The Snowden Pulitzer

[ClydeR]

Ed Snowden, the fugitive from justice now hiding out in Moscow, didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize today. But his handiwork was rewarded in dramatic fashion.

The chief beneficiary of Snowden’s NSA leaks, liberal columnist Glenn Greenwald, shared the most prestigious of the prizes, the public service award, although it was issued in the name of the Guardian (which published his work along with that of colleagues Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill). Bart Gellman of the Washington Post, who also dealt extensively with Snowden, was given a Pulitzer for public service as well.

More... (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/14/snowdens-revenge-journalists-win-pulitzers-for-his-nsa-leaks/)

Giving those journalists an award was the same as rewarding Snowden.

[cwolff]

Saw Greenwald on CNN while I was at the gym. I didn't catch everything he was saying because of the close captoining. I did get that he thinks the Pulitzer committee gave him the award to thumb their nose at the politicians (and others like who wanted to criminalize Greenwald like Gregory). He didn't say that they did for Snowden, but that they did it for the press.

[Wrathbringer]

Giving those journalists an award was the same as rewarding Snowden.

Correct, because Snowden is a patriot and a hero for the american people. Anyone who says differently is an oppressionist neo-nazi.

[Back]

John Oliver deserves a Pulitzer for this interview with Edward Snowden. Yeesh, just for his show in general. I suppose it takes a man from London with some backbone to point out American hypocrisies.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M

[Archigeek]

That interview was priceless.

[Thondalar]

Correct, because Snowden is a patriot and a hero for the american people. Anyone who says differently is an oppressionist neo-nazi.

QFT

[Thondalar]

John Oliver deserves a Pulitzer for this interview with Edward Snowden. Yeesh, just for his show in general. I suppose it takes a man from London with some backbone to point out American hypocrisies.

Sometimes I wish he would tone down the comedic relief a bit. I get it, he is a comedian, but he makes some very valid points that I think get undermined a bit because people are laughing at the follow-up.

[Androidpk]

Sometimes I wish he would tone down the comedic relief a bit. I get it, he is a comedian, but he makes some very valid points that I think get undermined a bit because people are laughing at the follow-up.

Heh, I was just thinking the same exact thing. I suppose if this news was delivered without the humor then more people wouldn't even pay attention to it though. It is a doubleedged sword.

[waywardgs]

QFT

Being a patriot means doing what you're told and keeping your little mouth SHUT about governmental maleficence and endemic constitutional infractions.

[Thondalar]

Being a patriot means doing what you're told and keeping your little mouth SHUT about governmental maleficence and endemic constitutional infractions.

Bullshit. Being a patriot means you defend the Union against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[Thondalar]

Heh, I was just thinking the same exact thing. I suppose if this news was delivered without the humor then more people wouldn't even pay attention to it though. It is a doubleedged sword.

Valid point.

[waywardgs]

Bullshit. Being a patriot means you defend the Union against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

...

[Thondalar]

...

...ok, I was a little slow on picking up your text sarcasm. Sorry.

[Androidpk]

Being a patriot means doing what you're told and keeping your little mouth SHUT about governmental maleficence and endemic constitutional infractions.

According to Red Forman, yes.

[Gelston]

Too bad you can't win the Pulitzer for shit on TV. Newspaper (and online) only.

[Gelston]

Was it Back that was trying to make fun of Fox News for having no Pulitzers?

And then the joke was on him, since no TV news shows/channels have any because they are not eligible.

[ForWhatItsWorth]

Bullshit. Being a patriot means you defend the Union against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I think in this case, some of us consider the enemy to be domestic. Specifically those who seek to circumvent the Constitution.

[Ashliana]

Even if you think Snowden's actions in exposing programs were justified, he had several legal avenues to bring attention to them without breaking the dozen or so laws he did, chose not to use them, and fled to America's enemies. If he wanted to make a civilly disobedient stand on principle, he should've done so and stuck around to face the music, and stood trial.

Instead, he fled to Russia. "I can't have a free trial in America," he says. Really? He can't convince one person on a jury of his peers of the merit of his arguments? Because that's all he needs. Snowden isn't a hero, or a martyr.

[Androidpk]

Even if you think Snowden's actions in exposing programs were justified, he had several legal avenues to bring attention to them without breaking the dozen or so laws he did, chose not to use them, and fled to America's enemies. If he wanted to make a civilly disobedient stand on principle, he should've done so and stuck around to face the music, and stood trial.

Instead, he fled to Russia. "I can't a free trial in America," he says. Really? He can't convince one person on a jury of his peers of the merit of his arguments? Because that's all he needs. Snowden isn't a hero, or a martyr.

Which avenues would that be? He brought this up several times with his superiors, who dismissed his concerns, and being a contractor he wouldn't have been entitled to whistleblower protection.

[Velfi]

If he wanted to make a civilly disobedient stand on principle, he should've done so and stuck around to face the music, and stood trial.

I never stop loving this line of thinking when I hear it, and I've heard it a lot. This relies on some implicit guarantee of a fair trial, when the opposite is nearly assured.

[Ashliana]

Which avenues would that be? He brought this up several times with his superiors, who dismissed his concerns, and being a contractor he wouldn't have been entitled to whistleblower protection.

That's Snowden's claim. Legal experts don't agree with his assertion that contractors are magically exempted by the law.

See WaPo's Glenn Kessler on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/12/edward-snowdens-claim-that-as-a-contractor-he-had-no-proper-channels-for-protection-as-a-whistleblower/

Edit: I should clarify that there are numerous avenues for bringing concerns to the attentions of superiors, or even directly to Congress. If you're specifically looking for exemptions to laws forbidding the illegal disclosure of classified information (i.e., the Espionage Act of the early 1900's), there aren't any. Those avenues exist to prevent the disclosure. In a trial, he'd have to depend on jury nullification in an affirmative defense.


I never stop loving this line of thinking when I hear it, and I've heard it a lot. This relies on some implicit guarantee of a fair trial, when the opposite is nearly assured.

And what, pray tell, is your rational basis for asserting that he couldn't get a fair trial? He violated numerous laws--that isn't in question, and isn't disputed by Snowden. He seems to think the nature of his disclosures should make him immune to prosecution (and they don't), and the nature of his disclosures hasn't brought about any change in policy.

[ForWhatItsWorth]

In a court room, heck even before the court room, the US Govt does not play fair.

My rational basis is experiencing it once.

[Gelston]

Dude broke laws and ran away. He is a criminal. Just because you people seem to think he did right in breaking the law doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

[ForWhatItsWorth]

Being called a criminal or a hero often depends on who gets to write the history. Signing the Declaration of Independence was once considered treason.

[Androidpk]

Dude broke laws and ran away. He is a criminal. Just because you people seem to think he did right in breaking the law doesn't mean he didn't break the law.

I'm not saying he didn't break the law, he did. I'm saying it doesn't matter that he broke the law. Our country was formed by patriots breaking the law.

[Gelston]

I'm not saying he didn't break the law, he did. I'm saying it doesn't matter that he broke the law. Our country was formed by patriots breaking the law.

It does matter that he broke the law. Those patriots that broke the law didn't run away after they did. They stayed and owned up.

[Taernath]

It does matter that he broke the law. Those patriots that broke the law didn't run away after they did. They stayed and owned up.

The patriots weren't considered criminals under the new state.

I can see Snowden's point in remaining abroad. If he had returned or allowed himself to be tried, this whole thing would have been over and forgotten by the public by now.

[Gelston]

The patriots weren't considered criminals under the new state.

I can see Snowden's point in remaining abroad. If he had returned or allowed himself to be tried, this whole thing would have been over and forgotten by the public by now.

Well, except the ones that were executed before a new state came into existence. Still, they didn't run away. They stood and fought. Snowden is not even a close comparison. He is a pussy that leaked information and then ran away.

[Gelston]

I find it insulting to the memories of the founders of this country and the patriots that have bleed and died for it since in people comparing Snowden to them. It isn't even close.

[Androidpk]

It does matter that he broke the law. Those patriots that broke the law didn't run away after they did. They stayed and owned up.

Last time I checked Guantanamo prison didnt exist back then.

[Gelston]

Last time I checked Guantanamo prison didnt exist back then.

No, the British had prison ships that were a lot worse. Gitmo is most likely a fucking paradise compared to what they used 250 years ago.

[Androidpk]

I find it insulting to the memories of the founders of this country and the patriots that have bleed and died for it since in people comparing Snowden to them. It isn't even close.

He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Gelston]

He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, okay. Now you are just being retarded. I'm sorry you joined a bitch branch and never got to go to either place.

[Wrathbringer]

I find it insulting to the memories of the founders of this country and the patriots that have bleed and died for it since in people comparing Snowden to them. It isn't even close.

Agreed. Snowden was smart enough not to be a government pawn so it's not really the same thing.

[Wrathbringer]

He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Without question.

[Gelston]

Haha, you know you are wrong when this fucker is on your side.

[Wrathbringer]

Haha, you know you are wrong when this fucker is on your side.

Please. Patriot > hired guns. Also, hired guns /= patriot, but rather hired guns = petty mercenaries. It's basic math.

[Gelston]

Please. Patriot > hired guns. Also, hired guns /= patriot, but rather hired guns = petty mercenaries. It's basic math.

Uhuh.

[Ashliana]

Last time I checked Guantanamo prison didnt exist back then.

Only one American has ever been sent to Guantanamo, was accidental (they didn't know he was an American), and then moved him. You're getting into conspiracy theory level stuff here, if you think the government is in the business of "disappearing" people. The Obama administration's been harsh in terms of prosecuting people for violating the Espionage Act, but it's a huge, hugely cynical leap to what you're suggesting--a leap that I wouldn't even have made of the last administration, for which I certainly had no love.


He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I really, really hope you're joking. I'm praying that you're joking. I'm hoping this is an example of Poe's law.


Please. Patriot > hired guns. Also, hired guns /= patriot, but rather hired guns = petty mercenaries. It's basic math.

Wow. Describing our service members as "hired guns" and "petty mercenaries"? Even if I didn't agree with the Iraq war, I still respect the hell out of our soldiers who were brave enough to enlist and fight in it, who came back and have to listen to ungrateful bullshit like you're spouting.

[Thondalar]

He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anyone that fights for this country is a hero in my book. You don't exactly get to choose where they send you.

[Parkbandit]

He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://memestorage.com/_nw/58/98514998.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Wow. Describing our service members as "hired guns" and "petty mercenaries"? Even if I didn't agree with the Iraq war, I still respect the hell out of our soldiers who were brave enough to enlist and fight in it, who came back and have to listen to ungrateful bullshit like you're spouting.

http://www.troll.me/images/red-foreman322/dont-you-get-it-youve-been-trolled.jpg

[Wrathbringer]

Only one American has ever been sent to Guantanamo, was accidental (they didn't know he was an American), and then moved him. You're getting into conspiracy theory level stuff here, if you think the government is in the business of "disappearing" people. The Obama administration's been harsh in terms of prosecuting people for violating the Espionage Act, but it's a huge, hugely cynical leap to what you're suggesting--a leap that I wouldn't even have made of the last administration, for which I certainly had no love.



I really, really hope you're joking. I'm praying that you're joking. I'm hoping this is an example of Poe's law.



Wow. Describing our service members as "hired guns" and "petty mercenaries"? Even if I didn't agree with the Iraq war, I still respect the hell out of our soldiers who were brave enough to enlist and fight in it, who came back and have to listen to ungrateful bullshit like you're spouting.

I don't. How did they help you? Keep you safer by droning the children on the other side of the world? Now, by contrast, how has snowden helped you? Oh right, he only exposed illegal government activity that directly affected you. Gelston is right. It's not even close.

[Androidpk]

Anyone that fights for this country is a hero in my book. You don't exactly get to choose where they send you.

I agree. I just don't agree with those wars being necessary for our national security or way of life. Snowden exposed the government shredding the constitution at will, throwing his life away in the process. That isn't the act of a coward. I know meat heads like Gelston have a hard time understanding the complexities of that.

[Gelston]

How has Snowden helped me? Oh, wait, he hasn't. He just broke some laws. The administration hasn't changed. The NSA hasn't changed. Nothing has changed, except that we have to look at the doucher's face all the time as he whines in Russia.


I agree. I just don't agree with those wars being necessary for our national security or way of life. Snowden exposed the government shredding the constitution at will, throwing his life away in the process. That isn't the act of a coward. I know meat heads like Gelston have a hard time understanding the complexities of that.

You think too much of him and it has driven you to intense Wrathbringer level retardation.

[Parkbandit]

Gelston is right. It's not even close.


Haha, you know you are wrong when this fucker is on your side.

I agree.

[Parkbandit]

I agree. I just don't agree with those wars being necessary for our national security or way of life. Snowden exposed the government shredding the constitution at will, throwing his life away in the process. That isn't the act of a coward. I know meat heads like Gelston have a hard time understanding the complexities of that.

So much irony in this post.

[Thondalar]

I agree. I just don't agree with those wars being necessary for our national security or way of life.

