreign governments should try to be more like us, but I felt it worth saying.

4. Mass imprisonment of drug users sacrifices economic productivity
This is another common error, but it too is pretty easy to illustrate. Suppose you are charged with tax evasion, assault, murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, RICO violations, and carrying 2 ounces of marijuana... convicted on all counts, and incarcerated. It is correct to say that you are in prison for drug-related offenses, but it is more correct to list all the offenses. What we should look at is the people who are in prison for only marijuana-related offenses, and when we do the number turns out to be about 1% (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf) of the prison population, or about 24,000 people. Compare that to the 400,000 schizophrenics caused by marijuana, and you tell me which side sacrifices more economic productivity.

5. Tax revenue from regulated drug markets would be a government windfall
6. Becoming a criminal has never been more profitable
I trust I don't have to elaborate on the irony here.

7. Expensive drugs cause more people to commit crimes in order to fund their habits
Some people will commit crimes in order to fund any habit: drugs, clothes, fine art, GemStone IV. The only ways to eliminate that are a post-scarcity economy or an anarchy. In a society with the rule of law, we combat that behavior with police.

8. The costs to the public health system of unsafe, unregulated drugs are exorbitant
This to my mind is a point that fundamentally undercuts the legalization argument. To put it somewhat crudely, if we defund the DEA but massively increase the funding of the FDA, how have we saved money?

9. The 'war on drugs' distorts entire economies when the drug trade is bigger than anything else
through
16. The 'war on drugs' criminalizes poverty and makes criminals of the poor
Like organized crime, I have seen no evidence that legalization will result in those tiny countries suddenly becoming peaceful and economically competitive on the world stage, and in fact history teaches us the exact opposite lesson: that they will continue on their course.

17. Aerial fumigation, a favorite tool of the 'war on drugs,' is destroying the environment
through
19. The 'war on drugs' is causing uncontrollable environmental pollution even aside from aerial fumigation
Humanity produced (http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html) 80,000,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide in 2013. 80 trillion! This is what I mean by magic wand thinking.

20. The levels of street crime caused by the 'war on drugs' are astonishing
Of course people who use illegal drugs commit a lot of crime... the drugs they use are illegal.

21. Criminalizing drug use pushes it underground, where it is unsafe and unsupervised
This is a point that must be made very clear: use of the drugs that are currently illegal is inherently unsafe.

22. Unsafe use due to drug criminalization is contributing to the spread of infectious diseases
No evidence is presented that people wouldn't share needles at the same rate in a decriminalized setting.

23. The 'war on drugs' is making it harder for those who need drugs for medicinal purposes to get them
There are a billion people starving in the world. That's what we need to address.

24. Even minor drug-related offenses can destroy one's opportunities forever
This is not a useful statement. Show me the income per capita of drug offenders vs. other criminals / felons and we can talk about opportunities being destroyed. Walking across the street CAN destroy one's opportunities forever.

25. Drug offenses are essentially being used as an excuse to take away the right to vote
This is oddly worded. Felons don't get to vote. Certain drug offenses are felonies. Where is the excuse, essentially or otherwise?

26. People around the world (including children) are being imprisoned without any due process
27. The DEATH PENALTY is still being used around the world to punish drug offenses
28. Children are losing parents left and right, leaving no one to raise them
We do have a responsibility to fix China. I don't see how legalizing marijuana in the United States has any impact on that whatsoever. If we're really concerned about the death penalty, and we should be, how about getting rid of it in our country? Wouldn't that be more productive?

29. Law enforcement is targeting minorities way more than their counterparts
30. Law enforcement is targeting low-income groups way more than their counterparts
This is the most magic wand thinking of all, which takes some doing in this article. We're going to solve police racism by legalizing marijuana? Really? If we had no drug laws whatsoever Michael Brown would still be dead. Give me a break.

31. The 'war on drugs' is unfairly criminalizing cultural traditions
A multicultural society is not one that automatically accepts every cultural tradition. A multicultural society is one that does not give any individual culture special treatment. No drug use for anyone, no honor killings for anyone, no slavery for anyone.

32. The world has better alternatives that don't include death, destruction, and alienation
I think it's very telling that the article will list 36 quantitative figures on specific consequences of the war on drugs and 0 for Portugal's decriminalization.

So if it doesn't fix 100% of the problem its not worth doing?

1. The DEA is ridiculously expensive for a organization that combats drugs. So even if they were reassigned they would be doing something good for the community at large (assuming). So there isn't a net loss at all. I would assume some wouldn't be necessary anymore and some I think would be fired.

2. Yes the parachute stopped the rate of decrease. The drug laws have actually done the opposite and the amount of people trying drugs is continuing to rise. No matter how much money we throw at the war on drugs it will never succeed, it is literally a war we cannot win.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

3. The money could go elsewhere, like substance abuse counseling and/or treatment (which actually fixes the problem instead of keeping it going) instead of incarceration.

4. The war on drugs isn't just for marijuana even if it the poster boy for it. It is all illegal drugs. So it is much higher.

5/6. Please do.

7. I'll give you that, its definitely one of the poorer reasons.

8. We haven't saved money but I guarantee you would save lives. The FDA would be properly funded and we might actually have some resourses to fight large pharmceutical companys (its a dream I know). The FDA is basically a joke at the moment and can't keep up with the demand. They literally have a fast track for new additives to foods that companies can certify as safe without even involving the FDA (their own scientists).

9. They will continue of their course of making and selling drugs to the US? If there isn't a illegal market for it? What history are you speaking of?

17-19. You missed the point of them salting the earth in the Amazon to try to fight the war on drugs. Yes we make it without the war on drugs, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that we are polluting so much that deforesting a major source of the air we breath is a good thing?

20. They are talking about crimes other than the drugs themselves, but you already knew that.

21. Again you know what they mean but choose to take it another way. Is smoking pot inherently risky at the time? No it isn't, no more than alcohol. You can talk about 10, 20, 30 years down the line but thats not what this part of the article was talking about and you know it.

22. I'll present it then. The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

25. A drug charge can lead to you being denied certain student loans, government housing, and admission to certain colleges. I'm sure there is more but thats all I could think of off the top of my head.

26. We don't put people to death over drug offenses. You twist the point and try to point the finger back, but this point has no bearing the in US anyways.

29/30. No but it is the easiest to plant or just plain find on a person. When you can just search people for literally living in a bad area because its a bad area it's a never ending cycle with the way our justice system works.

31. I actually agree with your point that no culture or religion should get special treatment for anything.

32. The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

So in fact decriminalization does work and is working.

[elcidcannon]

I think I've come to realize why this argument is not winnable for either side. We're comparing two different things that don't hold the same value to the participants.

You are saying that 5 in 4000 cases of psychosis from marijuana is worse a worse result than (whatever rate you accept) deaths from alcohol/guns.

Unless I deem psychosis a worse outcome, or your assessment of the fate of death changes, we will never come to terms.

[waywardgs]

From a purely economic perspective we have to compare the societal burden of increased health care for schizos while including increased tax revenue vs the cost of mega rates of incarceration. I'm for whichever is cheaper after its all tallied up.