Most of me agrees with this, but a lot of me doesn't. It is one of the things I struggle with in finding where I really stand. On the one hand, I don't think we should be involved in the Middle East at all. On the other hand, it is being proactive in defense of our country...before 9/11 I would have been like "lol, those goat herders can't get past our Navy and Air Force, and even if they did they would have to deal with our Army, and armed populace, and blah blah". But they aren't fighting a traditional war. They aren't going to invade in force. They're going to set off a nuke in a major metropolitan area. They're going to bomb trains and airports. They're going to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers.

If we have to go over there and kill them first, or go over there to send a message that fucking with us = getting your country invaded, then so be it.


Snowden exposed the government shredding the constitution at will, throwing his life away in the process. That isn't the act of a coward. I know meat heads like Gelston have a hard time understanding the complexities of that.

I agree. But we don't need to insult the men and women who sign their lives over to defend our Nation to make some sort of point. They really aren't related.

[Thondalar]

I don't. How did they help you? Keep you safer by droning the children on the other side of the world?

They helped me when they signed the contract to fight for this Country. You can disagree with the government all you want, but blaming the soldier putting his neck on the line is just disgusting.

[Gelston]

They helped me when they signed the contract to fight for this Country. You can disagree with the government all you want, but blaming the soldier putting his neck on the line is just disgusting.

Nothing Wrathbringer says is true or indicative of his actual views.

[Parkbandit]

Nothing Wrathbringer says is true or indicative of his actual views.

http://b1coaching.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/winner-theme-1.gif

[Wrathbringer]

Most of me agrees with this, but a lot of me doesn't. It is one of the things I struggle with in finding where I really stand. On the one hand, I don't think we should be involved in the Middle East at all. On the other hand, it is being proactive in defense of our country...before 9/11 I would have been like "lol, those goat herders can't get past our Navy and Air Force, and even if they did they would have to deal with our Army, and armed populace, and blah blah". But they aren't fighting a traditional war. They aren't going to invade in force. They're going to set off a nuke in a major metropolitan area. They're going to bomb trains and airports. They're going to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers.

If we have to go over there and kill them first, or go over there to send a message that fucking with us = getting your country invaded, then so be it.



I agree. But we don't need to insult the men and women who sign their lives over to defend our Nation to make some sort of point. They really aren't related.

The Bush doctrine is a recipe for constant warring. We can't keep murdering everyone based upon what they might do someday.

[Gelston]

http://b1coaching.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/winner-theme-1.gif

Do I get the prize?

[Wrathbringer]

They helped me when they signed the contract to fight for this Country. You can disagree with the government all you want, but blaming the soldier putting his neck on the line is just disgusting.

Who else shall I blame for their misplaced loyalties? Do you cheer the Nazi army as well, just not Germany as a country?

[Androidpk]

Most of me agrees with this, but a lot of me doesn't. It is one of the things I struggle with in finding where I really stand. On the one hand, I don't think we should be involved in the Middle East at all. On the other hand, it is being proactive in defense of our country...before 9/11 I would have been like "lol, those goat herders can't get past our Navy and Air Force, and even if they did they would have to deal with our Army, and armed populace, and blah blah". But they aren't fighting a traditional war. They aren't going to invade in force. They're going to set off a nuke in a major metropolitan area. They're going to bomb trains and airports. They're going to fly passenger jets into skyscrapers.

If we have to go over there and kill them first, or go over there to send a message that fucking with us = getting your country invaded, then so be it.



I agree. But we don't need to insult the men and women who sign their lives over to defend our Nation to make some sort of point. They really aren't related.

Doesn't being over there pose a greater risk?

[Taernath]

Well, except the ones that were executed before a new state came into existence. Still, they didn't run away. They stood and fought. Snowden is not even a close comparison. He is a pussy that leaked information and then ran away.

The patriots were executed to maintain the status quo. If Washington were subjected to the British courts he would have been as well, which is what you're asking Snowden to do.

[Gelston]

The patriots were executed to maintain the status quo. If Washington were subjected to the British courts he would have been as well, which is what you're asking Snowden to do.

I'm asking Snowden to stand up for his beliefs instead of running away.

[Taernath]

I'm asking Snowden to stand up for his beliefs instead of running away.

He is though, but in a different way than Washington did. I think Snowden's arguments? beliefs? are more important than validating a sense of machismo.

[Gelston]

He is though, but in a different way than Washington did. I think Snowden's arguments? beliefs? are more important than validating a sense of machismo.

He isn't doing a damn thing but hiding out in Russia.

[Androidpk]

He isn't doing a damn thing but hiding out in Russia.

You're acting like the dude personally molested you.

[Warriorbird]

He isn't doing a damn thing but hiding out in Russia.

I'd rather hide in Russia than go to jail and maybe "suffer an accident."

[Gelston]

You're acting like the dude personally molested you.

You're acting like the dude personally gave you a hand job.

[Taernath]

He isn't doing a damn thing but hiding out in Russia.

He's keeping the issue in the media spotlight. If he never left he would have been tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison while the government continued doing what it does. Sometimes the gov't needs a spotlight shown on it.

[Tgo01]

He is more of a hero than those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is opposite day, right guys?

[Androidpk]

You're acting like the dude personally gave you a hand job.

He did.

[Tgo01]

I think it's amazing how pk manages to suck Snowden's dick while having it rammed up his ass at the same time. How do you do that?

[Taernath]

I think it's amazing how pk manages to suck Snowden's dick while having it rammed up his ass at the same time. How do you do that?

Law of Penile Superposition.

[Thondalar]

Who else shall I blame for their misplaced loyalties?

I fail to see how defending the Country is a misplaced loyalty.


Do you cheer the Nazi army as well, just not Germany as a country?

The guys fighting and dying in the trenches because their country told them to? Yes.

[Gelston]

He's keeping the issue in the media spotlight. If he never left he would have been tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison while the government continued doing what it does. Sometimes the gov't needs a spotlight shown on it.

Or the Government will continue doing what it is doing while Snowden reappears every once in a while on the news and then vanishes from the headlines again for 6 months.

[Androidpk]

I think it's amazing how pk manages to suck Snowden's dick while having it rammed up his ass at the same time. How do you do that?

Why are you asking? You're the expert on that sort of thing.

[Tgo01]

Why are you asking? You're the expert on that sort of thing.

http://boredomfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/dog-coat-markings-18.jpg

[ForWhatItsWorth]

Some things have changed Gelston. Albeit not as much as I would like, but it takes time. The DEA shut down their Mass Surveillance program due to Snowden (or at least they are hiding it better)

[Gelston]

Some things have changed Gelston. Albeit not as much as I would like, but it takes time. The DEA shut down their Mass Surveillance program due to Snowden (or at least they are hiding it better)

Here, let me point at something in that.

[Tgo01]

If the government stopped doing things once the public became aware of it then a lot of things would be gone.

It's pretty naive to think the government is going to stop spying on people just because this Snowden jackass released some information then fled to Russia like a pussy.

People calling Snowden a hero? Really? You're putting him up there with the likes of MLK and Gandhi? Men who knew their lives were put into danger for speaking out and yet stayed around anyways because they believed their message was more important than their life?

Hey, it's fine if Snowden wants to be a little pussy and run to Russia, not everyone is cut out to be courageous, but stop calling him a hero and pull his cock out of your ass.

[Taernath]

If the government stopped doing things once the public became aware of it then a lot of things would be gone.

It's pretty naive to think the government is going to stop spying on people just because this Snowden jackass released some information then fled to Russia like a pussy.

I don't think it's going to stop surveillance, but it makes it harder for the government to do it and makes the public more aware. I think that's a Good Thing™


People calling Snowden a hero? Really? You're putting him up there with the likes of MLK and Gandhi? Men who knew their lives were put into danger for speaking out and yet stayed around anyways because they believed their message was more important than their life?


Heroism isn't a binary scale, from Gandhi to Literally Worse Than Hitler.

[Gelston]

I don't think it's going to stop surveillance, but it makes it harder for the government to do it and makes the public more aware. I think that's a Good Thing™



Heroism isn't a binary scale, from Gandhi to Literally Worse Than Hitler.

Yes it is.

[Tgo01]

Heroism isn't a binary scale, from Gandhi to Literally Worse Than Hitler.

Yes it is. You're either Gandhi, Hitler, or in between those two. Nothing else.

[Gelston]

Yes it is. You're either Gandhi, Hitler, or in between those two. Nothing else.

PolPot could be worse than Hitler, he had less people to work with though.

[Wrathbringer]

I fail to see how defending the Country is a misplaced loyalty.



The guys fighting and dying in the trenches because their country told them to? Yes.

Why? I personally respect people for free and critical thinking skills rather than blind obedience to the bitter end regardless of the repercussions on behalf of the highest bidder in order to further their own ends. I find that the former contribute more to positives society and the latter, more deaths to society. Make no mistake, what we've been doing in the middle east since 2001 is not a "strong national defense." It's a "bullying national offense", and I make no distinction between those giving the orders and the mindless zombie goons carrying them out. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[waywardgs]

That's Snowden's claim. Legal experts don't agree with his assertion that contractors are magically exempted by the law.

See WaPo's Glenn Kessler on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/12/edward-snowdens-claim-that-as-a-contractor-he-had-no-proper-channels-for-protection-as-a-whistleblower/

Edit: I should clarify that there are numerous avenues for bringing concerns to the attentions of superiors, or even directly to Congress. If you're specifically looking for exemptions to laws forbidding the illegal disclosure of classified information (i.e., the Espionage Act of the early 1900's), there aren't any. Those avenues exist to prevent the disclosure. In a trial, he'd have to depend on jury nullification in an affirmative defense.



And what, pray tell, is your rational basis for asserting that he couldn't get a fair trial? He violated numerous laws--that isn't in question, and isn't disputed by Snowden. He seems to think the nature of his disclosures should make him immune to prosecution (and they don't), and the nature of his disclosures hasn't brought about any change in policy.

Others in his shoes tried and got nowhere. Hell, superiors of his tried and got nowhere.

[waywardgs]

Yes it is. You're either Gandhi, Hitler, or in between those two. Nothing else.

Gandhi was a prick in his own right.

[Latrinsorm]

He was using Gandhi as the "worse than Hitler" option, obviously.

[Thondalar]

Why? I personally respect people for free and critical thinking skills rather than blind obedience to the bitter end...

These things don't have to be mutually exclusive. While a fair few "sign up" just to kill people, psych evals sort out most of that...not saying some can't slip through the cracks, but I have found that basing broad statements on the minority faction fairs poorly. The soldier doesn't know if he's going to be called for up for a war that is valid or not, the politicians handle that. He signs on to defend his country. I respect the hell out of that.


...regardless of the repercussions on behalf of the highest bidder in order to further their own ends.

This moves in to some conspiracy theory type shit...I've always been of the opinion that there isn't really anything hiding...there's no mystery. What we have now is exactly the military-industrial complex Jefferson warned us about. If people choose to be oblivious to it, there isn't really much you can do about it. If you're referring to us going to Iraq/Middle East in general, your argument is fundamentally flawed in the fact that we didn't annex an ounce of oil, we didn't try to take over anything...as we have done since WW1, we went out of our way to return all of these economic and strategic resources to the people who live there. Private companies may have attempted to move in and do some dirt, but that's just international business.


I find that the former contribute more to positives society and the latter, more deaths to society.

Hrmm...a few ways to look at this.

First off, thoughts...ideas...we are driven by our own morality, in one way or another. There is no generally accepted benchmark. Some cultures believe this, some believe that. Humans across the globe are capable of terrible acts in support of what they think is right. Your statement is fundamentally flawed in that the thinkers are rarely the ones who actually fire the bullets...so of course the latter contributes more to deaths. The latter is always directed by the former, though.

Secondly, you really are comparing apples to oranges. The worker bees think they're doing what needs to be done for the betterment of the hive. I joined the Navy not because I wanted to kill people, or because I wanted to invade foreign countries, but because I wanted to defend my country. You accept the downside of the fact that in doing so, you may need to go somewhere you don't want to go, and fight people you don't want to fight...this doesn't automatically preclude you from being a sensible person. Unless you're willing to make a blanket statement as to the hopes and desires of every enlisted man and woman, you have no grounds on which to judge them.


Make no mistake, what we've been doing in the middle east since 2001 is not a "strong national defense." It's a "bullying national offense"...

So be it. I referenced this earlier as one of the two scenarios that I'm ok with. Fuck with us, we fuck with you harder.

If we had any sort of measurable thing that we got out of it, I would probably change my view. But we don't. We don't own any Iraqi oil fields. We haven't taken over anything in Afghanistan. I'm ok with that.

If we were raiding for resources, I'd be a bit pissed off. That isn't what my country should be doing. We have enough of our own. What you should be focused on is no-bid contracts, billions of wasted tax-payer dollars on failed projects with basically no oversight, career senators who move these projects along to placate their constituency and the rest of America be damned...


...and I make no distinction between those giving the orders and the mindless zombie goons carrying them out.

Well, you should. We don't know what the future brings. If you sign up to defend this country, to (potentially) give your life over in defense of this country, you don't know if it is going to come in the form of defending Alaska against a Russian invasion, or flying out to Afghanistan to bomb villages. We're both making assumptions here...I'm assuming the people who make it through MEPS and basic are doing so for the express intent of serving in the defense of their country. You're assuming that everyone who does so should tell their CO to fuck off if they don't like where they're being sent.

I respect the hell out of the men and women who sign up for defense of this country. If you have a problem with where they go after that, take it up with the politicians, not them.

[Wrathbringer]

These things don't have to be mutually exclusive. While a fair few "sign up" just to kill people, psych evals sort out most of that...not saying some can't slip through the cracks, but I have found that basing broad statements on the minority faction fairs poorly. The soldier doesn't know if he's going to be called for up for a war that is valid or not, the politicians handle that. He signs on to defend his country. I respect the hell out of that.



This moves in to some conspiracy theory type shit...I've always been of the opinion that there isn't really anything hiding...there's no mystery. What we have now is exactly the military-industrial complex Jefferson warned us about. If people choose to be oblivious to it, there isn't really much you can do about it. If you're referring to us going to Iraq/Middle East in general, your argument is fundamentally flawed in the fact that we didn't annex an ounce of oil, we didn't try to take over anything...as we have done since WW1, we went out of our way to return all of these economic and strategic resources to the people who live there. Private companies may have attempted to move in and do some dirt, but that's just international business.



Hrmm...a few ways to look at this.

First off, thoughts...ideas...we are driven by our own morality, in one way or another. There is no generally accepted benchmark. Some cultures believe this, some believe that. Humans across the globe are capable of terrible acts in support of what they think is right. Your statement is fundamentally flawed in that the thinkers are rarely the ones who actually fire the bullets...so of course the latter contributes more to deaths. The latter is always directed by the former, though.

Secondly, you really are comparing apples to oranges. The worker bees think they're doing what needs to be done for the betterment of the hive. I joined the Navy not because I wanted to kill people, or because I wanted to invade foreign countries, but because I wanted to defend my country. You accept the downside of the fact that in doing so, you may need to go somewhere you don't want to go, and fight people you don't want to fight...this doesn't automatically preclude you from being a sensible person. Unless you're willing to make a blanket statement as to the hopes and desires of every enlisted man and woman, you have no grounds on which to judge them.



So be it. I referenced this earlier as one of the two scenarios that I'm ok with. Fuck with us, we fuck with you harder.

If we had any sort of measurable thing that we got out of it, I would probably change my view. But we don't. We don't own any Iraqi oil fields. We haven't taken over anything in Afghanistan. I'm ok with that.

If we were raiding for resources, I'd be a bit pissed off. That isn't what my country should be doing. We have enough of our own. What you should be focused on is no-bid contracts, billions of wasted tax-payer dollars on failed projects with basically no oversight, career senators who move these projects along to placate their constituency and the rest of America be damned...



Well, you should. We don't know what the future brings. If you sign up to defend this country, to (potentially) give your life over in defense of this country, you don't know if it is going to come in the form of defending Alaska against a Russian invasion, or flying out to Afghanistan to bomb villages. We're both making assumptions here...I'm assuming the people who make it through MEPS and basic are doing so for the express intent of serving in the defense of their country. You're assuming that everyone who does so should tell their CO to fuck off if they don't like where they're being sent.

I respect the hell out of the men and women who sign up for defense of this country. If you have a problem with where they go after that, take it up with the politicians, not them.

You apparently give them a pass because politicians. I say every adult is responsible for their own actions. "But he told me to!" is an excuse 5 year olds use. There is a reason we hunted down the ss; Because they were as guilty as Hitler. Tell me again how much you respect the Nazi troops for carrying out their orders. Stop listening to the propaganda. Not everything the zombies do is honorable and worthy of respect just because murica.

[Thondalar]

You apparently give them a pass because politicians.

"give them a pass"? Really? No. I trust that their intent is genuine, and what happens after that is politicians, if anything.


I say every adult is responsible for their own actions. "But he told me to!" is an excuse 5 year olds use.

I totally agree. If you can't draw a distinction between the alpha male in kindergarten and the Unites States military...I'm not sure I can help you.


There is a reason we hunted down the ss; Because they were as guilty as Hitler.

The SS? Certainly. How many grunts did we hunt down?


Tell me again how much you respect the Nazi troops for carrying out their orders. Stop listening to the propaganda. Not everything the zombies do is honorable and worthy of respect just because murica.

In this case, my friend, it is YOU that needs to stop listening to the propaganda.

We have been on the same side more often than not. I'm very quick to point out the hypocrisy in our Government; the pure idiocy we maintain because 'Murica. This is not that. "The zombies" don't sign up to be such, they sign up to fight in defense of our Country. Unfortunately, they have no realistic option after that point to do anything else. They don't choose to go to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Africa, or wherever the fuck else they get sent.

You're assuming they sign on under false pretense; I'm assuming they sign on with good intentions and are stuck after that.

[Androidpk]

>You're assuming they sign on under false pretense; I'm assuming they sign on with good intentions and are stuck after that.

You're both right. There are a number of reasons why people join the military. Some want to travel. Some want a free education. Some people join because of their ideals. Some join to avoid going to jail. Some join to pick up combat training tbat they can use in whatever gang they're in. This is why I say simply enlisting doesn't make one a heroe.

[Thondalar]

You're both right. There are a number of reasons why people join the military. Some want to travel. Some want a free education. Some people join because of their ideals. Some join to avoid going to jail. Some join to pick up combat training tbat they can use in whatever gang they're in. This is why I say simply enlisting doesn't make one a hero.

When I went through MEPS, the evals were pretty extensive. I'm not saying some can't slip through, or that some don't, but...regardless of the reason you join, you join knowing that you will most likely get sent somewhere you don't want to be, fighting someone you don't want to fight, and possibly dying in that scenario.

simply enlisting is something that the vast majority of citizens will never do. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that if ever a time were to come that the US mainland was ever invaded, the rank-and-file citizens (led by those gun-toting "loonies" the left likes to pick on) would put on such an epic guerilla fight that it wouldn't even matter what the Army did. I'm not discounting the fighting spirit of Average Joe American...quite the opposite.

While I'm sure there are people who join with those intentions, Androidpk, I'm also willing to bet that most of them get weeded out, and/or buy in to it after they complete basic. Is every soldier a hero? Of course not. If that is the basis for your argument, you should understand the two or three logical fallacies attached.

[Androidpk]

I suppose I'm just highly critical of that whole thing. Joining the military is certainly a noble move and I have a great amount of respect for those that serve, regardless of where they are sent to fight.

[Latrinsorm]

billions of wasted tax-payer dollars on failed projects with basically no oversightFor example, the war in Iraq?

[Androidpk]

For example, the war in Iraq?

Iraq was trillions.

[waywardgs]

Iraq was trillions.

It's ok, Halliburton cleaned up.

[Androidpk]

It's ok, Halliburton cleaned up.

I love the smell of crony capitalism in the morning.

[Wrathbringer]

When I went through MEPS, the evals were pretty extensive. I'm not saying some can't slip through, or that some don't, but...regardless of the reason you join, you join knowing that you will most likely get sent somewhere you don't want to be, fighting someone you don't want to fight, and possibly dying in that scenario.

That's the point. They do it anyway, whether it's wrong or not. Respect the baby killers if you want. I served. I know what it's like.

[Thondalar]

For example, the war in Iraq?

I'm speaking specifically, in this case, about the things going on constantly regardless of which actual country we're fighting with at the moment. I find this to be something that most people could get behind, regardless of political affiliation, if they 1) actually knew what was really going on, and 2) approached the situation logically.

Unfortunately most are oblivious to one, and rarely do two.

[Thondalar]

That's the point. They do it anyway, whether it's wrong or not. Respect the baby killers if you want. I served. I know what it's like.

So you're lashing out because of your self-pity over all the babies you've killed?

[Latrinsorm]

I'm speaking specifically, in this case, about the things going on constantly regardless of which actual country we're fighting with at the moment. I find this to be something that most people could get behind, regardless of political affiliation, if they 1) actually knew what was really going on, and 2) approached the situation logically.

Unfortunately most are oblivious to one, and rarely do two.Okay. What does logic tell us, specifically?

[JackWhisper]

Okay. What does logic tell us, specifically?

Logic tells us to wonder why you're searching for logic on PC.

This comment is totally unassociated with this conversation. I just had to point that out.

[Thondalar]

Okay. What does logic tell us, specifically?

To not throw good money after bad? To not create situations that foster corruption? To not support systems where cronyism is superior to equal competition?

[Wrathbringer]

So you're lashing out because of your self-pity over all the babies you've killed?

Nah, that wasn't my fault because politicians. ;)

[Latrinsorm]

To not throw good money after bad? To not create situations that foster corruption? To not support systems where cronyism is superior to equal competition?I will rephrase. You are for the War on Iraq and against the War on Drugs. Both cost huge amounts of money, both have produced questionable results, and while I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "no oversight" I see no difference in that category either. How, logically, do you hold both of these contrasting positions?

And because I assume you will opt for a deflection instead of examining your own position, we should get it out of the way now that I personally am for both Wars, and have been so under both of the last two Presidents.

[Thondalar]

I will rephrase. You are for the War on Iraq and against the War on Drugs. Both cost huge amounts of money, both have produced questionable results, and while I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "no oversight" I see no difference in that category either. How, logically, do you hold both of these contrasting positions?

The war in Iraq was mismanaged. The war on drugs should have never happened in the first place. I'm against the war on drugs because I don't feel drugs should be illegal. As far as supporting the war in Iraq, as I stated in my other post, I'm a bit torn. Part of me believes we should be involved, and part of me believes we shouldn't. Overall, I side with the camp that says we should, but only just.



And because I assume you will opt for a deflection instead of examining your own position...

Since when do I do that?


...we should get it out of the way now that I personally am for both Wars, and have been so under both of the last two Presidents.

I already knew that. So?

[Latrinsorm]

Well, you just did. :D The question was how you reconcile your list of criteria applying equally well to both programs. You had a set of objective criteria and exhorted us to think logically, but switched to "I don't feel" with no hesitation. You get the dissonance there, right?

[Thondalar]

Well, you just did. :D The question was how you reconcile your list of criteria applying equally well to both programs. You had a set of objective criteria and exhorted us to think logically, but switched to "I don't feel" with no hesitation. You get the dissonance there, right?

No, I don't. I object to the "war on drugs" on moral grounds. I don't "reconcile my list of criteria applying equally well to both programs" because they don't apply equally. You're the one attempting to apply them equally; I never made any such claim.

It's like you're not even trying anymore. :(

[drauz]

Just out of curiousity. What are peoples reasoning behind being for the War on Drugs?

[Tgo01]

Just out of curiousity. What are peoples reasoning behind being for the War on Drugs?

Forgive him father, he knows not the Latrinsorm wrath he has brought on us all.

[drauz]

Sorry I work a 12 hr night shift and have way to much time to kill.

[tyrant-201]

Sorry I work a 12 hr night shift and have way to much time to kill.

No need to apologize. Latrin will soon sate thy curiosity, full with statistics and charts and graphs and everything one could hope for.

[drauz]

Yay! It'll be like a picture book! Don't let me down Latrine.

[Latrinsorm]

No, I don't. I object to the "war on drugs" on moral grounds. I don't "reconcile my list of criteria applying equally well to both programs" because they don't apply equally. You're the one attempting to apply them equally; I never made any such claim. It's like you're not even trying anymore. :(Your claim was "What you should be focused on is billions of wasted tax-payer dollars on failed projects with basically no oversight."
The war in Iraq cost billions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) of dollars.
The result of the war in Iraq is clearly a failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant).
The oversight on that project was questionable (http://www.wired.com/2013/03/iraq-waste/) at best.

That you didn't say the criteria apply just as well to Iraq is the whole point of a reductio ad absurdum. I take your reasoning and show how it leads to a conclusion that you disagree with. If you want to be logical, you must dispute one of the premises (the cost, result, or oversight of the war) or renounce the reasoning. You could for example specify some extenuating factor that applies to the war in Iraq but not any of the projects you personally don't support, and we could see whether that was true. You're instead relying on your self-belief: that you are logical, so if a position wasn't logical you wouldn't support it.
Just out of curiousity. What are peoples reasoning behind being for the War on Drugs?1. No law is expected to entirely eliminate a practice.
2. An item should in general be made illegal for the inherent and/or intended risks it poses.
3. While death is generally accepted as the most severe trauma, it does not follow that an item that causes death in 1 per 1,000,000,000 cases is more dangerous than an item that causes (e.g.) blindness in 1 per 10. Put another way, death is not infinitely severe.
4. Currently illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.) are more inherently dangerous than any currently legal drug except tobacco.
Therefore...
Those drugs that are currently illegal should remain so, and tobacco should be added to their list, which we are clearly in the process of doing so yay.

.

Obviously there are a lot of ancillary points to be made, such as prison reform (and really an overhaul of the entire justice system), international politics (ditto for the system of nations), and mental health reform, but those need to be made regardless of the War on Drugs.