[Androidpk]

From a purely economic perspective we have to compare the societal burden of increased health care for schizos while including increased tax revenue vs the cost of mega rates of incarceration. I'm for whichever is cheaper after its all tallied up.

As long as for profit prison systems exist I think that whole economic perspective is irrelevant.

[waywardgs]

As long as for profit prison systems exist I think that whole economic perspective is irrelevant.

Yeah, that whole system needs to be abolished.

[Androidpk]

Yeah, that whole system needs to be abolished.

Yes but that isn't gong to happen. They have too much money and clout.

[Latrinsorm]

So if it doesn't fix 100% of the problem its not worth doing?If it doesn't fix the problem we shouldn't list the problem as a consequence of the war on drugs. This applies to almost all the points, so for the sake of brevity I haven't repeated this.
2. Yes the parachute stopped the rate of decrease. The drug laws have actually done the opposite and the amount of people trying drugs is continuing to rise. No matter how much money we throw at the war on drugs it will never succeed, it is literally a war we cannot win.Number of people trying drugs rises.
Drug laws implemented.
Number of people trying drugs continues to rise.

Distance from plane rises.
Parachute implemented.
Distance from plane continues to rise.

That's the purpose of the analogy. You identify the parachute as causal but insist the drug laws aren't even though they have the exact same data.
5/6. Please do.The article advocates for the government to engage in criminal behavior because it is profitable. Why not sell our private information to corporations? Contract out the CIA as paid assassins? Heck, contract out the police in general as private armies? This is straight up dystopia.
9. They will continue of their course of making and selling drugs to the US? If there isn't a illegal market for it? What history are you speaking of?The Mafia didn't go anywhere when we ended Prohibition. The way to fight criminals is to actually fight them.
21. Again you know what they mean but choose to take it another way. Is smoking pot inherently risky at the time? No it isn't, no more than alcohol. You can talk about 10, 20, 30 years down the line but thats not what this part of the article was talking about and you know it.Marijuana's schizogenic properties have been observed as early as teenaged subjects.
25. A drug charge can lead to you being denied certain student loans, government housing, and admission to certain colleges. I'm sure there is more but thats all I could think of off the top of my head.I fear you have misunderstood my first post. I'm not interested in vague qualitative "can"s. Firm stats, please.
26. We don't put people to death over drug offenses. You twist the point and try to point the finger back, but this point has no bearing the in US anyways.I'm not trying to twist anything. We should stop the death penalty. It has nothing to do with the war on drugs.
Glenn Greenwald, an attorneyI'll wait for a scientist if it's all the same to you. :)

[Latrinsorm]

I think I've come to realize why this argument is not winnable for either side. We're comparing two different things that don't hold the same value to the participants. You are saying that 5 in 4000 cases of psychosis from marijuana is worse a worse result than (whatever rate you accept) deaths from alcohol/guns. Unless I deem psychosis a worse outcome, or your assessment of the fate of death changes, we will never come to terms.Think of it in terms of speeding:

A speeding ticket is on the order of $100, so somewhere between $50-$500.
You have let's say a 1 in 10,000 chance of being caught speeding.
So speeding costs you $100 / 10000 = 1 cent per trip.
You can't quantify exactly how much getting to your destination earlier is worth to you, but it's way more than 1 cent.
So you speed.

Marijuana causes schizophrenia at the rate of 5 per 1000.
Alcohol causes death at the rate of 1 per 100,000.
You can't quantify exactly how much worse death is than schizophrenia, but it's way less than 500 times.
So marijuana can be illegal when alcohol isn't.

It's the ratio that's the important thing, not trying to equate schizophrenia and death. Everyone agrees schizophrenia isn't as bad as death, except of course some schizophrenics, but the difference in rates is overwhelming. Why else do you think Fallen goes to such lengths to avoid comparing rates to rates?

[Latrinsorm]

Yes but that isn't gong to happen. They have too much money and clout.So did the cigarette companies.

[Fallen]

It's funny you talking about avoidance, like when I post how alcohol kills 25% of males in Russia, you talk about drunk driving laws, as if that remotely addressed this glaring statistic. Alcohol kills 1 in 4 young/middle aged men in a country of over hundred million. But...but schizophrenia! Safe consumption!

You constantly avoid looking at the raw numbers because they literally crush your argument into a completely myopic fallacy. Alcohol has directly killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, and has contributed to the deaths of millions. A percentage far higher (7% as opposed to 1) than those that will suffer any ill effects from Marijuana will face alcohol use disorders every year. You'll ignore that too, so it seems you ignore both statistics and raw results. You debate how much worse schizophrenia is than death, when you have millions dying because of a drug, raw numbers tends to make the comparison quite clear. It isn't just death that alcohol causes, either. It causes any number of other terrible diseases and leads to all manner of violence and social disfunction. These other consequences aren't each separately measured against schizophrenia. They are cumulative.

The deaths, the disease, the social burden all vs a .5% increase in mental health issues for the overwhelming majority of those who use the drug.

[drauz]

If it doesn't fix the problem we shouldn't list the problem as a consequence of the war on drugs. This applies to almost all the points, so for the sake of brevity I haven't repeated this.Number of people trying drugs rises.
Drug laws implemented.
Number of people trying drugs continues to rise.

Distance from plane rises.
Parachute implemented.
Distance from plane continues to rise.

That's the purpose of the analogy. You identify the parachute as causal but insist the drug laws aren't even though they have the exact same data.The article advocates for the government to engage in criminal behavior because it is profitable. Why not sell our private information to corporations? Contract out the CIA as paid assassins? Heck, contract out the police in general as private armies? This is straight up dystopia.The Mafia didn't go anywhere when we ended Prohibition. The way to fight criminals is to actually fight them.Marijuana's schizogenic properties have been observed as early as teenaged subjects.I fear you have misunderstood my first post. I'm not interested in vague qualitative "can"s. Firm stats, please.I'm not trying to twist anything. We should stop the death penalty. It has nothing to do with the war on drugs.I'll wait for a scientist if it's all the same to you. :)

Why would you need to wait for a scientist? He presents facts and backs it up with data. So until a scientist examines it this data just isn't valid in your eyes? Decriminalization works, it has worked in every country I know that has implemented it.

We do contract the CIA out, and we do sell our private information to corporation (indirectly).

The mafia already had other enterprises than the drug trade. What do you think a DRUG cartels main trade is? Its not bubblegum.

<I fear you have misunderstood my first post. I'm not interested in vague qualitative "can"s. Firm stats, please.>

https://studentaid.ed.gov/eligibility/criminal-convictions

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2007/feb/04/feature_conviction_keeps_hurting

This isn't stats it's law.

[drauz]

The deaths, the disease, the social burden all vs a 1% increase in mental health issues for the overwhelming majority of those who use the drug.

It's a .5% increase.

[Fallen]

But what about when your identical twin has schizophrenia, drauz!!??

[drauz]

Marijuana's schizogenic properties have been observed as early as teenaged subjects.

Again you misstate the arguement. They were talking about on the spot. There is no data that shows you hit the bong and you now have schizophrenia.

[Androidpk]

What I find interesting is that the prevalence of schizophrenia is just about the same rate in every country, regardless of levels of marijuana usage. From countries with the highest usage of marijuana to countries with the lowest amount there is no difference in schizophrenia rates.