[ForWhatItsWorth]

2. An item should in general be made illegal for the inherent and/or intended risks it poses.


Seems a ridiculous way of deciding legality. Think the risk and/or intended risk it poses TO OTHERS would be more appropriate.

[waywardgs]

Death from automobile accidents are 1 per 10,000. I've been saying we should ban cars for years now.

[Latrinsorm]

If you like. I submit that the distinction is irrelevant and thus the extra words are unnecessary. Suppose you have dependent children and I cause you to suffer. Surely I have caused your children to suffer as well, right? Try and describe the circumstances under which you can bring harm to yourself without bringing harm to anyone else, and I think you will find in favor of my position.

[ForWhatItsWorth]

Where do you draw the line? You can cause harm to your children watching Honey Boo boo. Yelling at your wife. Feeding them McDonalds..

[tyrant-201]

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


Sorry, but there's plenty of legal shit more harmful than pot.

[Latrinsorm]

Death from automobile accidents are 1 per 10,000. I've been saying we should ban cars for years now.Fatal crashes are not inherent to driving a car. These risks are only as high as you say because people drive too fast (which is illegal) or drive impaired (ditto) or in other unsafe fashion: no seatbelt, etc. As enforcement of those laws has begun and/or increased, the risk of death you cite has gone down. 1 per 10,000 is in fact the lowest death rate since 1919 even though 60 times as many miles are driven compared to that year.

Legislation works. :)

[Latrinsorm]

Where do you draw the line? You can cause harm to your children watching Honey Boo boo. Yelling at your wife. Feeding them McDonalds..The line drawn is absolutely arbitrary, and I feel like it's in a good spot right now. I would push it to be a little more conservative, for example I strongly support lowering the BAC level for DUI to .05, but about where it is is good.
Sorry, but there's plenty of legal shit more harmful than pot.Feel free to name one. :)

[Androidpk]

Tylenol

[tyrant-201]

Alcohol.

[Tgo01]

Feel free to name one. :)

GemStone IV!

[Latrinsorm]

The rate of death for alcohol is between 10 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6353a2.htm?s_cid=mm6353a2_w) and 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/causes_of_death#sthash.7ZlhlT7N.dpbs) per 1,000,000 depending on whom you ask. I can find less information about Tylenol but it's in the same range (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/tylenol-overdose_n_3976991.html).

Anything else?

[tyrant-201]

The rate of death for alcohol is between 10 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6353a2.htm?s_cid=mm6353a2_w) and 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/causes_of_death#sthash.7ZlhlT7N.dpbs) per 1,000,000 depending on whom you ask. I can find less information about Tylenol but it's in the same range (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/tylenol-overdose_n_3976991.html).

Anything else?

What's the rate of death for marijuana?

You're talking about straight up alcohol poisoning. Alcohol has an effect on long term abuse, as well, which would drive your numbers up.

I don't know how you can argue that alcohol is less harmful than pot.

[Tgo01]

What's the rate of death for marijuana?

You're talking about straight up alcohol poisoning. Alcohol has an effect on long term abuse, as well, which would drive your numbers up.

I don't know how you can argue that alcohol is less harmful than pot.

Psychosis!

[Gelston]

Death from automobile accidents are 1 per 10,000. I've been saying we should ban cars for years now.

In middle income countries, it is 10 per 10,000.

[elcidcannon]

The rate of death for alcohol is between 10 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6353a2.htm?s_cid=mm6353a2_w) and 1 (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/causes_of_death#sthash.7ZlhlT7N.dpbs) per 1,000,000 depending on whom you ask. I can find less information about Tylenol but it's in the same range (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/tylenol-overdose_n_3976991.html).

Anything else?

Let's ask the CDC (not pigeon-holed to just alcohol poisoning and liver disease)!
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

[Androidpk]

Let's ask the CDC (not pigeon-holed to just alcohol poisoning and liver disease)!
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

So almost a half million people dead in that time frame due to excessive alcohol use. Yeah, alcohol is totally safer than marijuana!

[elcidcannon]

Fun fact: the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana.

[Gelston]

It will be 100% mortality rate when my Government takes over and executes anyone that smokes pot.

[Warriorbird]

It will be 100% mortality rate when my Government takes over and executes anyone that smokes pot.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/4/49/Caesar_and_guards.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110114234811

[Gelston]

Yes, Caesar's Legion.

[Taernath]

I bet Caesar would have been all over medicinal marijuana for his tumor.

[Gelston]

I bet Caesar would have been all over medicinal marijuana for his tumor.

It's not a tumah.

[elcidcannon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBICj64ak0k

[Latrinsorm]

What's the rate of death for marijuana?Zero. Please see point (3).
You're talking about straight up alcohol poisoning. Alcohol has an effect on long term abuse, as well, which would drive your numbers up.One of the links includes those, I believe, though I could be mistaken. You're free to cite numbers of your own, though! :)
I don't know how you can argue that alcohol is less harmful than pot.Because it is factually true. :D
Let's ask the CDC (not pigeon-holed to just alcohol poisoning and liver disease)!I didn't pigeon hole anything. Legal use of alcohol has a certain risk. Illegal use of alcohol is irrelevant, because I am not advocating for those behaviors (e.g. drunk driving, homicide) to be legalized. This is the same way that I do not advocate for glue to be made illegal because some people abuse it. The difference is that there is no "use" with marijuana, no safe way to ingest it. Only ab-use. If you drink one glass of wine a day and do not drive etc., you do not suffer health risks beyond the (arbitrary) level that we have declared legal. If you smoke one joint a day, you do.

[waywardgs]

This topic sucks.

In fact, the rate of suckage for this topic is 10,000 per 10,000.

[Tgo01]

Latrin, do you remember that one thread where you were...my memory is a bit fuzzy on this...but you were defending religious people who are against gay marriage because they really felt they were trying to save them from themselves by ensuring they get into heaven? Remember that thread?

Good times. Good times.

[elcidcannon]

Can you define "illegal use of alcohol"?

I say you can use alcohol in any way you wish. There is beer, wine or liquor. You can drink it, put it in an IV, or pump it up your butt. You can have a sip or you can chug from a keg while being held upside down by your friends. I can't think of an illegal way to use alcohol. Neither abstinence nor drinking moderately nor drinking to excess are illegal.



I don't know how you can argue that alcohol is less harmful than pot.
Because it is factually true.

Unless I missed it, you've failed to provide anything to the contrary.

[Gelston]

Can you define "illegal use of alcohol"?

I say you can use alcohol in any way you wish. There is beer, wine or liquor. You can drink it, put it in an IV, or pump it up your butt. You can have a sip or you can chug from a keg while being held upside down by your friends. I can't think of an illegal way to use alcohol. Neither abstinence nor drinking moderately nor drinking to excess are illegal.



Unless I missed it, you've failed to provide anything to the contrary.

If you are under the legal age, driving, operating heavy machinery, etc you are using it illegally.

[elcidcannon]

If you are under the legal age, driving, operating heavy machinery, etc you are using it illegally.

I would argue that you're driving/operating machinery illegally, not using alcohol illegally. That's why the crime is technically "Driving/Operating/Boating Under the Influence" or "Driving While Intoxicated" vice "Drinking While Driving" or "Being Intoxicated while Driving."

The offense is driving....while drunk, not being drunk.....then driving, if that makes sense lol.

--

Drinking underage, I have to agree to. That is using alcohol illegally.

[Gelston]

I would argue that you're driving/operating machinery illegally, not using alcohol illegally. That's why the crime is technically "Driving/Operating/Boating Under the Influence" or "Driving While Intoxicated" vice "Drinking While Driving" or "Being Intoxicated while Driving."

The offense is driving....while drunk, not being drunk.....then driving, if that makes sense lol.

--

Drinking underage, I have to agree to. That is using alcohol illegally.

Open container is illegal. Drinking while driving is illegal. Sitting in the passenger seat and drinking is illegal.

Drinking in public in unauthorized areas is illegal also.

[Tgo01]

Performing surgery while drunk is probably illegal too. If not it should be.

[elcidcannon]

Open container is illegal.
Open container, in the context of this discussion, has nothing to do with alcohol use. You can be perfectly sober, not drinking, and and still get a fine for open container, although you can imagine the law is made to prevent someone from driving while intoxicated.


Drinking while driving is illegal.
You might have missed the whole point of my previous post.


Sitting in the passenger seat and drinking is illegal.
Not really. See open container. Everyone in a vehicle is culpable for open container, not just the driver. It's not illegal to be drunk, or drinking, and be a passenger in a car.


Drinking in public in unauthorized areas is illegal also.
Hmm. Yeah. I'll give you that one, too.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin, do you remember that one thread where you were...my memory is a bit fuzzy on this...but you were defending religious people who are against gay marriage because they really felt they were trying to save them from themselves by ensuring they get into heaven? Remember that thread? Good times. Good times.I don't remember that, but I do think it's a good description of the character of their motivation vs. the common accusation of "you hate gays". It's not relevant in law, obviously, because of the First Amendment.
I would argue that you're driving/operating machinery illegally, not using alcohol illegally.In the same way that both the car and the alcohol cause drunk driving deaths, a drunk driver is using both illegally.
Unless I missed it, you've failed to provide anything to the contrary.Marijuana causes schizophrenia at the rate of 5 per 1000, a figure so much greater than the death rates we've been talking about that we have to take it seriously as a higher risk. The most comprehensive treatment I have seen on the topic is by Hall (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/abstract), but for some reason that article goes in and out of paywall. Let me know if it's behind one for you. If not, please note the longitudinal nature of the studies compiled and especially Zammit's (#92) list of controls.

[Warriorbird]

Marijuana causes schizophrenia at the rate of 5 per 1000.

It's funny when one can identify the point you shifted from rationality to crusade.

[drauz]

I don't remember that, but I do think it's a good description of the character of their motivation vs. the common accusation of "you hate gays". It's not relevant in law, obviously, because of the First Amendment.In the same way that both the car and the alcohol cause drunk driving deaths, a drunk driver is using both illegally.Marijuana causes schizophrenia at the rate of 5 per 1000, a figure so much greater than the death rates we've been talking about that we have to take it seriously as a higher risk. The most comprehensive treatment I have seen on the topic is by Hall (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12703/abstract), but for some reason that article goes in and out of paywall. Let me know if it's behind one for you. If not, please note the longitudinal nature of the studies compiled and especially Zammit's (#92) list of controls.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schizophrenia/63148.html

It doesn't cause schizophrenia.

There no way it should still be a schedule 1 drug. Schedule 1 means it has zero medical benefit, but there are many promising studies being done that show it could help people with chronic seizures. It is worse than cocaine and on par with heroin in the governments eyes. It should be made legal with the same restrictions as alcohol.

How do you compare a drug that has no physical addiction (marijuana) and a drug that can develop severe physical addiction (alcohol withdrawal can literally kill you)? You say alcohol is worse, what do you base this off of? Marijuana as someone stated doesn't even have a death category associated with it. It is literally the least harmful drug you can use to become intoxicated. You say you've done your research but I don't think you've done much of any.

At the end of the day it just sound like you really want the government to hold your hand and tell you what you can and can't do to yourself.

[Tgo01]

It doesn't cause schizophrenia.

You done it now, boy.

[Androidpk]

It.. it doesn't cause psychosis? I want a refund!

[Fallen]

Fun fact, drinking while pregnant isn't illegal. Also, while the subject is still debated, no amount of alcohol is considered safe for pregnant women by many organizations, including the CDC. Alcohol is more dangerous for pregnant women than cannabis. It is also considered dangerous for sexually active women not on birth control to drink as they may become pregnant without knowing it.

"There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44). [1 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html#1)] About 43 million of them (70%) are at risk of unintended pregnancy—that is, they are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method correctly and consistently."

"There is no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy or while trying to get pregnant. There is also no safe time during pregnancy to drink. All types of alcohol are equally harmful, including all wines and beer. When a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, so does her baby." - CDC

So, no amount of alcohol is reportedly safe for millions of women. Yet it's still legal. Fun times.

The face of our safe, legal drug:

http://byebyedoctor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/noonan-syndrome.jpg


"Adults (ages 18+): 16.6 million adults ages 18 and older (7.0 percent of this age group) had an AUD in 2013" - NIH

7% of adults who drink had an Alcohol Use Disorder.

Some of the fun things these 7% of of people have to look forward to: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Hangovers/beyondHangovers.pdf

Of those 7%, 88,000 faced death as a consequence of their drinking, in 1 year.

[elcidcannon]

In the same way that both the car and the alcohol cause drunk driving deaths, a drunk driver is using both illegally.

I don't think that's a valid comparison at all. You can be perfectly in your legal privilege to be drunk, but you break the law once you operate a car.


Marijuana causes schizophrenia at the rate of 5 per 1000, a figure so much greater than the death rates we've been talking about that we have to take it seriously as a higher risk.

You're kidding right? I would say 999 out of 1000 cases result in schizophrenia....and the 1 is pissed off because everyone is high and he's not. That's pretty much the whole damn point of smoking dope! (Besides the medical benefits)

[drauz]

You're kidding right? I would say 999 out of 1000 cases result in schizophrenia....and the 1 is pissed off because everyone is high and he's not. That's pretty much the whole damn point of smoking dope! (Besides the medical benefits)

I don't think that means what you think it means.

[Androidpk]

LOL at latrin maintaining that schizophrenia is a worse fate than death.

[elcidcannon]

I don't think that means what you think it means.

People may experience:
Behavioral: disorganized behavior, agitation, lack of restraint, social isolation, repetitive movements, aggression, excitability, self-harm, compulsive behavior, hostility, nonsense word repetition, or hyperactivity
Cognitive: mental confusion, belief that thoughts aren't one's own, disorientation, belief that an ordinary event has special and personal meaning, false belief of superiority, delusion, amnesia, thought disorder, making things up, memory loss, or slowness in activity and thought
Psychological: persecutory delusion, hallucination, religious delusion, anxiety, fear, mistrust, depression, paranoia, or hearing voices
Mood: excitement, anger, inappropriate emotional response, elevated mood, general discontent, inability to feel pleasure, apathy, or feeling detached from self
Speech: rapid and frenzied speaking, speech impairment, incoherent speech, or circumstantial speech
Also common: lack of emotional response, impaired motor coordination, or fatigue

[Androidpk]

Aggression and hostility?? :lol:

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure what's worse; Latrin likening marijuana to the devil or pk literally ignoring any negative side effects that have been proven from marijuana usage.

[Androidpk]

I'm not sure what's worse; Latrin likening marijuana to the devil or pk literally ignoring any negative side effects that have been proven from marijuana usage.

Wrong.

[Tgo01]

Wrong.

You're right, you're not ignoring the negative side effects, you just downplay them or insist they are wrong. My bad!

[Androidpk]

You're right, you're not ignoring the negative side effects, you just downplay them or insist they are wrong. My bad!

Wrong again.

[Tgo01]

Wrong again.

Right, your earlier comment wasn't you implying that you find it laughable that marijuana could cause aggression or hostility.

[tyrant-201]

Right, your earlier comment wasn't you implying that you find it laughable that marijuana could cause aggression or hostility.

I'm a huge supporter of medical/legal marijuana, but I've been around it enough to know that it can cause this sort of adverse reaction in some people.

But insinuating that alcohol is less harmful is laughable *peers at Latrin*

[Androidpk]

Right, your earlier comment wasn't you implying that you find it laughable that marijuana could cause aggression or hostility.

Oh it is laughable all right but I most certainly do not ignore the negative side effects of marijuana. Not even literally, Captain Hyperbole.

[Tgo01]

I'm a huge supporter of medical/legal marijuana, but I've been around it enough to know that it can cause this sort of adverse reaction in some people.

Exactly. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana also but I think the people who insist that all negative side effects of marijuana are made up/some conspiracy then go on to say shit like marjiuana cures cancer do more harm than good for the legalize movement.

[Tgo01]

Oh it is laughable all right but I most certainly do not ignore the negative side effects of marijuana. Not even literally, Captain Hyperbole.

At least I don't talk out of mouth sides of my ass. You aren't even making sense with this post.

[Androidpk]

Exactly. I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana also but I think the people who insist that all negative side effects of marijuana are made up/some conspiracy then go on to say shit like marjiuana cures cancer do more harm than good for the legalize movement.

It can kill cancer and research has proven it.

[Androidpk]

At least I don't talk out of mouth sides of my ass. You aren't even making sense with this post.

Irony.

[Tgo01]

It can kill cancer and research has proven it.

pk, the polar opposite of Latrin when it comes to the legalize marijuana debate, but still just as absurd.

[Androidpk]

pk, the polar opposite of Latrin when it comes to the legalize marijuana debate, but still just as absurd.

Science is absurd now? Even the US government admitted that THC can halt cancerous growths and shrink tumors. Studies out of Israel, who have been researching medicinal cannabis for years now, have shown the same thing. Stop being stupid Tgo, no one is impressed.

[Tgo01]

Science is absurd now? Even the US government admitted that THC can halt cancerous growths and shrink tumors. Studies out of Israel, who have been researching medicinal cannabis for years now, have shown the same thing. Stop being stupid Tgo, no one is impressed.

Stopping the growth of tumors or even shrinking them is not the same thing as curing cancer. Do you even know what cancer is?

Here is what the American Cancer Society says about marijuana and cancer:

While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease.

But I'm sure ACS is in cahoots with big pharmacy.

[Gelston]

Stopping the growth of tumors or even shrinking them is not the same thing as curing cancer. Do you even know what cancer is?

Here is what the American Cancer Society says about marijuana and cancer:

While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease.

But I'm sure ACS is in cahoots with big pharmacy.

stfu, the ACS doesn't know wtf it is talking about. Bunch of cancer n00bs.

[Androidpk]

And while Tgo is carpet bombing threads with his usual bullshit people are successfully treating their cancer with cannabis.

[Tgo01]

And while Tgo is carpet bombing threads with his usual bullshit people are successfully treating their cancer with cannabis.

Please provide one link where someone cured their cancer with just marijuana. Please note some actual proof would be nice; not some moron claiming to be cancer free after smoking a joint and this person just so happens to be a huge advocate of legalizing marijuana.

[drauz]

People may experience:
Behavioral: disorganized behavior, agitation, lack of restraint, social isolation, repetitive movements, aggression, excitability, self-harm, compulsive behavior, hostility, nonsense word repetition, or hyperactivity
Cognitive: mental confusion, belief that thoughts aren't one's own, disorientation, belief that an ordinary event has special and personal meaning, false belief of superiority, delusion, amnesia, thought disorder, making things up, memory loss, or slowness in activity and thought
Psychological: persecutory delusion, hallucination, religious delusion, anxiety, fear, mistrust, depression, paranoia, or hearing voices
Mood: excitement, anger, inappropriate emotional response, elevated mood, general discontent, inability to feel pleasure, apathy, or feeling detached from self
Speech: rapid and frenzied speaking, speech impairment, incoherent speech, or circumstantial speech
Also common: lack of emotional response, impaired motor coordination, or fatigue

Marijuana causes temporary symptoms, schizophrenia is a chronic illness. Don't confuse the two.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml

[Androidpk]

Please provide one link where someone cured their cancer with just marijuana. Please note some actual proof would be nice; not some moron claiming to be cancer free after smoking a joint and this person just so happens to be a huge advocate of legalizing marijuana.

I already have in my medicinal marijuana thread.

[Tgo01]

I already have in my medicinal marinuana thread.

Humor me here. Last ahem, "story" I read there that you linked involved a little girl who was receiving chemo, then the mother insisted it wansn't working and started giving her daughter marijuana, then when the tumors started shrinking the mother credited the marijuana while the doctors, you know the experts, credited the chemo treatments.

Oh yeah, and this woman just so happened to be a huge advocate for legalizing marijuana. Gee, it's almost as if I knew the exact stories you were going to provide and shot them down before you provided them.

Try again.

[drauz]

Please provide one link where someone cured their cancer with just marijuana. Please note some actual proof would be nice; not some moron claiming to be cancer free after smoking a joint and this person just so happens to be a huge advocate of legalizing marijuana.

http://norml.org/library/item/gliomascancer

Writing in the September 1998 issue of the journal FEBS Letters, investigators at Madrid's Complutense University, School of Biology, first reported that delta-9-THC induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) in glioma cells in culture.[1] Investigators followed up their initial findings in 2000, reporting that the administration of both THC and the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 "induced a considerable regression of malignant gliomas" in animals.[2] Researchers again confirmed cannabinoids' ability to inhibit tumor growth in animals in 2003.[3]

That same year, Italian investigators at the University of Milan, Department of Pharmacology, Chemotherapy and Toxicology, reported that the non-psychoactive cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), inhibited the growth of various human glioma cell lines in vivo and in vitro in a dose dependent manner. Writing in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Fast Forward, researchers concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD ... produce[s] a significant anti-tumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent."[4]

In 2004, Guzman and colleagues reported that cannabinoids inhibited glioma tumor growth in animals and in human glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumor samples by altering blood vessel morphology (e.g., VEGF pathways). Writing in the August 2004 issue of Cancer Research, investigators concluded, "The present laboratory and clinical findings provide a novel pharmacological target for cannabinoid-based therapies."[5]

Investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced cell death more rapidly than did the administration of WIN 55,212-2. Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative.[6] A separate preclinical trial reported that the combined administration of THC and the pharmaceutical agent temozolomide (TMZ) "enhanced autophagy" (programmed cell death) in brain tumors resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments.[7]

Guzman and colleagues have also reported that THC administration decreases recurrent glioblastoma multiforme tumor growth in patients diagnosed with recurrent GBM. In the first ever pilot clinical trial assessing the use of cannabinoids and GBM, investigators found that the intratumoral administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two of nine subjects. "The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible anti-proliferative action on tumor cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids," investigators concluded.[8] Several additional investigators have also recently called for further exploration of cannabis-based therapies for the treatment of glioma.[9-11] A separate case report, published in 2011 in the journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, also documents the spontaneous regression of residual brain tumors in two children coinciding with the subjects use of cannabis.[12]

[Androidpk]

Humor me here. Last ahem, "story" I read there that you linked involved a little girl who was receiving chemo, then the mother insisted it wansn't working and started giving her daughter marijuana, then when the tumors started shrinking the mother credited the marijuana while the doctors, you know the experts, credited the chemo treatments.

Oh yeah, and this woman just so happened to be a huge advocate for legalizing marijuana. Gee, it's almost as if I knew the exact stories you were going to provide and shot them down before you provided them.

Try again.

Wrong as usual. How many times are you going to be wrong tonight? It's as if you aren't even trying.

[drauz]

Its not curing but it is worth more clinical trials to find out the medicinal properties regarding cancer.

[Tgo01]

http://norml.org/library/item/gliomascancer

Writing in the September 1998 issue of the journal FEBS Letters, investigators at Madrid's Complutense University, School of Biology, first reported that delta-9-THC induced apoptosis (programmed cell death) in glioma cells in culture.[1] Investigators followed up their initial findings in 2000, reporting that the administration of both THC and the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN 55,212-2 "induced a considerable regression of malignant gliomas" in animals.[2] Researchers again confirmed cannabinoids' ability to inhibit tumor growth in animals in 2003.[3]

That same year, Italian investigators at the University of Milan, Department of Pharmacology, Chemotherapy and Toxicology, reported that the non-psychoactive cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD), inhibited the growth of various human glioma cell lines in vivo and in vitro in a dose dependent manner. Writing in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Fast Forward, researchers concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD ... produce[s] a significant anti-tumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent."[4]

In 2004, Guzman and colleagues reported that cannabinoids inhibited glioma tumor growth in animals and in human glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumor samples by altering blood vessel morphology (e.g., VEGF pathways). Writing in the August 2004 issue of Cancer Research, investigators concluded, "The present laboratory and clinical findings provide a novel pharmacological target for cannabinoid-based therapies."[5]

Investigators at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute reported that the administration of THC on human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines decreased the proliferation of malignant cells and induced cell death more rapidly than did the administration of WIN 55,212-2. Researchers also noted that THC selectively targeted malignant cells while ignoring healthy ones in a more profound manner than the synthetic alternative.[6] A separate preclinical trial reported that the combined administration of THC and the pharmaceutical agent temozolomide (TMZ) "enhanced autophagy" (programmed cell death) in brain tumors resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments.[7]

Guzman and colleagues have also reported that THC administration decreases recurrent glioblastoma multiforme tumor growth in patients diagnosed with recurrent GBM. In the first ever pilot clinical trial assessing the use of cannabinoids and GBM, investigators found that the intratumoral administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two of nine subjects. "The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible anti-proliferative action on tumor cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids," investigators concluded.[8] Several additional investigators have also recently called for further exploration of cannabis-based therapies for the treatment of glioma.[9-11] A separate case report, published in 2011 in the journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, also documents the spontaneous regression of residual brain tumors in two children coinciding with the subjects use of cannabis.[12]

I don't see anywhere in there saying that marijuana alone cures cancer.


Wrong as usual. How many times are you going to be wrong tonight? It's as if you aren't even trying.

Except that's exactly what happened in the story I read. I think it's very telling yhat you can't back up your claim at all and instead deflect it with "I already proved my point."

Sad, pk. Sad.

[Tgo01]

Its not curing

Thank you.

Still waiting for that link, pk.

[Androidpk]

Thank you.

Still waiting for that link, pk.

Learn to use search and Google.

[Wesley]

Can any of you say that you've ever changed your mind on a subject after someone in one of these threads said something?

[drauz]

To be fair though. There is no cure for cancer at all. There are only treatments that work sometimes.

Chemo isn't 100%.

[tyrant-201]

Can any of you say that you've ever changed your mind on a subject after someone in one of these threads said something?

We know the answer to this, don't we?

[Fallen]

Can any of you say that you've ever changed your mind on a subject after someone in one of these threads said something?