[Latrinsorm]

It's funny you talking about avoidance, like when I post how alcohol kills 25% of males in Russia, you talk about drunk driving laws, as if that remotely addressed this glaring statistic. Alcohol kills 1 in 4 young/middle aged men in a country of over hundred million. But...but schizophrenia! Safe consumption!Alcohol kills 1 in 4 of the young/middle aged men who die, not 1 in 4 period. This is like how in the US drunk driving kills 40% of the people killed in traffic accidents, not 40% of people period. The total death toll was 2,000 (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25961063) in a country of over a hundred million, or 1 per 100,000. That portion of the population that is in the demographic is let's say 25%? So that would be 6 per 100,000. It's still no comparison to 500 per 100,000. That's why I look at rates and use specific numbers.
You constantly avoid looking at the raw numbers because they literally crush your argument into a completely myopic fallacy. Alcohol has directly killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last decade, and has contributed to the deaths of millions.Marijuana has created millions of schizophrenics in the past decade. That's why I don't look at raw numbers or use vague numbers. I have data on my side, so I have no need for such obfuscation.
A percentage far higher (7% as opposed to 1) than those that will suffer any ill effects from Marijuana will face alcohol use disorders every year. You'll ignore that too, so it seems you ignore both statistics and raw results. You debate how much worse schizophrenia is than death, when you have millions dying because of a drug, raw numbers tends to make the comparison quite clear. It isn't just death that alcohol causes, either. It causes any number of other terrible diseases and leads to all manner of violence and social disfunction. These other consequences aren't each separately measured against schizophrenia. They are cumulative.Raw numbers never make the comparison clear. They only serve as rhetoric to back up what you already know to be the truth. There's nothing anyone could say to change your mind, and you've made your displeasure with me personally clear on a number of occasions. I really don't get why you keep posting in these discussions. Compare with me: I have made the requirements for changing my mind a matter of public record, requirements that have gone unsatisfied for months. I bear no one any ill will, and am happy to continue bringing the truth to those who by chance have not yet received it as I have. It makes perfect sense for me to keep posting in these discussions. :)
Why would you need to wait for a scientist? He presents facts and backs it up with data. So until a scientist examines it this data just isn't valid in your eyes? Decriminalization works, it has worked in every country I know that has implemented it.Because scientists are unique among all professions in that their work is peer-reviewed. I have heard laypersons declare that decriminalization works in general and in Portugal, I have heard laypersons declare that it was a failure in general and in Portugal. I will wait for the science.
The mafia already had other enterprises than the drug trade. What do you think a DRUG cartels main trade is? Its not bubblegum.I think you will find that the term "drug cartel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel#United_States) is not as specific as you had hitherto believed.
This isn't stats it's law.I have bent over backwards to give stats controlled for every variable you people (collectively) demanded: order of operation, family history, other drug use, age of use. I ask for one little quantification of someone saying "a drug conviction can destroy your future" and I get nothing but more of the same.
Again you misstate the arguement. They were talking about on the spot. There is no data that shows you hit the bong and you now have schizophrenia.I'm not mis-stating anything. Cigarettes don't cause cancer "on the spot" either, but everyone agrees that cigarettes are inherently unsafe.
What I find interesting is that the prevalence of schizophrenia is just about the same rate in every country, regardless of levels of marijuana usage. From countries with the highest usage of marijuana to countries with the lowest amount there is no difference in schizophrenia rates.This is why population studies are not very useful in this discussion. Taking a toy problem:

Population A has 20% use marijuana and 80% not, overall schizophrenia rate .2 * .015 + .8 * .01 = 1.1%
Population B has 50% use, overall schizophrenia rate .5 * .015 + .5 * .01 = 1.25%

To the layperson (especially the biased one), this is just about the same rate. Even to the scientist, this difference is smaller than the confidence intervals of most population studies, and so you would not see a statistically significant difference. The informed play is to stick with cohort studies that don't have to guess which schizophrenics used or did not use. In general, you want to reduce your variables when you can... IF you want to find out the truth.

[Androidpk]

So in other words lartrin only approves of data that aligns with his misinformed beliefs. What a joke.

[Latrinsorm]

I encourage you to refer back to this post (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?89906-The-Snowden-Pulitzer&p=1768425#post1768425) to learn how statistical significance works.

[Tgo01]

So in other words lartrin only approves of data that aligns with his misinformed beliefs. What a joke.

That's not what he said at all but no one is surprised that's how a thief like you read it.

[Androidpk]

I encourage you to refer back to this post (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?89906-The-Snowden-Pulitzer&p=1768425#post1768425) to learn how statistical significance works.

No. You've already shown time and time again how out of touch with reality you are.

[Wrathbringer]

So in other words everyone here only approves of data that aligns with his/her misinformed beliefs. What a joke.

That's been my experience as well, and I agree.

[Tgo01]

Thread: The Snowden Pulitzer

don't you get tired of following me from thread to thread? creep


Don't you get tired of using and abusing women? creep

[Wrathbringer]

Don't you get tired of using and abusing women? creep

It's really not bad work, if you can get it.

[Androidpk]

Don't you get tired of using and abusing women? creep

Christ dude, you're acting like a bobmuthol. Let it go already. Seek some psychiatric help.

[Tgo01]

It's really not bad work, if you can get it.

True. True.


Christ dude, you're acting like a bobmuthol. Let it go already. Seek some psychiatric help.

I'm supposed to "let it go" that a complete douche bag is part of the same community as me? That's not how the real world works there, sparky.

Speaking of "letting it go" I find it beyond hilarious that you have left me red rep just a mere 3 days apart, what, do you have a timer set on your computer so you can rush to the PC to cycle through your rep as soon as possible or what?

Even Wrathbringer can't shart that fast.

[tyrant-201]

True. True.



I'm supposed to "let it go" that a complete douche bag is part of the same community as me? That's not how the real world works there, sparky.

Speaking of "letting it go" I find it beyond hilarious that you have left me red rep just a mere 3 days apart, what, do you have a timer set on your computer so you can rush to the PC to cycle through your rep as soon as possible or what?

Even Wrathbringer can't shart that fast.

He probably stole someone's PC account to red rep you again.

[Androidpk]

True. True.



I'm supposed to "let it go" that a complete douche bag is part of the same community as me? That's not how the real world works there, sparky.

Speaking of "letting it go" I find it beyond hilarious that you have left me red rep just a mere 3 days apart, what, do you have a timer set on your computer so you can rush to the PC to cycle through your rep as soon as possible or what?

Even Wrathbringer can't shart that fast.

Start a petition then and quit your bitching. I've been here far longer than you and won't be going anywhere so kiss my ass you pathetic fuck.

[Androidpk]

Speaking of "letting it go" I find it beyond hilarious that you have left me red rep just a mere 3 days apart, what, do you have a timer set on your computer so you can rush to the PC to cycle through your rep as soon as possible or what?

Even Wrathbringer can't shart that fast.

Says the person with multiple of accounts. Irony as usual, tgo.

[Wrathbringer]

True. True.



I'm supposed to "let it go" that a complete douche bag is part of the same community as me? That's not how the real world works there, sparky.

Speaking of "letting it go" I find it beyond hilarious that you have left me red rep just a mere 3 days apart, what, do you have a timer set on your computer so you can rush to the PC to cycle through your rep as soon as possible or what?

Even Wrathbringer can't shart that fast.

OOOOHH WHAT?!? CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. Firstly though, you claim to abhore douchebags in the community, but yet you appear to tolerate my existance here rather well. Secondly, Yes, I have a timer, and I bet if you check back through the past 3-5 years and hundreds of shart reps, I bet you've gotten plenty on a more frequent basis than every three days.

[Wrathbringer]

Also, let's get this thread back on topic by expounding upon the veritable cornucopia of ways in which Snowden is superior as a hero to Gelston and his ilk. Pretty sure this was the op's intent.

[Tgo01]

He probably stole someone's PC account to red rep you again.

lol


Says the person with multiple of accounts. Irony as usual, tgo.

HAHA

I have one joke account that I have never left rep from and I don't think I've even been on in years. You getting lots of red rep there and assuming they're all from me? Too funny. Too funny.


Firstly though, you claim to abhore douchebags in the community, but yet you appear to tolerate my existance here rather well.

I don't think you've ever logged onto someone's account and stole their items. Let me know if you have though and I can start giving you more shit.

[Wrathbringer]

lol



HAHA

I have one joke account that I have never left rep from and I don't think I've even been on in years. You getting lots of red rep there and assuming they're all from me? Too funny. Too funny.



I don't think you've ever logged onto someone's account and stole their items. Let me know if you have though and I can start giving you more shit.

My fault. I was unaware that I'd failed to meet this douchebag qualification. Carry on.

[Fallen]

Marijuana has created millions of schizophrenics in the past decade.

Millions of deaths versus millions of schizophrenics. And again we have you attempting to quantify how much worse something is over a pile of dead bodies, all the while ignoring all other contributing factors.


I have made the requirements for changing my mind a matter of public record, requirements that have gone unsatisfied for months.

Yep, you have set up a situation where you will ignore any and all arguments that don't meet this criteria. It's a pretty awesome way to ensure you're never wrong. Anything to be technically correct, right? Always isolate each negative aspect of alcohol or positive effect of ending the drug war and singularly compare it to one statistic over and over. The sad thing is you act like people don't realize what you're doing.

[Wesley]

http://i.imgur.com/aUrsSsr.gif

[Latrinsorm]

Millions of deaths versus millions of schizophrenics. And again we have you attempting to quantify how much worse something is over a pile of dead bodies, all the while ignoring all other contributing factors.

[/COLOR]Yep, you have set up a situation where you will ignore any and all arguments that don't meet this criteria. It's a pretty awesome way to ensure you're never wrong. Anything to be technically correct, right? Always isolate each negative aspect of alcohol or positive effect of ending the drug war and singularly compare it to one statistic over and over. The sad thing is you act like people don't realize what you're doing.I could very easily be wrong if the facts ever turned out to be that way. I've never had to defend the philosophy of agreeing with the facts, so I'm a little at a loss here. Surely we should agree with facts? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

[Fallen]

I could very easily be wrong if the facts ever turned out to be that way. I've never had to defend the philosophy of agreeing with the facts, so I'm a little at a loss here. Surely we should agree with facts? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

I often question what it is you understand, L. I think most of us do.

[Androidpk]

He understands how to collect restraining orders from Kinna Grannis.

[drauz]

Alcohol kills 1 in 4 of the young/middle aged men who die, not 1 in 4 period. This is like how in the US drunk driving kills 40% of the people killed in traffic accidents, not 40% of people period. The total death toll was 2,000 (http://www.bbc.com/news/health-25961063) in a country of over a hundred million, or 1 per 100,000. That portion of the population that is in the demographic is let's say 25%? So that would be 6 per 100,000. It's still no comparison to 500 per 100,000. That's why I look at rates and use specific numbers.Marijuana has created millions of schizophrenics in the past decade. That's why I don't look at raw numbers or use vague numbers. I have data on my side, so I have no need for such obfuscation.Raw numbers never make the comparison clear. They only serve as rhetoric to back up what you already know to be the truth. There's nothing anyone could say to change your mind, and you've made your displeasure with me personally clear on a number of occasions. I really don't get why you keep posting in these discussions. Compare with me: I have made the requirements for changing my mind a matter of public record, requirements that have gone unsatisfied for months. I bear no one any ill will, and am happy to continue bringing the truth to those who by chance have not yet received it as I have. It makes perfect sense for me to keep posting in these discussions. :)Because scientists are unique among all professions in that their work is peer-reviewed. I have heard laypersons declare that decriminalization works in general and in Portugal, I have heard laypersons declare that it was a failure in general and in Portugal. I will wait for the science.I think you will find that the term "drug cartel" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_cartel#United_States) is not as specific as you had hitherto believed.I have bent over backwards to give stats controlled for every variable you people (collectively) demanded: order of operation, family history, other drug use, age of use. I ask for one little quantification of someone saying "a drug conviction can destroy your future" and I get nothing but more of the same.I'm not mis-stating anything. Cigarettes don't cause cancer "on the spot" either, but everyone agrees that cigarettes are inherently unsafe.This is why population studies are not very useful in this discussion. Taking a toy problem:

Population A has 20% use marijuana and 80% not, overall schizophrenia rate .2 * .015 + .8 * .01 = 1.1%
Population B has 50% use, overall schizophrenia rate .5 * .015 + .5 * .01 = 1.25%

To the layperson (especially the biased one), this is just about the same rate. Even to the scientist, this difference is smaller than the confidence intervals of most population studies, and so you would not see a statistically significant difference. The informed play is to stick with cohort studies that don't have to guess which schizophrenics used or did not use. In general, you want to reduce your variables when you can... IF you want to find out the truth.

First line from your wiki link on drug cartels. A drug cartel is any criminal organization developed with the primary purpose of promoting and controlling drug trafficking operations. So yes they are exactly what I thought they were. It also mentions that the US is their biggest purchaser.

You get nothing? I provided you with laws that say they will directly effect someones future. What you mean to say is you want the numbers on how many have been affected, I assume. Numbers for one aspect, schizophrenia, is what you have provided not much of anything else. Your entire argument is that it can lead to a .5% increase in the number of schizophrenics, so the war on drugs is a good thing. You disregard any other argument as not related, even if it is.

Cigarette are legal though they just come with a warning label to advise you what you are getting into. Same could be done for marijuana. Bad comparison.

Assuming that one study from the 1960s is correct and that marijuana use contributes to a .05% increase it still doesn't justify allowing criminal organizations to thrive in our country and adjacent countries, unprecedented number of people in jail for non violent crimes, a huge burden on the American taxpayer (from funding the DEA and lost revenue on taxes), and the medical help it can provide to people suffering from long term illnesses. This is all just speaking about marijuana but again the war on drug applies to all drugs.

Here is another study done for Portugal. I didn't get a chance to read it all but from skimming through it shows to back up my previous claim. I will highlight a few points, feel free to bring up your own.


The comparison with 2000 data indicated a decline in the estimated number of problem drug users and injecting drug users between 2000 and 2005.