Yeah, a few times in the politics section i've had loosely held views that I adjusted as people presented their argument.

[Tgo01]

Learn to use search and Google.

I graciously accept your defeat.

[Androidpk]

I graciously accept your defeat.

You're just stuck on stupid today. Too bad cannabis doesn't cure stupidity.

[Tgo01]

You're just stuck on stupid today. Too bad cannabis doesn't cure stupidity.

I say it cures everything and since we don't have to provide proof to back up our claims in this thread that means I'm right :D

[Androidpk]

I say it cures everything and since we don't have to provide proof to back up our claims in this thread that means I'm right :D

Thanks for proving my point.

[Tgo01]

Thanks for proving my point.

Your point was that it's stupid to make up bullshit and expect people to believe said bullshit without providing a single shred of evidence to backup your previous stated bullshit?

Wow, for once we agree.

[Androidpk]

Your point was that it's stupid to make up bullshit and expect people to believe said bullshit without providing a single shred of evidence to backup your previous stated bullshit?

Wow, for once we agree.

No, my point was that you are being stupid and you keep happily confirming it for us all.

[ForWhatItsWorth]

Just caught up on the last 8 pages...


The term alcohol poisoning seems euphemistic. Its an overdose plain and simple.

[Latrinsorm]

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schizophrenia/63148.html It doesn't cause schizophrenia.As I said, Zammit's controls are very important because he specifically controls for family history (among others). Additionally, his sample size was 50,000 while Harvard's sample size was 282. To detect a 50% increase in a 1% baseline at 95% confidence, you need a sample size of at least 1600. This is why the studies appear to disagree with each other to the untrained eye. I can go into confidence intervals to a greater degree if you'd like.
There no way it should still be a schedule 1 drug. Schedule 1 means it has zero medical benefit, but there are many promising studies being done that show it could help people with chronic seizures. It is worse than cocaine and on par with heroin in the governments eyes. It should be made legal with the same restrictions as alcohol. How do you compare a drug that has no physical addiction (marijuana) and a drug that can develop severe physical addiction (alcohol withdrawal can literally kill you)? You say alcohol is worse, what do you base this off of? Marijuana as someone stated doesn't even have a death category associated with it. It is literally the least harmful drug you can use to become intoxicated. You say you've done your research but I don't think you've done much of any.As I said, we do not necessarily consider a drug that poses any risk of death to be more dangerous than a drug that poses any risk of non-lethal harm, we have to look at the specific numbers and the specific non-lethal harm. The risk of schizophrenia posed by marijuana is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of death posed by alcohol, but death is not orders of magnitude worse than schizophrenia. Therefore marijuana is more dangerous.
At the end of the day it just sound like you really want the government to hold your hand and tell you what you can and can't do to yourself.It doesn't trouble you that in literally your first reply you resorted to personal attacks?

[Latrinsorm]

Fun fact, drinking while pregnant isn't illegal. Also, while the subject is still debated, no amount of alcohol is considered safe for pregnant women by many organizations, including the CDC. Alcohol is more dangerous for pregnant women than cannabis. It is also considered dangerous for sexually active women not on birth control to drink as they may become pregnant without knowing it.I'm all for making that illegal too! But as a realist I don't see how we could enforce it without some sort of all-encompassing surveillance program.
I don't think that's a valid comparison at all. You can be perfectly in your legal privilege to be drunk, but you break the law once you operate a car.And you can be perfectly in your legal privilege to operate a car, but you break the law once you are drunk. Both conditions are necessary for the result.
You're kidding right? I would say 999 out of 1000 cases result in schizophrenia....and the 1 is pissed off because everyone is high and he's not. That's pretty much the whole damn point of smoking dope! (Besides the medical benefits)I'm glad you brought this point up because I sometimes forget to clarify it. The schizophrenia is diagnosed while not under the effects of the drug.
LOL at latrin maintaining that schizophrenia is a worse fate than death.This is not an accurate description of my position.
It can kill cancer and research has proven it.This is also true, although considering the other things that kill cancer are radiation and chemotherapy I'm not sure why you would stress it as a selling point for marijuana's safety.
Can any of you say that you've ever changed your mind on a subject after someone in one of these threads said something?In fact, I used to be pro marijuana before a study was brought to my attention in 2007 or 2008 on these very boards.

[Androidpk]

This is not an accurate description of my position.


Yes it is.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm all for making that illegal too! But as a realist I don't see how we could enforce it without some sort of all-encompassing surveillance program.

Heil HYDRA!

[drauz]

As I said, Zammit's controls are very important because he specifically controls for family history (among others). Additionally, his sample size was 50,000 while Harvard's sample size was 282. To detect a 50% increase in a 1% baseline at 95% confidence, you need a sample size of at least 1600. This is why the studies appear to disagree with each other to the untrained eye. I can go into confidence intervals to a greater degree if you'd like.As I said, we do not necessarily consider a drug that poses any risk of death to be more dangerous than a drug that poses any risk of non-lethal harm, we have to look at the specific numbers and the specific non-lethal harm. The risk of schizophrenia posed by marijuana is orders of magnitude higher than the risk of death posed by alcohol, but death is not orders of magnitude worse than schizophrenia. Therefore marijuana is more dangerous.It doesn't trouble you that in literally your first reply you resorted to personal attacks?

Your source itself says that it can't be sure about its results as there are multiple studies that contradict each other. The Zammit study you repeatedly mention is from the 1960s. Less than a 100 years before schizophrenia was even diagnosed as an illness. That is only a few generations of people being diagnosed with the illness. In my mind that makes it almost impossible for them to discount family history of the illness, because the disorder hadn't even been known about. Especially given the history of mental illness and how it was viewed as a negative for a family, so it wasn't reported and tried to keep it hidden. I don't think that your study has taken all these controls into account before giving their assessment. Where studies done in much more recent history have benefited from a marked increase in record keeping procedures. It is troubling that one study that shows it from the 1970s is taken in higher regards than all that came after it. You can say it is the sample size but why hasn't another study been able to confirm this? It sounds like a case similar to the studies done by Dr. Robert G. Heath with monkeys. This study showed that monkeys given 30 joints worth of marijuana a day had significant brain cell loss. This study has since been debunked.

A lot has changed in the field of medicine and clinging to a study from the 60s probably isn't your best case for a correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia.

The War on Drugs has caused gangs like those caused by prohibition but now it is on a international scale. In my opinion this is worse than what prohibition caused. There are so many reasons, other than health, why the War on Drugs is bad for people. We now have for-profit prisons. There is literally a group lobbyists thats sole purpose is to make laws stricter so that they can increase revenues. There is the international aspect where farmers are forced to grow illegal drugs just to survive and then ruined when we fly over with Roundup and destroy their crops. We have been spraying Roundup over areas of the rainforest in South America, which kills all living plants not just marijuana plants. This in turn directly affects the wildlife that lives in those areas. It has been likened to the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

You are looking at one part of the argument and saying the War on Drugs is needed, but seem to be dismissing all the other aspects that it creates. No they are not separate issues. They are directly related and will not change until the War on Drugs has changed.

[drauz]

There are other negative aspects that War on Drugs creates but I have chosen a few examples which I feel are the most important.

[Gelston]

The funniest thing, that caused this thread to be bumped, is that the interview falls outside the requirements for a Pulitzer. Ignorant idiots will be ignorant idiots though. At least we know that, according to Pk, people who have died for their country are lesser men than this pussy.

[tyrant-201]

The funniest thing, that caused this thread to be bumped, is that the interview falls outside the requirements for a Pulitzer. Ignorant idiots will be ignorant idiots though. At least we know that, according to Pk, people who have died for their country are lesser men than this pussy.

Apples and oranges. What Snowden did was pretty important. You can disagree with how he went about it, and that disagreement does have merit, but it's still important.

[Gelston]

Apples and oranges. What Snowden did was pretty important. You can disagree with how he went about it, and that disagreement does have merit, but it's still important.

I would agree with that until he said people who served in Iraq and Afghan were lesser. People who gave their life, people who lost their limbs were lesser. No, I served in both places and those people are fucking heroes. Snowden is a faggots bitch who ran to Russia.

[Tgo01]

I would agree with that until he said people who served in Iraq and Afghan were lesser. People who gave their life, people who lost their limbs were lesser. No, I served in both places and those people are fucking heroes. Snowden is a faggots bitch who ran to Russia.

Hey pk knows more than the American Cancer Society and oncologists on how to treat cancer so you shut the fuck up!

[Gelston]

Hey pk knows more than the American Cancer Society and oncologists on how to treat cancer so you shut the fuck up!

PK is a dumbfuck thief that cares not a goddamn thing about people he hurt. There is a nice place in hell waiting for him. I hope he suffers in it. Yes Pk, you are a fucking douchebag.

[Kerranger]

You should know what everyone else who has posted here for years knows. DO NOT argue with Latrin. The motherfucker is full of shit. Dont post your own statistics. Don't try to prove him wrong. Hes a troll, through and through. No point in arguing with him. Also, he has a vagina. FYI.


***i AM DRUNK AS SHIT. I DID NOT QUOTE ANYTHING. FUCK ALL YALL.

[Gelston]

Mscontrew was my friend. She doesn't post here anymore because of your bitch ass. You are a fucking thief. Fuck you Pk.

[JackWhisper]

Mscontrew was my friend. She doesn't post here anymore because of your bitch ass. You are a fucking thief. Fuck you Pk.

QFT.

[Thondalar]

You should know what everyone else who has posted here for years knows. DO NOT argue with Latrin. The motherfucker is full of shit. Dont post your own statistics. Don't try to prove him wrong. Hes a troll, through and through. No point in arguing with him.

This isn't entirely true. If anyone should have this opinion I think it should be me, and I don't. Trolling is what Wrathbringer does...post inflammatory statements just to get a reaction.

While I'm sure Latrin doesn't need me to defend him, I feel like I should give my opinion on the topic anyway, since he and I seem to "go at it" more often than most.

Personally, I appreciate his view on things. I appreciate the fact that he usually attempts to back up his opinions with information sources, instead of just saying "this is how things are because I say so". While I often can find fault with his sources, I usually do so only to attempt to show him that there are faults in all things, because I genuinely believe he genuinely believes the things he posts.

His view of the world is a bit skewed, but as far as I can tell he sticks to his guns. A troll changes his story as often as he needs to to get the desired result. Latrin's story doesn't change much.

[Tgo01]

This isn't entirely true. If anyone should have this opinion I think it should be me, and I don't. Trolling is what Wrathbringer does...post inflammatory statements just to get a reaction.

While I'm sure Latrin doesn't need me to defend him, I feel like I should give my opinion on the topic anyway, since he and I seem to "go at it" more often than most.

Personally, I appreciate his view on things. I appreciate the fact that he usually attempts to back up his opinions with information sources, instead of just saying "this is how things are because I say so". While I often can find fault with his sources, I usually do so only to attempt to show him that there are faults in all things, because I genuinely believe he genuinely believes the things he posts.

His view of the world is a bit skewed, but as far as I can tell he sticks to his guns. A troll changes his story as often as he needs to to get the desired result. Latrin's story doesn't change much.

I don't think Latrin is a troll as far as his beliefs go; I really think when he posts his opinion on a subject matter he actually holds that belief, he's not just taking that position to troll others.

What makes him trollish is the way he manipulates the conversation ever so subtly to make a slight distinction in his argument then when the person calls him out on his argument he'll point to that slight distinction and say "I never said that, I said this."

Here's a perfect example of what I mean from the "US declassifies documents blah blah blah" thread. I was making the argument that Obama was snubbing the PM of Israel on several occasions after he announced he was going to make his speech before the US Congress and Latrin replied with:


I don't remember any criticism from the President levied towards the Prime Minister.

And I replied with some examples of:


Like Obama didn't say before the speech that he refused to meet with Netanyahu when he was in town, or that Obama didn't purposefully send the lowest ranking official to that one Israeli-US meeting in the history of the meeting, or Obama didn't assure that Biden would be "busy" the day of the speech and wouldn't be able to attend.

To which he replied with:


In what way are any of those criticisms?

See? He was so fucking subtle about it I almost fell for it, I was like "Well...I guess technically those aren't criticisms...hey wait a minute! I never said he criticized the PM! I just said he was snubbing him!"

But Latrin kept on with his bullshit "Those aren't criticisms of the PM. I win" bullshit. He's a sneaky little ass like that. Be careful! Don't fall for his traps! Don't let Latrin control the conversation, that's how he gets ya!

[Tgo01]

Just look at the marijuana debate; sure, you can name alcohol being more dangerous or that even aspirin can kill you if you take "safe" doses of it but then his argument changes to "Well marijuana causes psychosis in 5 in 1000 cases therefore any number you provide for anything less than that doesn't count. Doesn't matter if it's 4 deaths in 1000, 5 > 4."

[Kerranger]

This isn't entirely true. If anyone should have this opinion I think it should be me, and I don't. Trolling is what Wrathbringer does...post inflammatory statements just to get a reaction.

While I'm sure Latrin doesn't need me to defend him, I feel like I should give my opinion on the topic anyway, since he and I seem to "go at it" more often than most.