In general, a decreasing trend in the proportion of drug users amongst all HIV and AIDS cases has continued to be registered since 1999–2000. Similarly, the incidence of HIV and AIDS among IDUs has declined since 1999–2000 (62 new HIV cases in 2011; 166 in 2010; 1 497 in 2000) (53 new AIDS cases in 2011; 117 in 2010; 680 in 1999). A downward trend can also be observed in the prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus among clients of drug treatment facilities.

Provisional data from the Special Registry of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine estimate that there were 19 drug-related death cases (selection D) in 2011 (52 in 2010; 56 in 2009; 94 in 2008). In 2011 the majority of deaths occurred among men, at a mean age of 38 years. All the provisionally reported drug-related death cases were toxicologically confirmed and around 90 % of them involved opiates.

I am for decriminalization of all drugs. Substance abuse clinics not jail time. I want to see marijuana legal but with the same restrictions as alcohol.

[Latrinsorm]

First line from your wiki link on drug cartels. A drug cartel is any criminal organization developed with the primary purpose of promoting and controlling drug trafficking operations. So yes they are exactly what I thought they were. It also mentions that the US is their biggest purchaser.If you can honestly look at the list of drug cartels they give and think that ending the war on drugs will make them go away, I don't know how to convince you.
Numbers for one aspect, schizophrenia, is what you have provided not much of anything else. Your entire argument is that it can lead to a .5% increase in the number of schizophrenics, so the war on drugs is a good thing. You disregard any other argument as not related, even if it is.Again, if you honestly believe ending the war on drugs will end police racism, climate change, and international poverty, I don't know how to convince you. How can I not disregard that argument? If you want to quantify even roughly how much ending the war on drugs will help those and other issues, then we can talk about it. Until then you're not using facts, you're not even using reasoning. You're using rhetoric. "If you're for the war on drugs you're for police racism!" It's just silly.
Cigarette are legal though they just come with a warning label to advise you what you are getting into. Same could be done for marijuana. Bad comparison.Good comparison, because both should be illegal. :)
Assuming that one study from the 1960s is correct and that marijuana use contributes to a .05% increaseI'm gonna stop you here. I can't take your numerical claims seriously if you keep flubbing this part so badly. Marijuana use causes a .5% increase as found by a dozen studies published from 2002 - present. I googled them for you and everything, you couldn't even be bothered to click the links? :/
Here is another study done for Portugal. I didn't get a chance to read it all but from skimming through it shows to back up my previous claim. I will highlight a few points, feel free to bring up your own.Not peer reviewed, not a cohort study, but we'll make do with it. Data from the fourth paragraph of the first section:

lifetime cannabis
1999: 8%
2003: 15%
2007: 13%
2011: 16%

last year cannabis
1999: 9%
2003: 13%
2007: 10%
2011: 16%

That looks like cannabis use has approximately doubled since 1999. Going back to the parachute thing, this doesn't necessarily mean the policy changes of 2000 caused the increase. We really need data from prior to 1999. For example, drug use could have been sharply increasing in 1999, slowed, peaked around 2003, and declined to 2007. That would indicate the drug policy (or a nearly contemporaneous event) had a downward force, then something else happened to make drug use go up. If drug use was declining in 1999, the drug policy would have had an upward force on drug use. They also don't give any error bars so it's possible none of these variations are statistically significant.

The "decreasing trend" section you quote is oddly in there twice with two wildly contradicting sets of data, and has the same problem with no frame of reference. I advise waiting for them to clean it up at the least.

[drauz]

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt

I just realized I forgot to give the link that I quoted in my last post.

If you honestly think that making drugs legal wouldn't stop drug trafficker then I don't know what to tell you. If its not illegal then why would there be a criminal enterprise around it? There's is no vast criminal enterprise for alcohol and tobacco.


Again, if you honestly believe ending the war on drugs will end police racism, climate change, and international poverty, I don't know how to convince you. How can I not disregard that argument? If you want to quantify even roughly how much ending the war on drugs will help those and other issues, then we can talk about it. Until then you're not using facts, you're not even using reasoning. You're using rhetoric. "If you're for the war on drugs you're for police racism!" It's just silly.

I literally showed you the laws that can harm peoples lives. Here is some graphs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/)in my attempt to quantify it for you. So yes you are a racist (joke). Let me turn this around, what do you think a drug cartel is? How is it not reasonable to assume that if drugs are legal then drug cartels wouldn't have the influence they have in our country? From your very own link on them it says that the US is their biggest customer. That sounds like pretty solid reasoning to me, but then I'm the one suggesting it.

Lets say there are 10 things affecting climate change or even just pollution. By your argument nothing would ever get done to fix it because well #1 won't fix pollution because there are still 2-10 things affecting it. So if its not a magic wand, no point it doing it. I'm trying to say it would improve the quality of life, not 100% but a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication as an example of what has been done.

I also linked a study from Harvard which you disregarded because the number of participants didn't match your criteria. It is impossible to meet your requirements. I find something to back up my argument even from scientists, but you still just pass it off as not good enough. I'm done arguing the mental illness aspect. It is my position that the .5% increase is not enough to continue to outlaw drugs based on the other harmful aspects it causes.

[Tgo01]

If you honestly think that making drugs legal wouldn't stop drug trafficker then I don't know what to tell you. If its not illegal then why would there be a criminal enterprise around it?

I have a cousin who lives in Colorado, he's been a die hard pothead for many years now, way before it became legal in Colorado. He still buys pot from illegal sources because it's much cheaper to do so.

[drauz]

I have a cousin who lives in Colorado, he's been a die hard pothead for many years now, way before it became legal in Colorado. He still buys pot from illegal sources because it's much cheaper to do so.

Fair enough, if I am not mistaken the cartels deal more with cocaine. Has he mentioned if that is what most people still do or have most gone to the legal dispensaries?

[Tgo01]

Has he mentioned if that is what most people still do or have most gone to the legal dispensaries?

I dunno. I do know experts were expecting over 70 million dollars in pot revenue in the first year of legalization but that fell short at about 54 million and part of the reason for the lower sales was blamed on more people buying pot illegally then was originally estimated.

[Androidpk]

Fair enough, if I am not mistaken the cartels deal more with cocaine. Has he mentioned if that is what most people still do or have most gone to the legal dispensaries?

They deal in cocaine mostly nowadays. There is so much marijuana being grown in the US now that the cost and risk of bringing it across the border isn't worth it anymore.

[drauz]

I dunno. I do know experts were expecting over 70 million dollars in pot revenue in the first year of legalization but that fell short at about 54 million and part of the reason for the lower sales was blamed on more people buying pot illegally then was originally estimated.

That is still nothing to sneeze at. It will be interesting to see if the legalization has any effect on the costs of prisons and such in the coming years.

[Tgo01]

It will be interesting to see if the legalization has any effect on the costs of prisons and such in the coming years.

Doubtful. The number of people in state prison for just simple possession of marijuana is very low.

[Androidpk]

That is still nothing to sneeze at. It will be interesting to see if the legalization has any effect on the costs of prisons and such in the coming years.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/colorado-one-year-later-thousands-not-arrested-marijuana-millions-dollars-saved

[Tgo01]

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/colorado-one-year-later-thousands-not-arrested-marijuana-millions-dollars-saved

Like I said, not gonna change much.

[Jeril]

Doubtful. The number of people in state prison for just simple possession of marijuana is very low.

People make this case, but how many other crimes won't be committed because of legalizing? It isn't as simple as just possession of weed.

[Tgo01]

how many other crimes won't be committed because of legalizing?

None because marijuana doesn't cause one to become violent, there are no ill side effects to using marijuana, and people would never steal or harm someone in order to get their next marijuana high because marijuana isn't addictive and it doesn't create a dependency in people.

[Fallen]

None because marijuana doesn't cause one to become violent, there are no ill side effects to using marijuana, and people would never steal or harm someone in order to get their next marijuana high because marijuana isn't addictive and it doesn't create a dependency in people.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_dzDb5v744

[Androidpk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjHOBJzhb0

[Fallen]

Heh. That's the first time i've seen that. Hilarious.

[Androidpk]

"his pants will be encrusted with semen stains from constantly jacking off when he cannot find a rape victim,"

[drauz]

Like I said, not gonna change much.

12m at the low end and 60m at the high end is a lot of money especially when added onto the increased revenue.

It might not be from jail costs but from court costs/processing.

[Fallen]

"his pants will be encrusted with semen stains from constantly jacking off when he cannot find a rape victim,"

Lol. Someone neg repped me over it, too. Quite amusing.

[Tgo01]

12m at the low end and 60m at the high end is a lot of money especially when added onto the increased revenue.

Let's split the difference at 36 million dollars. Colorado's yearly budget is what, 30 billion I think I said earlier? That makes 36 million dollars one tenth of one percent of Colorado's yearly budget.

This 36 million dollars also doesn't look at the increased costs of legalization. We already discussed in the other thread how so far a suicide and a murder have been blamed on marijuana since Colorado legalized it, and that's just two stories. How many cases of impaired driving have there been since legalization? Is it higher or lower than the number before legalization? How many kids were taken to the ER for consuming marijuana since legalization? I think in the other thread the number increased like 7 fold from 5 or 6 years ago. How many more Cheetos bags have been shop lifted compared to before legalization?

[Androidpk]

Money saved from police arrests.

Money saved from imprisonment.

Money made from cannabis sales.

Money made off all sales related to the cannabis industry.

Money made off increased tourism.


You're looking at well over $100 million a year.

[Tgo01]

Money saved from police arrests.

Money saved from imprisonment.

Money made from cannabis sales.

Money made off all sales related to the cannabis industry.

Money made off increased tourism.


You're looking at well over $100 million a year.

Even going by your numbers that's one third of one percent. You're also of course still ignoring that at least two people are dead since marijuana legalization, dozens of children have been admitted to the hospital for consuming marijuana, and the other things I just got finished saying.

But I guess your "Legalize It NOW!" brochure doesn't mention those things so you don't think they exist.

[drauz]

Let's split the difference at 36 million dollars. Colorado's yearly budget is what, 30 billion I think I said earlier? That makes 36 million dollars one tenth of one percent of Colorado's yearly budget.

This 36 million dollars also doesn't look at the increased costs of legalization. We already discussed in the other thread how so far a suicide and a murder have been blamed on marijuana since Colorado legalized it, and that's just two stories. How many cases of impaired driving have there been since legalization? Is it higher or lower than the number before legalization? How many kids were taken to the ER for consuming marijuana since legalization? I think in the other thread the number increased like 7 fold from 5 or 6 years ago. How many more Cheetos bags have been shop lifted compared to before legalization?

So with 36m and the 50m from revenue it comes out to I'll say 80m total that they didn't have before the law. While I'm sure that some costs have been incurred I don't think the total will come close to that making it a net gain overall. I can be proven wrong once more numbers are released as this is just my guess.

[Androidpk]

$100 million is a very nice chunk of money to be added to a state's yearly budget.

[Tgo01]

So with 36m and the 50m from revenue it comes out to I'll say 80m total that they didn't have before the law. While I'm sure that some costs have been incurred I don't think the total will come close to that making it a net gain overall. I can be proven wrong once more numbers are released as this is just my guess.

I'm sure Colorado is ahead of the game even when all costs are factored in. The question posed was how much money is legalization gonna save in terms of prisons and whatnot and I still maintain my previous answer: not much.

Still, it's better than nothing and I think the pros involved with legalization outweigh the risks (even factoring in psychosis), I just think it's not gonna be a whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

[Fallen]

The industry itself is already quite large and will be growing each year. The tax revenue will increase.

[Tgo01]

The industry itself is already quite large and will be growing each year. The tax revenue will increase.

I was actually thinking the sales would stay about the same or even go down. I think a lot of the sales were from first time users who wanted to try it out now that it's legal and I bet most of them aren't going to become frequent users. Also have to factor in it being even easier to purchase the stuff illegally and a lot of people are probably going to go the route my cousin did; start buying it from illegal sources.

[Fallen]

I was actually thinking the sales would stay about the same or even go down. I think a lot of the sales were from first time users who wanted to try it out now that it's legal and I bet most of them aren't going to become frequent users. Also have to factor in it being even easier to purchase the stuff illegally and a lot of people are probably going to go the route my cousin did; start buying it from illegal sources.

We'll see. I imagine most would rather avoid dealing with criminals if given the option. Stores will also offer a greater variety and a modicum of safety, both in the drugs not being laced or being ripped off by your dealer.

I agree that it will take quite a long time for the illicit market to die down, but I do think the nature of it will change. Less violent drug cartels, more small-time growers selling on the side.

[Tgo01]

I'm curious about something; when people say "crime is down" in Colorado, what do they mean exactly?

Like, fewer marijuana possession arrests? Because, like, that's obvious and doesn't really need to be stated.

[Androidpk]

We'll see. I imagine most would rather avoid dealing with criminals if given the option. Stores will also offer a greater variety and a modicum of safety, both in the drugs not being laced or being ripped off by your dealer.



Absolutely.

[Fallen]

I'm curious about something; when people say "crime is down" in Colorado, what do they mean exactly?

Like, fewer marijuana possession arrests? Because, like, that's obvious and doesn't really need to be stated.

From Forbes, "FBI data indicate that the overall crime rate in Denver, the center of Colorado’s marijuana industry, was 10 percent lower in the first five months of this year than in the same period of 2013."

I've seen conflicting information, though. I think we need more time to see how things shake out.

[Tgo01]

From Forbes, "FBI data indicate that the overall crime rate in Denver, the center of Colorado’s marijuana industry, was 10 percent lower in the first five months of this year than in the same period of 2013."

Yeah but like...what crime?

[Fallen]

Yeah but like...what crime?

Something along the lines of this, "United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People 1960 - 2013. Forcible. Aggravated. Larceny- Vehicle. Year Population Total Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Theft Theft."

[Tgo01]

Something along the lines of this, "United States Population and Rate of Crime per 100,000 People 1960 - 2013. Forcible. Aggravated. Larceny- Vehicle. Year Population Total Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Theft Theft."