Personally, I appreciate his view on things. I appreciate the fact that he usually attempts to back up his opinions with information sources, instead of just saying "this is how things are because I say so". While I often can find fault with his sources, I usually do so only to attempt to show him that there are faults in all things, because I genuinely believe he genuinely believes the things he posts.

His view of the world is a bit skewed, but as far as I can tell he sticks to his guns. A troll changes his story as often as he needs to to get the desired result. Latrin's story doesn't change much.

But really, he does have a vagina.

[Androidpk]

PK is a dumbfuck thief that cares not a goddamn thing about people he hurt. There is a nice place in hell waiting for him. I hope he suffers in it. Yes Pk, you are a fucking douchebag.

Awww, someone is a sensitive flower.

[Androidpk]

This isn't entirely true. If anyone should have this opinion I think it should be me, and I don't. Trolling is what Wrathbringer does...post inflammatory statements just to get a reaction.

While I'm sure Latrin doesn't need me to defend him, I feel like I should give my opinion on the topic anyway, since he and I seem to "go at it" more often than most.

Personally, I appreciate his view on things. I appreciate the fact that he usually attempts to back up his opinions with information sources, instead of just saying "this is how things are because I say so". While I often can find fault with his sources, I usually do so only to attempt to show him that there are faults in all things, because I genuinely believe he genuinely believes the things he posts.

His view of the world is a bit skewed, but as far as I can tell he sticks to his guns. A troll changes his story as often as he needs to to get the desired result. Latrin's story doesn't change much.

A bit skewed? He is bat shit crazy.

[Wrathbringer]

I would agree with that until he said people who served in Iraq and Afghan were lesser. People who gave their life, people who lost their limbs were lesser. No, I served in both places and those people are fucking heroes. Snowden is a faggots bitch who ran to Russia.

Not heroes. Tragically misguided zeros. Apparently our brainwashing techniques have improved, as you've been out awhile but still have yet to think for yourself. The sooner you stop drinking and associating with other zombies, the better, in this regard. I'll also recommend a job and some physical activity.

[Wrathbringer]

PK is a dumbfuck thief that cares not a goddamn thing about people he hurt. There is a nice place in hell waiting for him. I hope he suffers in it. Yes Pk, you are a fucking douchebag.

Spoken like a true catholic. Wonder what accommodations they have for profane murdering alcoholics?

[Latrinsorm]

Your source itself says that it can't be sure about its results as there are multiple studies that contradict each other.Here is what my source has to say in the Conclusions section. I really don't think it can get any more cut and dry than this:

"The epidemiological literature in the past 20 years shows that there are consistent associations between regular cannabis use and poor psychosocial outcomes and mental health in adulthood."
The Zammit study you repeatedly mention is from the 1960s.Zammit published in 2002. The flawed study he fixed was Andréasson in the 80s.
You can say it is the sample size but why hasn't another study been able to confirm this?They have, repeatedly. Quoting again from my source:

"The Swedish cohort findings have been supported by the results of smaller longitudinal studies in the Netherlands [93], Germany [94] and New Zealand [95, 96]. All these studies have found a relationship between cannabis use and psychotic disorders or psychotic symptoms, and these relationships persisted after adjustment for confounders. ... Confidence in the results of the New Zealand studies has been increased by the replication of their results in cohort studies in Australia (e.g. [164]), Germany [165] and the Netherlands [93]."

Here is the list given in Hall, hyperlinked for your viewing pleasure, and again please let me know if any of these have snuck behind a paywall:

50,087 - Zammit (http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/325/7374/1199.full.pdf) (2002 BMJ)
4,104 - van Os (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/156/4/319.full) (2002 AJE)
2,437 - Henquet (http://www.bmj.com/content/early/2003/12/31/bmj.38267.664086.63) (2004 BMJ)
1,037 - Arsenault (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC135493/)(2002 BMJ)
1,037 - Meier (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22927402) (2012 NASUSA) (same data as Arsenault)
1,265 - Fergusson (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12199828)(2002 Addiction)
1,601 - Patton (http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1195.1) (2002 BMJ)
1,943 - Swift (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18855826)(2008 Addiction)
1,395 - Wittchen (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17257779) (2007 DAD)

Every one of them came to the conclusion that there is evidence to support the link between marijuana and schizophrenia. There are two studies I am aware of that did not find evidence: the one you cited and another one with a sample size around 900. It's not a coincidence that the ones that didn't find evidence had the smallest sample sizes. You may be familiar with the saying that one can't prove a negative? This is the context where it is actually relevant. An empirical study never proves a negative. It says only that it found evidence or it did not find evidence. Suppose someone asks you to grab their keys from the kitchen. You glance around the kitchen and don't find them. The someone comes in, opens a few drawers, roots around for awhile, and finds their keys. Neither of you were lying or biased, you just didn't look long enough. That's all there is to it.
The War on Drugs has caused gangs like those caused by prohibition but now it is on a international scale. In my opinion this is worse than what prohibition caused. There are so many reasons, other than health, why the War on Drugs is bad for people. We now have for-profit prisons. There is literally a group lobbyists thats sole purpose is to make laws stricter so that they can increase revenues. There is the international aspect where farmers are forced to grow illegal drugs just to survive and then ruined when we fly over with Roundup and destroy their crops. We have been spraying Roundup over areas of the rainforest in South America, which kills all living plants not just marijuana plants. This in turn directly affects the wildlife that lives in those areas. It has been likened to the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. You are looking at one part of the argument and saying the War on Drugs is needed, but seem to be dismissing all the other aspects that it creates. No they are not separate issues. They are directly related and will not change until the War on Drugs has changed.I didn't say they were separate. What I said was that prisons will exist with or without the War on Drugs, that international poverty will exist with or without it, and that those issues need to be addressed with or without the War on Drugs. What makes you think the organized crime element will politely stop doing all the horrible things they do just because we get rid of one or two laws? It's been 80 years since Prohibition and the Mafia is still the most dangerous organized crime organization in our country. Legalization is not a magic wand - there are no magic wands.

[Latrinsorm]

This isn't entirely true. If anyone should have this opinion I think it should be me, and I don't. Trolling is what Wrathbringer does...post inflammatory statements just to get a reaction. While I'm sure Latrin doesn't need me to defend him, I feel like I should give my opinion on the topic anyway, since he and I seem to "go at it" more often than most. Personally, I appreciate his view on things. I appreciate the fact that he usually attempts to back up his opinions with information sources, instead of just saying "this is how things are because I say so". While I often can find fault with his sources, I usually do so only to attempt to show him that there are faults in all things, because I genuinely believe he genuinely believes the things he posts. His view of the world is a bit skewed, but as far as I can tell he sticks to his guns. A troll changes his story as often as he needs to to get the desired result. Latrin's story doesn't change much.Cheers :D
Just look at the marijuana debate; sure, you can name alcohol being more dangerous or that even aspirin can kill you if you take "safe" doses of it but then his argument changes to "Well marijuana causes psychosis in 5 in 1000 cases therefore any number you provide for anything less than that doesn't count. Doesn't matter if it's 4 deaths in 1000, 5 > 4."For the record, my argument was that 5 is greater than numbers less than 5 before we looked at your aspirin numbers, and remained that way when aspirin in fact produced a number less than 5.

[Warriorbird]

What I said was that prisons will exist with or without the War on Drugs, that international poverty will exist with or without it, and that those issues need to be addressed with or without the War on Drugs. What makes you think the organized crime element will politely stop doing all the horrible things they do just because we get rid of one or two laws? It's been 80 years since Prohibition and the Mafia is still the most dangerous organized crime organization in our country. Legalization is not a magic wand - there are no magic wands.

Merely because those notions will still exist without the "War on Drugs" does not justify the billions of dollars and thousands of lives destroyed by it.

I'd love to see your actual empirical evidence supporting that the Mafia is "the most dangerous organized crime organization in our country." Far easier to claim our police forces are.

[Tgo01]

For the record, my argument was that 5 is greater than numbers less than 5 before we looked at your aspirin numbers, and remained that way when aspirin in fact produced a number less than 5.

See? He's now controlling this conversation by forcing people to look for figures greater than 5. Anything less than 5 and he'll just say "Those numbers are not greater than 5."

Latrin has already won this argument in his mind until someone can provide figures for something with a number large than 5 in them. I doubt he would even accept a figure equal to 5. Even if you could provide a source for a legal drug with a number greater than 5 he'll change the argument again; well now you have to prove that the side effect is worse than psychosis. You have to provide a study that had at least X number of participants. You have to stand on your head while juggling 3 flaming chainsaws.

[Latrinsorm]

Merely because those notions will still exist without the "War on Drugs" does not justify the billions of dollars and thousands of lives destroyed by it. I'd love to see your actual empirical evidence supporting that the Mafia is "the most dangerous organized crime organization in our country." Far easier to claim our police forces are.La Cosa Nostra is the foremost organized criminal threat to American society. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/italian_mafia) While the justice system overhaul I mentioned includes an overhaul of our police system, I think it's a bit facetious to refer to it as organized crime.
See? He's now controlling this conversation by forcing people to look for figures greater than 5. Anything less than 5 and he'll just say "Those numbers are not greater than 5." Latrin has already won this argument in his mind until someone can provide figures for something with a number large than 5 in them. I doubt he would even accept a figure equal to 5. Even if you could provide a source for a legal drug with a number greater than 5 he'll change the argument again; well now you have to prove that the side effect is worse than psychosis. You have to provide a study that had at least X number of participants. You have to stand on your head while juggling 3 flaming chainsaws.That would entertain me, but no. Obviously when comparing two different side effects there is some subjectivity involved. I think reasonable people can agree that death isn't 500 or even 50 times worse than schizophrenia. I think reasonable people can agree that nausea isn't exactly as bad as schizophrenia. I've yet to see any deleterious effect listed that doesn't meet these requirements.

As for the number of participants, the point there is about you misunderstanding what a study does, which goes back to the proving a negative business. If you would like me to go into much greater detail on that, I can. :D

[Tgo01]

If you would like me to go into much greater detail on that, I can. :D

Yes please.

[elcidcannon]

Yes please.

Ditto.

[waywardgs]

I think reasonable people can agree that death isn't 500 or even 50 times worse than schizophrenia. I think reasonable people can agree that nausea isn't exactly as bad as schizophrenia. I've yet to see any deleterious effect listed that doesn't meet these requirements.


So how much worse than schizophrenia is death, exactly? Care to try and put a number on it? Can you quantify this?

[Tgo01]

So how much worse than schizophrenia is death, exactly? Care to try and put a number on it? Can you quantify this?

That would make it easier for us to find a number greater than 5 so I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

[waywardgs]

That would make it easier for us to find a number greater than 5 so I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you.

Is holding my breath worse than 5 or better? I demand answers!

[Androidpk]

La Cosa Nostra is the foremost organized criminal threat to American society. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/italian_mafia) While the justice system overhaul I mentioned includes an overhaul of our police system, I think it's a bit facetious to refer to it as organized crime.That would entertain me, but no. Obviously when comparing two different side effects there is some subjectivity involved. I think reasonable people can agree that death isn't 500 or even 50 times worse than schizophrenia. I think reasonable people can agree that nausea isn't exactly as bad as schizophrenia. I've yet to see any deleterious effect listed that doesn't meet these requirements.

As for the number of participants, the point there is about you misunderstanding what a study does, which goes back to the proving a negative business. If you would like me to go into much greater detail on that, I can. :D

People can lead happy and successful lives with schizophrenia but when you are dead you are fucking dead. Yes, death is far worse than schizophrenia.

[waywardgs]

People can lead happy and successful lives with schizophrenia but when you are dead you are fucking dead. Yes, death is far worse than schizophrenia.

But how much worse? I need an exact number. Is it 3? 87? Is it eleven worse?

[Thondalar]

La Cosa Nostra is the foremost organized criminal threat to American society. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/italian_mafia) While the justice system overhaul I mentioned includes an overhaul of our police system, I think it's a bit facetious to refer to it as organized crime.

This link doesn't provide any data. You're just repeating something you read somewhere.

[Thondalar]

But how much worse? I need an exact number. Is it 3? 87? Is it eleven worse?

I would say it is infinitely worse.

[waywardgs]

I would say it is infinitely worse.

But Latrin has already said that death is not infinitely severe. (insert random argument about suffering)

I hypothesize that death is exactly eleven worse than schizophrenia. Let me put together a study.

[Tgo01]

Well if we use a scale based on debilitation I would put death at 100% debilitating with a coma at a very close 99% debilitating.

Not sure where psychosis falls in the debilitation scale but I would venture a guess that it's less than 100%.

[Androidpk]

But Latrin has already said that death is not infinitely severe. (insert random argument about suffering)

I hypothesize that death is exactly eleven worse than schizophrenia. Let me put together a study.

Are deaths all equal though? Is it worse to be eaten by a grue than to simply pass away in your sleep?

[waywardgs]

Well if we use a scale based on debilitation I would put death at 100% debilitating with a coma at a very close 99% debilitating.