So murder, rape, theft, and other violent crimes were committed more often when marijuana was illegal? That's kind of a scary thought to be honest.

[tyrant-201]

So murder, rape, theft, and other violent crimes were committed more often when marijuana was illegal? That's kind of a scary thought to be honest.

Drug dealers aren't always nice people.

[Tgo01]

Drug dealers aren't always nice people.

You lie!

[Tgo01]

Besides I thought this was your typical marijuana drug dealer:

http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Jamaicas-Marijuana-Legalization-Bill-Would-Have-Bob-Marley-Singing-665x385.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

If you honestly think that making drugs legal wouldn't stop drug trafficker then I don't know what to tell you. If its not illegal then why would there be a criminal enterprise around it? There's is no vast criminal enterprise for alcohol and tobacco.I can't speak to alcohol, but topically there are people who sell cigarettes illegally, and then the police kill them, and then they get away with it. This is a real issue with real consequences, and one we have to really and directly address. The way to stop those police that are out of control is not to reduce the number of laws that give them plausible deniability, it's to stop them.
Let me turn this around, what do you think a drug cartel is? How is it not reasonable to assume that if drugs are legal then drug cartels wouldn't have the influence they have in our country? From your very own link on them it says that the US is their biggest customer. That sounds like pretty solid reasoning to me, but then I'm the one suggesting it.Because we got rid of bootlegging 80 years ago and the Mafia is still the most powerful criminal organization in the country. Here's their current list of operations: "Racketeering, counterfeiting, human trafficking, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, fencing, illegal gambling, murder, prostitution, blackmailing, loan sharking, money laundering, fraud, contract killing, bribery, cigarette smuggling, robbery, tax evasion, assault". There's no historical evidence and no reason to believe that legalization will stop organized crime. Like any well-run business, their portfolio is diversified.
Lets say there are 10 things affecting climate change or even just pollution. By your argument nothing would ever get done to fix it because well #1 won't fix pollution because there are still 2-10 things affecting it. So if its not a magic wand, no point it doing it. I'm trying to say it would improve the quality of life, not 100% but a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication as an example of what has been done.It's not worth doing because the benefits don't measure up to the costs. When you (general) frame the benefits as solving climate change, solving police racism, solving international poverty, it would be ridiculous to not pursue those benefits. That's how rhetoric works. When you quantify the tiny degrees to which ending the war on drugs would solve those problems, you see a far different picture.
I also linked a study from Harvard which you disregarded because the number of participants didn't match your criteria. It is impossible to meet your requirements. I find something to back up my argument even from scientists, but you still just pass it off as not good enough. I'm done arguing the mental illness aspect. It is my position that the .5% increase is not enough to continue to outlaw drugs based on the other harmful aspects it causes.I really encourage you to perform the Excel operations described here (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?89906-The-Snowden-Pulitzer&p=1768425#post1768425). I have every faith that you can learn how sample size works. You've certainly heard enough people say "small sample size" to believe I'm not making up the concept, but you can see the actual numbers work for yourself, and I think that will be very powerful.

[Candor]

I would personally not change laws so much as I would change our approach to punishment for some crimes. While I am rather Conservative overall, I have a real issue with the number of people being imprisoned for possession of drugs. I'm not talking growing, transporting, or selling drugs - just possession. Many prisons are overcrowded as a result, the reincarcertaion rate for this crime is high, and some people move on to bigger crimes thanks to the prison environment. We need a different solution.

[Wrathbringer]

I would personally not change laws so much as I would change our approach to punishment for some crimes. While I am rather Conservative overall, I have a real issue with the number of people being imprisoned for possession of drugs. I'm not talking growing, transporting, or selling drugs - just possession. Many prisons are overcrowded as a result, the reincarcertaion rate for this crime is high, and some people move on to bigger crimes thanks to the prison environment. We need a different solution.

Wow, I agree with Candor... That just sounds funny to say...

[Androidpk]

Wow, I agree with Candor... That just sounds funny to say...

I know, right?

[Latrinsorm]

I would personally not change laws so much as I would change our approach to punishment for some crimes. While I am rather Conservative overall, I have a real issue with the number of people being imprisoned for possession of drugs. I'm not talking growing, transporting, or selling drugs - just possession. Many prisons are overcrowded as a result, the reincarcertaion rate for this crime is high, and some people move on to bigger crimes thanks to the prison environment. We need a different solution.What do you think that number is?

[tyrant-201]

What do you think that number is?

Higher than it should be.

[Androidpk]

Higher than it should be.

Or not high enough. If people are imprisoned for marijuana possession they can't get schizophrenia. It's almost humane.

[Latrinsorm]

I would rather not imprison anyone! I would rather not even threaten anyone, but the threat of incarceration appears to be an effective deterrent. The world is not a choice between a red pill and a blue pill, it is in general a choice between two sub-optimal options.

According to Californie (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/offender_information_services_branch/Annual/RECID2/RECID2d2004.pdf) the overall recidivism rate for marijuana possession is only 28%, it stands to reason that the rate of those who specifically re-offend with marijuana possession is lower. That's quite a bit lower than their average figure.

[Warriorbird]

I would rather not imprison anyone! I would rather not even threaten anyone, but the threat of incarceration appears to be an effective deterrent.

About as effective a deterrent as banning marijuana. A hilariously awful and society damaging one.

[Androidpk]

but the threat of incarceration appears to be an effective deterrent.

Just when I think your comments can't get any stupider..

[Candor]

What do you think that number is?

I don't know, but I'll provide a rough guess.

I believe a little more than 1% of the US adult population is in prison - let's call that 2.2 million prisoners. Slightly more than half are imprisoned for drug offenses - let's call that 1.1 million. Now the tough part, what percentage is imprisoned solely for possession - a quick search didn't find an obvious answer and I'm too lazy right now to put in the research, but let's say 30% of the drug offenders. Let's call it 300,000 people.

300,000 people imprisoned only for drug possession. Not growing, not selling, not transporting...just possession. That's just not the right answer.

Someone please correct my figures as needed - I am not claiming any solid research to support the numbers. The 30% figure may be too low.

[Androidpk]

I don't know, but I'll provide a rough guess.

I believe a little more than 1% of the US adult population is in prison - let's call that 2.2 million prisoners. Slightly more than half are imprisoned for drug offenses - let's call that 1.1 million. Now the tough part, what percentage is imprisoned solely for possession - a quick search didn't find an obvious answer and I'm too lazy right now to put in the research, but let's say 30% of the drug offenders. Let's call it 300,000 people.

300,000 people imprisoned only for drug possession. Not growing, not selling, not transporting...just possession. That's just not the right answer.

Someone please correct my figures as needed - I am not claiming any solid research to support the numbers.

https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers

[Tgo01]

https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers

Arrest != prison.

If you're suggesting simple marijuana possession accounted for 7.2 million prisoners between the years of 2001 and 2010 then you must be high right now.

[Androidpk]

Arrest != prison.

If you're suggesting simple marijuana possession accounted for 7.2 million prisoners between the years of 2001 and 2010 then you must be high right now.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Tgo01]

No shit, Sherlock.

Then why did you provide that link in response to Candor's post that was talking about prisoners? Is reading difficult for you?

[Androidpk]

Then why did you provide that link in response to Candor's post that was talking about prisoners? Is reading difficult for you?

Because arrests are highly relevant?

[Tgo01]

Because arrests are highly relevant?

Not sure how you figure that since in 13 states marijuana possession results in a fine and in most other states marijuana possession is a misdemeanor where one rarely sees jail time for a first offense.

[Androidpk]

Not sure how you figure that since in 13 states marijuana possession results in a fine and in most other states marijuana possession is a misdemeanor where one rarely sees jail time for a first offense.

You aren't too bright.

[Tgo01]

You aren't too bright.

Says the man who thinks arrests == prison time :lol:

[Androidpk]

Says the man who thinks arrests == prison time :lol:

Uhh, no?

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know, but I'll provide a rough guess. I believe a little more than 1% of the US adult population is in prison - let's call that 2.2 million prisoners. Slightly more than half are imprisoned for drug offenses - let's call that 1.1 million. Now the tough part, what percentage is imprisoned solely for possession - a quick search didn't find an obvious answer and I'm too lazy right now to put in the research, but let's say 30% of the drug offenders. Let's call it 300,000 people. 300,000 people imprisoned only for drug possession. Not growing, not selling, not transporting...just possession. That's just not the right answer. Someone please correct my figures as needed - I am not claiming any solid research to support the numbers. The 30% figure may be too low.I have previously found figures that claim 1% (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf) for marijuana possession, and according to points 15 and 17 of this source (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/prisons_and_drugs#sthash.3tSAUW1Z.dpbs) the number in federal prisons for all drug possession is 2.5% (.053 * .468). That source doesn't list the percentage of state prisoners in for drugs at all, but according to this source (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html) it's 17.4%, which when combined with 27.9% in for possession gives 4.9%. They don't split out local prisoners into possession, but for the sake of argument let's assume all 25.5% are for possession. Now we can do...
293342 * .255 + 1362028 * .049 + 216362 * .025
divided by
293342 + 1362028 + 216362
equals
7.9%

I'm not singling you out here, I'm just saying that you're a good example of how effective propaganda is. Your guess was 30% and you were leaning towards going higher, but you were already about two times too high. Scary, no? And we're OVER-estimating the actual figure because of how we treated local jails.

[Androidpk]

Marijuana/hashish, Percent of federal drug offenders, 2004 = 12.4%
Marijuana/hashish, Percent of state drug offenders, 2004 = 12.7%

(Total prisoners x percent drug law) x percent marijuana = "marijuana prisoners"
Federal marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 11,630
State marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 33,186
Total federal and state marijuana prisoners in 2004 = 44,816

Note: These data only address people in prisons and thus exclude the 700,000+ offenders who may be in local jails because of a marijuana conviction.

[drauz]

I have previously found figures that claim 1% (https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/whos_in_prison_for_marij.pdf) for marijuana possession, and according to points 15 and 17 of this source (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/prisons_and_drugs#sthash.3tSAUW1Z.dpbs) the number in federal prisons for all drug possession is 2.5% (.053 * .468). That source doesn't list the percentage of state prisoners in for drugs at all, but according to this source (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie.html) it's 17.4%, which when combined with 27.9% in for possession gives 4.9%. They don't split out local prisoners into possession, but for the sake of argument let's assume all 25.5% are for possession. Now we can do...
293342 * .255 + 1362028 * .049 + 216362 * .025
divided by
293342 + 1362028 + 216362
equals
7.9%

I'm not singling you out here, I'm just saying that you're a good example of how effective propaganda is. Your guess was 30% and you were leaning towards going higher, but you were already about two times too high. Scary, no? And we're OVER-estimating the actual figure because of how we treated local jails.

Not done by a scientist so the data isn't valid.

[Latrinsorm]

It may interest you to learn that I am in fact a scientist! :D How'd the Excel sheet work out for you, by the way?

[Androidpk]

It may interest you to learn that I am in fact a scientist! :D How'd the Excel sheet work out for you, by the way?

Do you wear a lab coat or work in a lab?

[Latrinsorm]

As a physicist I've never had a need to wear a lab coat. Spreadsheets are unlikely to splash, spatter, bleed, defecate, etc.

[Tgo01]

As a physicist I've never had a need to wear a lab coat. Spreadsheets are unlikely to splash, spatter, bleed, defecate, etc.

Do you get into wacky comical situations like Sheldon and Leonard?

[Latrinsorm]

I could tell you stories about improperly calibrated glancing angle deposition systems that would split your sides... but I've never even seen Kaley Cuoco. :(

[Tgo01]

but I've never even seen Kaley Cuoco. :(

Well then you're useless :(

[Androidpk]

As a physicist I've never had a need to wear a lab coat. Spreadsheets are unlikely to splash, spatter, bleed, defecate, etc.

What do you do for work?

[Gelston]

What do you do for work?

Curious, what do you do?

[Latrinsorm]

What do you do for work?Data consultant for a financial adviser.

[Back]

Data consultant for a financial adviser.

have you ever done anything for fivethirtyeight.com?

[Latrinsorm]

No. Too mainstream. :smug: Also (or perhaps actually) they didn't accept my application.

Ironically the best science stuff I've done has probably been for GemStone, which would theoretically make this website's membership the most receptive to my claims. Ha! Ha! Nope.

[Back]

No. Too mainstream. :smug: Also (or perhaps actually) they didn't accept my application.

Ironically the best science stuff I've done has probably been for GemStone, which would theoretically make this website's membership the most receptive to my claims. Ha! Ha! Nope.

I ask because some of fivethirtyeight's sports analysis read much like your own.

[Latrinsorm]

Thanks!

[Bobmuhthol]

Christ dude, you're acting like a bobmuthol. Let it go already. Seek some psychiatric help.Hey just checking in to remind you that I'm a way better human being than you.

[Gelston]

Hey just checking in to remind you that I'm a way better human being than you.

He doesn't post here anymore and you are bumping year old threads. Good game.

[Bobmuhthol]

"Doesn't post here anymore" yet logged in 2 weeks ago. I'm sure he'll see it.

I "don't post here anymore" either, but here I am reading his posts about me.

[Gelston]

"Doesn't post here anymore" yet logged in 2 weeks ago. I'm sure he'll see it.

I "don't post here anymore" either, but here I am reading his posts about me.

.... From a year ago. Do you see a therapist?

[Velfi]

.... From a year ago. Do you see a therapist?

Perhaps you are unaware that this is how superior human beings behave.

[Velfi]

Between Bob and IW, frankly, we should be grateful to have 2 members among us who have ascended to the next plane of human existence.

[Gelston]

Perhaps you are unaware that this is how superior human beings behave.

I just thought he got drunk and the knowledge that pk banged a girl he was obsessed with made him come back here to post about them both a year after both threads had ended.

[Velfi]

I just thought he got drunk and the knowledge that pk banged a girl he was obsessed with made him come back here to post about them both a year after both threads had ended.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jADG1q6Z--/1810q0ehjle7rgif.gif

[Luftstreitkräfte]

Between Bob and IW, frankly, we should be grateful to have 2 members among us who have ascended to the next plane of human existence.

SO FLATTERED