Not sure where psychosis falls in the debilitation scale but I would venture a guess that it's less than 100%.

So you're arguing that death is 1 worse than a coma? I have a hangnail. What is that, like a 2?

Hm. New data. Back to the drawing board.

[waywardgs]

Are deaths all equal though? Is it worse to be eaten by a grue than to simply pass away in your sleep?

The manner of death may not be equal. Death, however, is the great equalizer. There is dead, and not dead.

That said, the point is that it's completely absurd to quantify these things in a numerical fashion. Latrin can't do it, science can't do it, it's fluid and subjective and science hates that sort of thing.

[Tgo01]

So you're arguing that death is 1 worse than a coma?

1%. 1%! I guess it depends on the coma. If we're talking about "no chance in hell of ever waking up, we are keeping you alive with machines" then yes, 99%.

If doctors think it's not a serious type of coma then...well...I dunno, 95%? But that would of course be a temporary figure, until you wake up.


I have a hangnail. What is that, like a 2?

Hangnails are actually a bitch, I'd rate it 5%. Paper cuts hurt like a mother and when I have one I can't concentrate on anything for a while so let's say 15%.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes please.Every measurement comes with error bars. This is not because we half-@$$ it when we do measurements or because we're biased, it is because there is an irreducible error in everything we do. Luckily this error is truly random, so the more measurements we do the smaller the relative error is. You can prove this to yourself with the drunkard's walk. Take an Excel sheet and put the following formulas in:

a1 == 0
a2:a500 == if(rand()>.5,a1+1,a1-1)
b1:b500 == a1/count(a$1:a1)

Your A column simulates the drunkard who takes a step in either direction at random, your B column measures the distance from the starting point divided by the number of steps. If you then graph your B column, you will see wild initial variations followed by convergence near the mean as measurements increase.

.

Also luckily, this error obeys pretty basic arithmetic properties; specifically, when performing N measurements of an event with rate of occurrence R the variance V is defined as...

V = R * (1 - R) * N

Standard deviation, in turn, is defined as sqrt(V), and for arbitrary reasons error bars are usually reported as plus or minus twice the standard deviation, an interval which will cover 95% of the values produced by random noise:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/400px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png

It doesn't really matter which confidence interval is reported, just that one is reported and properly identified.

.

For our purposes, it's very useful to compare a 1% rate of incidence with 1.5%. These are the rate of schizophrenia in the general population and the claimed rate of schizophrenia in the marijuana using population. The general population is so big we can just say it's 1% ± 0%. The rate we're testing is the marijuana using population's, and what we need is for the 1.5% ± X% to be clear of 1%, so the X has to be smaller than 0.5%, otherwise the difference isn't statistically significant. Go back to our Excel sheet...

d1:d282 == if(rand()>.985,1,0)
e1 == sum(d:d)/count(d:d)
f1 == e1 - 2*sqrt(e1*(1-e1)*count(d:d))/count(d:d)

Then go into g1 and hit space and enter over and over to recalculate the rands. No matter how many times you refresh, you'll never see .01 or higher in f1... and we defined the incidence rate as 1.5%! Now take d282 and copy it down to d2000. You'll get f1 > .01 sometimes. Not even all the time! But sometimes. Now take d2000 and copy it down to d10000. You'll get f1 > .01 all the time. Now remember that Zammit's sample size was actually 50000, and wonder how anyone ever thought to compare it to a study with sample size of 282.

.

This is why people say you can't prove a negative. We know those 282 sample size studies we ran in Excel were measuring people who had a 1.5% incidence, but we never found statistically significant evidence that they differed from the 1% general population. Thus, we don't say that those studies found evidence the incidence didn't increase. We say those studies didn't find evidence the incidence increased. This seems like a pedantic distinction until you actually do the calculations yourself and realize how catastrophically flawed the first assertion is.

[Latrinsorm]

So how much worse than schizophrenia is death, exactly? Care to try and put a number on it? Can you quantify this?Obviously when comparing two different side effects there is some subjectivity involved. I think reasonable people can agree that death isn't 500 or even 50 times worse than schizophrenia.
People can lead happy and successful lives with schizophrenia but when you are dead you are fucking dead. Yes, death is far worse than schizophrenia.This does not conflict with what I said.
This link doesn't provide any data. You're just repeating something you read somewhere.This is an odd thing to say. Almost everything I say repeats what someone else said. If I were to do my own personal research, surely you would suspect that as biased towards the conclusions I have already stated, no? And rightly so! Appealing to a third party seems like the best way to resolve factual disputes.
I would say it is infinitely worse.Do we sentence everyone who ends another's life to infinite years in prison, or fine them infinite (that is to say all) their money? Do you want us to? Wouldn't that conflict with your belief that the War on Iraq was a good thing?

[Androidpk]

One person thinks Latrine is right (Latrine.) Everyone else thinks he is wrong.

Everyone else > Latrine.

/science

[Latrinsorm]

Do you put more stock in what fifty doctors think about your carburetor or what one mechanic thinks?

[Tgo01]

Do you put more stock in what fifty doctors think about your carburetor or what one mechanic thinks?

Depends on the doctors' specialities.

[elcidcannon]

Every measurement comes with error bars. This is not because we half-@$$ it when we do measurements or because we're biased, it is because there is an irreducible error in everything we do. Luckily this error is truly random, so the more measurements we do the smaller the relative error is. You can prove this to yourself with the drunkard's walk. Take an Excel sheet and put the following formulas in:

a1 == 0
a2:a500 == if(rand()>.5,a1+1,a1-1)
b1:b500 == a1/count(a$1:a1)

Your A column simulates the drunkard who takes a step in either direction at random, your B column measures the distance from the starting point divided by the number of steps. If you then graph your B column, you will see wild initial variations followed by convergence near the mean as measurements increase.

.

Also luckily, this error obeys pretty basic arithmetic properties; specifically, when performing N measurements of an event with rate of occurrence R the variance V is defined as...

V = R * (1 - R) * N

Standard deviation, in turn, is defined as sqrt(V), and for arbitrary reasons error bars are usually reported as plus or minus twice the standard deviation, an interval which will cover 95% of the values produced by random noise:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/400px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png

It doesn't really matter which confidence interval is reported, just that one is reported and properly identified.

.

For our purposes, it's very useful to compare a 1% rate of incidence with 1.5%. These are the rate of schizophrenia in the general population and the claimed rate of schizophrenia in the marijuana using population. The general population is so big we can just say it's 1% ± 0%. The rate we're testing is the marijuana using population's, and what we need is for the 1.5% ± X% to be clear of 1%, so the X has to be smaller than 0.5%, otherwise the difference isn't statistically significant. Go back to our Excel sheet...

d1:d282 == if(rand()>.985,1,0)
e1 == sum(d:d)/count(d:d)
f1 == e1 - 2*sqrt(e1*(1-e1)*count(d:d))/count(d:d)

Then go into g1 and hit space and enter over and over to recalculate the rands. No matter how many times you refresh, you'll never see .01 or higher in f1... and we defined the incidence rate as 1.5%! Now take d282 and copy it down to d2000. You'll get f1 > .01 sometimes. Not even all the time! But sometimes. Now take d2000 and copy it down to d10000. You'll get f1 > .01 all the time. Now remember that Zammit's sample size was actually 50000, and wonder how anyone ever thought to compare it to a study with sample size of 282.

.

This is why people say you can't prove a negative. We know those 282 sample size studies we ran in Excel were measuring people who had a 1.5% incidence, but we never found statistically significant evidence that they differed from the 1% general population. Thus, we don't say that those studies found evidence the incidence didn't increase. We say those studies didn't find evidence the incidence increased. This seems like a pedantic distinction until you actually do the calculations yourself and realize how catastrophically flawed the first assertion is.

You lost me at measurement.

[Latrinsorm]

They're dolphins. Dolphins who are doctors. Do-ctors for short.

How did you like the Excel portion of the symposium, Terrence???

[Androidpk]

Do you put more stock in what fifty doctors think about your carburetor or what one mechanic thinks?

The former because 50 is greater than 1.

[elcidcannon]

Every measurement comes with error bars. This is not because we half-@$$ it when we do measurements or because we're biased, it is because there is an irreducible error in everything we do. Luckily this error is truly random, so the more measurements we do the smaller the relative error is. You can prove this to yourself with the drunkard's walk. Take an Excel sheet and put the following formulas in:

a1 == 0
a2:a500 == if(rand()>.5,a1+1,a1-1)
b1:b500 == a1/count(a$1:a1)

Your A column simulates the drunkard who takes a step in either direction at random, your B column measures the distance from the starting point divided by the number of steps. If you then graph your B column, you will see wild initial variations followed by convergence near the mean as measurements increase.

.

Also luckily, this error obeys pretty basic arithmetic properties; specifically, when performing N measurements of an event with rate of occurrence R the variance V is defined as...

V = R * (1 - R) * N

Standard deviation, in turn, is defined as sqrt(V), and for arbitrary reasons error bars are usually reported as plus or minus twice the standard deviation, an interval which will cover 95% of the values produced by random noise:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/400px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png

It doesn't really matter which confidence interval is reported, just that one is reported and properly identified.

.

For our purposes, it's very useful to compare a 1% rate of incidence with 1.5%. These are the rate of schizophrenia in the general population and the claimed rate of schizophrenia in the marijuana using population. The general population is so big we can just say it's 1% ± 0%. The rate we're testing is the marijuana using population's, and what we need is for the 1.5% ± X% to be clear of 1%, so the X has to be smaller than 0.5%, otherwise the difference isn't statistically significant. Go back to our Excel sheet...

d1:d282 == if(rand()>.985,1,0)
e1 == sum(d:d)/count(d:d)
f1 == e1 - 2*sqrt(e1*(1-e1)*count(d:d))/count(d:d)

Then go into g1 and hit space and enter over and over to recalculate the rands. No matter how many times you refresh, you'll never see .01 or higher in f1... and we defined the incidence rate as 1.5%! Now take d282 and copy it down to d2000. You'll get f1 > .01 sometimes. Not even all the time! But sometimes. Now take d2000 and copy it down to d10000. You'll get f1 > .01 all the time. Now remember that Zammit's sample size was actually 50000, and wonder how anyone ever thought to compare it to a study with sample size of 282.

.

This is why people say you can't prove a negative. We know those 282 sample size studies we ran in Excel were measuring people who had a 1.5% incidence, but we never found statistically significant evidence that they differed from the 1% general population. Thus, we don't say that those studies found evidence the incidence didn't increase. We say those studies didn't find evidence the incidence increased. This seems like a pedantic distinction until you actually do the calculations yourself and realize how catastrophically flawed the first assertion is.

You lost me at measurement.

[Latrinsorm]

You lost me at measurement.Measurement ± what??? Have you learned nothing???

[drauz]

What I said was that prisons will exist with or without the War on Drugs, that international poverty will exist with or without it, and that those issues need to be addressed with or without the War on Drugs. What makes you think the organized crime element will politely stop doing all the horrible things they do just because we get rid of one or two laws? It's been 80 years since Prohibition and the Mafia is still the most dangerous organized crime organization in our country. Legalization is not a magic wand - there are no magic wands.

Take a look at some of my points all neatly bundled on one website

http://www.businessinsider.com/32-reasons-why-we-need-to-end-the-war-on-drugs-2012-7?op=1

[waywardgs]

Take a look at some of my points all neatly bundled on one website

http://www.businessinsider.com/32-reasons-why-we-need-to-end-the-war-on-drugs-2012-7?op=1

None of that matters. The only thing that matters is if some random guy mistakenly thinks he's being followed by George Bush.

[Latrinsorm]

Take a look at some of my points all neatly bundled on one website http://www.businessinsider.com/32-reasons-why-we-need-to-end-the-war-on-drugs-2012-7?op=1I 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.

[Latrinsorm]

And a tl;dr: version...

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% 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.

This point applies to really every domestic issue. You list all the harm done by the war on drugs but none done by the drugs themselves. That's the point where you really disagree, everything else is a red herring. You don't believe marijuana causes harm, so you don't believe it should be illegal.

[Androidpk]

TLDR - latrinsorm is a fucking moron.

[Tgo01]

Latrin is actually making sense for once and he's arguing the exact thing I was talking about earlier: people thinking marijuana causes no harm and legalizing it is going to solve all of our problems. It's just like the people who say legalizing marijuana is gonna solve our debt crises, if marijuana were that profitable then that means the Mexican drug cartels have literally trillions of dollars laying around and they could afford to buy their own country.

Then you have pk coming along, sticking his fingers in his ears and saying, "Nuh uh! Legalizing marijuana is gonna cure cancer, cut our prison population in half, and our federal and state governments are gonna have so much money that they'll be forced to give everyone 10,000 dollars a year in tax returns! If you don't agree with me then you're a fucking moron!"

[Androidpk]

Here comes captain hyperbole, right on time!

[Tgo01]

Here comes captain hyperbole, right on time!

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.

[elcidcannon]

Compare that to the 400,000 schizophrenics caused by marijuana, and you tell me which side sacrifices more economic productivity.

Where does that stat come from?